I am very keen for the day to get ahead. If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised.
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill comes at a time of crisis—a time where weapons manufacturers pocket billions as tens of thousands are slaughtered in Israel's genocide in Gaza, a time where climate-driven disasters continue to escalate while fossil fuel companies record mammoth profits, a time where gambling corporations prey upon the vulnerable to maximise profit, a time where our higher education institutions serve corporations rather than their staff and students.
This bill alone will not end the climate crisis. It will not end the genocide in Gaza or in Sudan. It will not free us from the scourge of gambling.
But it will dent the armour of companies who profit off the misery of humanity, by denying these dirty industries access to the research prowess and funds of our public universities.
And it will ensure that the 'corporate uni' is forced to become more ethical.
This bill prohibits monetary partnerships and investments between public universities and dirty industries like fossil fuels, weapons, gambling and tobacco.
It also requires universities to divest from current partnerships and prohibits universities from appointing individuals involved in these industries to their governing bodies.
Such partnerships fly in the face of the core purpose of universities. Universities advance the public good. They are there to create knowledge and research to progress humanity for the collective good of society. Partnerships with industries that inflict harm on people and the planet shatter this core purpose.
The bill requires all higher education providers who receive Commonwealth funding to disclose any existing partnerships with, or investments in, prohibited industries. It identifies the weapons industry, the gambling industry, the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry as prohibited industries that have no place in our universities.
Additionally, the bill requires higher education providers to divest from any existing prohibited partnerships within six months of this bill becoming law.
It prohibits higher education providers from appointing to their governing bodies any individual that has investments in a prohibited industry or sits on the board of a prohibited entity.
Crucially, as universities end these dirty partnerships, the government must commit to making up the funding shortfall. The bill acknowledges this by noting that, where compliance with these obligations result in a quantifiable loss for a higher education provider, the Commonwealth may provide reasonable compensation.
Beyond this, however, our public universities are in desperate need of increased and sustained public investment. If our universities are to be places of public good, they must be adequately and publicly funded.
For decades, successive Labor and Liberal governments have chipped away at public funding for universities, forcing universities to turn to other funding, and rely on industries that are harmful to our environment, our health, our communities and our planet.
Weapons
For two years now, the world has witnessed Israel's genocide in Gaza as affirmed by a UN special committee, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The genocide has seen thousands upon thousands of Palestinians murdered and starved. The largest age demographic killed by Israeli forces in Gaza are children aged five to nine.
The scale of devastation is such that, according to the UN, it would take 350 years to rebuild Gaza to pre-genocide levels.
Additionally, Israel's invasion of Lebanon on 1 October 2024 killed more than 4,000 Lebanese people.
This genocide has been inflicted with modern weaponry built through an extensive global supply chain. That includes the F-35 fighter jet, parts of which are manufactured in right here in this country.
Companies involved in the production of F-35s, such as Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, enjoy partnerships with public universities in Australia.
Documents obtained under freedom of information laws revealed that, as of March 2024, the Australian National University held 8,517 shares in BAE Systems, worth over $200,000. Even worse, these documents also show that ANU's shares in BAE jumped from 6,758 in September 2023 to 8,517 in November 2023, the period after the bombing of Gaza had commenced.
This is no surprise, as the value of BAE shares have only grown over the past year and a half as their death machines have played a starring role in Israel's genocide.
BAE Systems's list of products includes white phosphorous bombs, the use of which potentially amounts to a war crime, and missile-launching kits used in many Israeli fighter jets.
The Hermes series of drones, manufactured by Elbit Systems, have also been crucial to Israel's ability to kill civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. It was this series of drones that was used in the Israeli strike on April 1 2024 that killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom
In February 2024, Elbit Systems was awarded a contract worth more than $900 million by the Albanese government.
When asked by the Greens in parliament in June 2024 about the contract, the defence industry minister Pat Conroy emphasised that the contract was ostensibly awarded 'to Hanwha Defence Australia to build infantry fighting vehicles in Australia' and it was Hanwha Defence Australia that had contracted Elbit 'to build the turrets of those vehicles in Australia'.
Well, Hanwha Defence Australia benefits from the research and development performed by Australian universities in order to produce the very weapons inflicting mass harm on civilians, having signed as recently as September 2024 a memorandum of understanding with Deakin University.
In October this year, Western Sydney University announced it 'has joined forces' with Lockheed Martin under a three-year memorandum of understanding aimed at building defence and aerospace capabilities, creating career paths, and driving innovation through research and development. The world's largest weapons manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, supplies Israel F-35 fighter jets, amongst many other weapons used to bomb Gaza.
Just yesterday, it was reported that ANU invested in Elbit Systems—a weapons manufacturer whose profits are steeped in the blood of Palestinians. The investment was as recently as March this year.
These are examples of just some of the relationships existing between Australia's higher education institutions and weapons manufacturers whose weapons are causing such catastrophic levels of death, destruction and suffering.
University management is beginning to be held to account by the tireless activism of staff and students who are demanding disclosure and divestment.
In August, more than 5,000 students across the country came together to condemn the Australian government's complicity in the ongoing genocide in Gaza and to call on universities to end their ties with Israel.
The national council of the National Tertiary Education Union this year supported a motion that states the NTEU will "demand university management cut ties with the weapons industry and militaries in general and commit to a long-term strategy of demilitarisation of the higher education sector".
Despite mounting calls for divestment, university boards have largely dismissed these demands or made surface level changes to investment policies that require no genuine action—so they do have to be dragged to make this change.
Fossil Fuels
For too many years university students have been campaigning and pushing for their university to divest from fossil fuels to become fossil free because they know coal and gas are driving the climate crisis. They are killing the planet.
Once emissions from fossil fuel exports are included, Australia is the world's second largest climate polluter. For years, Australian governments have disrupted progress in international climate negotiations. The fossil fuel industry's stranglehold on the Labor and coalition parties shows no sign of abating. In the last parliamentary term, the Albanese Labor government approved over thirty coal and gas mine projects and expansions. Now they want to fast track coal and gas under the guise of environmental reform.
A study released in September 2024, led by Sofia Hiltner from the University of Michigan, considered Australia, along with the US, UK and Canada, the "four countries [that] lead the world in fossil fuel production and per capita carbon dioxide emissions". The study pointed to "fossil fuel involvement in higher education" within each of these four countries.
Despite some universities making announcements of significant divestment from fossil fuel companies, an August 2025 report by the Australia Institute found that, of Australia's 37 public universities, 26 take money from fossil fuel companies. Scholarships funded by fossil fuel companies total at least $423,000 per year.
Tens of millions in grant funding is provided via Australian Research Council Linkage grants and industry organisations like the Australian Coal Association Research Program.
Universities should not be in relationships with an industry that is directly responsible for wrecking the climate and the devastating consequences already being felt across the world, including in this country.
Gambling
Gambling is also identified as a prohibited industry under the bill.
Each year, people living here lose billions of dollars to gambling, with significant harm inflicted on individuals and families.
In 2022-23, the total gambling expenditure in Australia was $31.5 billion, the highest it has been in the last two decades.
The harms caused by gambling are well documented. A 2022 federal parliamentary inquiry found that four out of five gamblers were at risk of harm, and heard stories of deep suffering including financial ruin, substance abuse, homelessness, domestic violence, and mental illness.
Animal cruelty is baked into their business model of the gambling fuelled greyhound and horse racing industries, with hundreds of animals killed each year and many more harmed, injured and drugged.
Public scrutiny of the gambling industry has intensified in recent years, prompting a response from the industry to protect its interests. One such avenue the industry has pursued is in higher education.
In August 2023, the University of Sydney launched the Centre of Excellence in Gambling Research, which included a $600,000 funding commitment from the gambling industry.
The university was roundly criticised for accepting the funding, with one criticism accusing the university of "turning a blind eye to funding from the gaming industry, using its institutional credibility to legitimise compromised research".
It is a particularly egregious breach of public trust for universities to be receiving funds from and conducting research on behalf of a sector that is responsible for so much harm impacting so many communities across the nation.
Conclusion
Universities should be places that advance the public good, not help these dirty industries profit from human misery. Having these links to dirty industries betrays this core purpose and the mission of academia, and it greenwashes the devastation and the destruction that these industries cause across societies across the globe.
There is no place for weapons manufacturers, fossil fuel, gambling or tobacco industries in our universities.
I say that again: there is no place for dirty industries in our universities and campuses.
Universities must rediscover and redeliver on their core purpose—to truly act as the essential hubs in society that advance only public good, not contribute to these corporate industries that kill people.
This bill will ensure that they do that. I commend this bill to the Senate.
This isn't really a serious bill, and it's a bit disappointing that we're spending our time on it this morning. It's more of an exercise in virtue signalling divorced from reality and, perhaps, an opportunity for some media reels for the Greens. What does the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025 do? Essentially, it says that, if you are a university that receives funding under part 2-2 of the Higher Education Support Act, you need to disclose and divest if you operate in the industries that the Greens don't like. They term them under the bill as 'industries that are harmful or considered detrimental to the public good'. But I'm assuming that the Greens make a determination about what those actual industries are.
It is a bill that's actually designed to remove money from research, prevent innovation and give Australian universities a competitive disadvantage—not a competitive advantage, but a competitive disadvantage—when it comes to capitalising on the talents, skills and ideas, the brains trust, of our universities. What this bill does is list a series of bodies that are so-called prohibited entities. What is a prohibited entity? To put it bluntly, it's any corporation that is engaging in business undertaking or in relation to fossil fuels, gambling, tobacco, weapons or any other endeavour that the Greens do not like, which, in the legislative terms, means an entity prescribed by the minister for the purposes of the amendment clause 36-75(3) of the Higher Education Support Act. I'll come back to that and how vague and unworkable it is in a minute.
Essentially, what item 1 of the bill requires is that any university that receives a grant under the relevant part must provide a disclosure report if it enters into a partnership or makes an investment in one of those entities. It's not as simple as they'd like you to believe it is. This obligation is proposed in divisions 19 to 68 of the Higher Education Support Act. There's also an obligation to disclose current arrangements in that proposed section, which I'll leave for another time because it's a little bit too complicated.
Much of this bill actually makes no sense, is unworkable in practice or creates barriers in practice—like under item 2 of the bill, 'providers are prohibited from entering into a partnership with or making an investment', as I said. But it actually says that, when they disclose the fact that they've broken this law, nothing actually happens. There's no penalty and there are no consequences. You just have to declare that you've broken the law, and then nothing happens, which is a bit silly, if you ask me. But let's go on.
Clause 36-75(2) says a university must not appoint a person to its governing body if they have an investment in or are a member of a board of a prohibited entity. How would you know that? How would you actually know that? This bill doesn't actually, say, carve out superannuation, so you'd actually have to go through and have a look at the individual superannuation investments of every single proposed board member to ensure that one of the funds hadn't invested in one of these prohibited entities. It doesn't sound very sensible to me.
Then it says that a minister can make an instrument prescribing any business entity and say whether it's harmful, but then subsection 4 says that the instrument must be ratified by resolution of each house of parliament. On the one hand, it's saying the minister can do it, but then the House and the Senate have to agree, so what's the point of that? You may as well just pass a new bill. So that doesn't make a lot of sense either.
Let's just go through some of the unworkable elements of this bill. I want to start with some of the entities that under this bill would be prohibited and some of the unintended consequences or consequences that have not been considered. Let's go with the 'weapons industry' definition. By definition in this bill, the 'weapons industry' means:
(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of weapons, weapon parts or armaments; or
(b) a related body corporate of a corporation referred to in paragraph (a).
So how does this work in practice? We have to define the weapon. There is no real definition. There is nothing in the legislation which explains what it means to be involved in the manufacture or sale of weapons, parts or armaments. It's hopelessly vague. Kitchen knives are weapons, and so are baseball bats. Radios are integral to modern armed conflicts. Are they weapons? They haven't been defined under this bill. We don't know. Cars are frequently used as a mobility platform on which weapons systems are mounted. Are they captured under this proposed bill? Chemicals can be weapons. Indeed, chemical warfare is one of the most horrific forms of modern warfare. Satellites and communications infrastructure are used across the modern battle space to direct and control the current of battle. Are they weapons? Are they captured under this proposed bill? Artificial intelligence, quantum computing and machine learning are all components that go into the way modern wars are fought in the electronic and cyberspace domains. Senator Faruqi herself spoke of drones. All of these rely on networks provided by internet service providers and others. Are they too weapons that are going to be captured under this bill? After all, anything can be weaponised.
Does this mean universities are prohibited from partnerships with Coles, Woolworths, and Big W because they sell kitchen knives and baseball bats? Does it mean universities cannot partner with or invest in organisations that make chemicals? Does it mean universities should stay out of quantum computing, space technology, artificial intelligence and computer science, all of which can be weaponised? We don't know. It's hopelessly broad and entirely unworkable. Presumably, under the Greens' vision of the world, universities must remain cloistered in splendid isolation, divorced from the realities of the real world, in which we must all operate.
Worse still, universities cannot appoint anyone to their board if that person has an investment in one of those entities. The word 'investment' is defined as 'any mode of application of money or financial assets for the purpose of gaining a return'. As I noted previously, this would, of course, include superannuation. By extension, if any individual has a superannuation account and that superannuation account owns shares in some corporation which falls within the scope of the provision, which is very broad, they cannot serve on a university board. To be frank, this is a little bit sloppy, and it's replicated in respect of other industries that are also prohibited. This would, again, capture Woolworths, Coles, most chemists and countless other outlets that sell tobacco, like a petrol station, a local tobacconist—you name it. Under the Greens' vision of the world, a university can't work with Woolworths, Coles or a chemist, and a person who owns shares in any one of those entities, even unknowingly—perhaps through their super fund—can never sit on a university board.
Who else could be captured under this bill? Well, a gambling industry entity means any corporation that involves 'wagering, betting or other gambling', so that rules out a small business, a newsagent who sells scratchies, every school fete that runs a chocolate wheel, any pub or club that maybe has a Friday night meat tray raffle. They're all captured under the broad scope of this bill. A prohibited fossil fuel business entity means a corporation that involves 'the exploration, prospecting, discovery, development, extraction or exportation of fossil fuels'. That rules out any logistics company that transports fuel, any shipping company, any mining company and really just about anyone else who has a link to the fossil fuel supply chain. Again, if your super fund has an investment in BHP, you are not a fit and proper person to sit on a university board.
Imagine if these categories were extended more broadly and it was determined that any business undertaking or engaged in undertaking habitat destruction could be proscribed because it is harmful to the Australian community. Presumably, any entity that, say, bulldozed koala habitats to build investment properties, like Senator Faruqi famously did, would be a prohibited entity, and any owner could not sit on a university board. I'm using that to just explain the scope of this. It is not narrow. It is so completely broad that it is entirely impractical and unworkable.
I could go on, but I'm not going to. This bill is not fit for purpose. It's basically an attempt to prevent universities from doing anything with anyone that the Greens do not like. There is no trust placed in the institutions themselves, who might be acting with the highest standards of ethics and integrity, and who hold the actual purpose of research at the heart of what they are trying to do. At worst, this is probably a really weird moral smear that essentially says that anyone that has any kind of financial relationships with one of these incredibly broad arrangements is unfit to serve on a university board. I think that this is something that probably shouldn't have seen the light of day. This bill serves no purpose other than to allow a little bit of virtue signalling. It's the beat of a drum for the rank-and-file members of the Greens to make some social media videos. It genuinely does not warrant the consideration or the approval of this chamber.
I rise to indicate my strong support for the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025, and I associate myself with the comments made by my colleague Senator Faruqi.
It is pretty remarkable in this debate that, first of all, the government hasn't put forward a speaker yet because the Labor Party can't quite work out how they could explain to their supporter base that they are perfectly comfortable with Australia's universities investing in weapons industries, fossil fuel industries and the gambling industry. Rather than try and create the specious arguments we just heard from the coalition, which is all about nitpicking with definitions and avoiding any moral question about investing in gambling, fossil fuels and weapons, they haven't even engaged in the debate. Rather, they're just sitting there, mutely, hoping that nobody will notice that the Labor Party supports universities investing public money in weapons, in fossil fuels and in gambling. I can tell you that the Labor Party's silence on this bill is screaming to the Australian public and to those who care that the Labor Party absolutely supports public money from public universities going to the global weapons industry, the fossil fuel industry and the gambling industry. They are reckless with and, indeed, indifferent to the harm that that causes to global peace, to our climate, to society and to millions of Australians through the harms of those industries.
The arguments we just heard from the coalition that this bill is unworkable because the definition of 'weapons industry business entity' will somehow pick up Coles and Woolies is bizarre. I'll read onto the record what the definition of a 'weapons industry business entity' is:
(a) a corporation engaged in a business undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of weapons, weapon parts or armaments; or
(b) a related body corporate …
It may well be that, in the heated imagination of the coalition, they think that will include Coles and Woolies, but, from the Greens perspective, those words have their ordinary meaning—'undertaking that involves the manufacture or sale of weapons, weapon parts or armaments'. The reason we had that rather obscure discussion from the coalition about how that, somehow, would involve bleach is they don't want to confront the reality of what's happening in our universities.
Why are we, as Greens, bringing this bill to the parliament to say that universities should not invest in the gambling industry, universities should not invest in the fossil fuel industry and universities should not invest in the weapons industry? We're bringing this forward because we believe it and because we believe that public money should not be lavished through our universities on research that harms our society, harms our planet and drives us further away from peace and further into conflict. That's why we're bringing this bill, because we actually bring principles to our politics. We're not willing to sell them out, as the Labor Party is, for a donation from Australia's largest gun importer and gun manufacturer. We're not willing to sell them out, like the coalition and Labor both are, for millions of dollars from the fossil fuel industry to fund their election campaigns and to then come into this parliament and vote for the fossil fuel industry. We're not willing to sell our principles out for millions of dollars of donations or post-political careers in the gambling industry like the Labor and coalition parties are.
When it comes to the weapons industry, you couldn't point to a former Labor or coalition defence minister or defence industry minister that hasn't left this place and got a job with a global weapons manufacturer. They go straight from politics into the global harm industry—the likes of Kim Beazley, who headed up as a director of Lockheed Martin. He went from being a Labor defence minister to making millions of dollars as a director and a schmoozer for the defence industry that he was handing out billions of dollars in contracts to as defence minister. And Pyne, from the coalition, goes from spruiking inside the coalition for increased funding for weapons—Christopher Pyne now goes out and will sell his soul to any global weapons manufacturer for any country anywhere, selling blood money and blood weapons on behalf of and to pretty much any rogue regime on the planet. So is it any wonder that the coalition come in here and say, 'You can't possibly restrict universities from spending money on the weapons industry'? They'd be cutting off the funds for their old mates, like Christopher Pyne! And Labor would be cutting off funds for their old mates, like Kim Beazley and others!
That's how this place works. The war parties put billions of dollars into the weapons industry. They take political donations from the weapons industry and their mates. Then, when they leave politics, the war parties go and join the global harm industry, get directorships and set up their own consultancies. At the top of that would be Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison, who signed us up to AUKUS without any briefing and without any analysis of a $375 billion plan for AUKUS, spends 12 months in the wilderness as a backbencher and then sets up his own consultancy to suck money out of AUKUS. He wraps his arm around a bunch of Donald Trump's mates to try and squeeze millions of dollars from Australian taxpayers under the AUKUS project that he managed to persuade not just his party to join but all the warmongers in the Labor Party to join.
No doubt, the current crop of Labor ministers are all lining up their jobs while they're pretending to be acting for the public as ministers of the Crown. There's Defence Minister Marles, who only this week was describing weapons as 'extremely cool' and talking about a weapons fair as some kind of Disneyland. What goes on in that man's head? It's hard to comprehend, isn't it? No doubt, there's a raft of current Labor ministers who are thinking: 'We could just redirect billions of dollars of public money into weapons industries. We'll call weapons "cool". We'll make out that this is the manufacturing future for Australia, and we'll get our universities involved in it. Then, when we step out of politics, we'll have a pretty smooth ride. We'll get a job with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Thales, Elbit or Rafael.' Labor are all lining up their jobs with their many mates who are global weapons manufacturers—the Israeli, British, French and US defence manufacturers. It's obscene what these two parties have been doing.
Then, when the Greens bring in a bill to say, 'Let's cut off some of the feed going into defence, fossil fuels and the gambling industry', Labor sit there in mute silence waiting for their post-politics jobs, and the coalition come up and say they've got 'definitional problems'. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you? It's the toxic war parties coming together to say they want our universities to spend money on weapons, fossil fuels and gambling. It sums up the moral cesspit that the war parties are trying to take Australia towards.
What are universities doing when it comes to weapons? ANU, after saying that they were having some sort of change to ethical investment strategies, bought $138,000 worth of shares in March this year, in the middle of a genocide, in Israeli weapons manufacturer Elbit Systems. Maybe it was a good investment financially because Elbit Systems is making record profits at the moment because it's feeding weapons into an Israeli driven genocide in Gaza. Maybe some bean counter at the ANU said: 'Do you know what? There's a genocide going on on the other side of the planet, and, to feed that genocide, Israeli weapons manufacturers like Elbit Systems and Rafael are making record profits by feeding their weapons into a genocide. So why don't we get a bit of the record profits made on the blood of the Palestinian people and the genocide caused by Israel?' And they did! They invested $138,000 of ANU's money in Elbit Systems, knowing that the profits they were likely to get would be based on a genocide and the blood of the Palestinian people. That's obscene! Of course there should be a law against that.
It's not just ANU who has decided to make blood money from investments in the weapons industry. My alma mater, the University of Sydney, to its eternal shame, has more than $4 million of its public funds invested in so-called top weapons manufacturers around the world: Honeywell International, Lockheed Martin and Thales. All of those companies are feeding weapons and weapons parts to the Israeli military and are part of the genocide in Gaza, and Sydney university is profiting from its investment in those weapons manufacturers.
Of course, Lockheed Martin is the world's biggest defence manufacturer. There's not a single part of the global weapons supply chain that Lockheed Martin doesn't have a finger in. It is part of the nuclear weapons industry, building nuclear weapons parts. Of course, each nuclear weapon is a gross human rights crime, a crime against humanity. Lockheed Martin is one of the key players in the US nuclear arsenal, literally building the weapons that could destroy everything we find precious on this planet. Sydney university wants a bit of that; it's trying to get some profits from that.
Lockheed Martin produces missiles and weapons parts, sometimes directly in collaboration with Israeli weapons industries; it is a significant supplier to the Israeli defence force. Some bean counter inside the University of Sydney said that they want a bit of that—they want the blood drenched profits from Lockheed Martin to come back to Sydney university. It is obscene.
It's not just their investments that are obscene. Sydney university also has a longstanding MOU and partnership with a French weapons manufacturer called Thales. In a corrupt industry—the global weapons industry is one of the most corrupt industries on the planet—Thales really stands out as a global bottom feeder when it comes to corruption. They're involved in a longstanding corruption criminal case in South Africa because they corrupted the South African government. They're involved in scandalous procurement abuses in Australia that have been called out by the Auditor-General. You could go to pretty much any continent on the planet apart from Antarctica—no doubt they're trying—and you can find examples of where Thales has been corrupting public officials to sell their weapons. What does Sydney university do? They enter into an MOU with them, and they extend the MOU with them even though university students on campus have been campaigning against this.
I pay tribute to every one of those university students, whether they're at Sydney university, UTS, ANU or fighting the fight in Adelaide University and Monash University—those students around the country who are saying: 'We reject our university having partnerships with the defence industry. We reject our university investing in the global harm industry.' I want to pay tribute to the bravery and the moral compass that those students around the country have shown to reject this.
If you want to look a little deeper at why Labor is silent on universities investing in weapons manufacturers, it's because the Albanese government itself is throwing billions and billions of dollars at some of the worst offenders on the planet. Just to give you some small insight into the kind of money that the Albanese Labor government—directly from Treasury and money from the Australian public—is sending to Israeli weapons manufacturers, we could talk about the $900 million that the Albanese Labor government thought should be given to Elbit Systems in February of last year or the $100 million they're giving to Israeli weapons manufacturers Elbit and Rafael for weapons that are being tested on Palestinians. Just this week Minister for Defence Industry Conroy came out and said he would make no apologies for the Albanese government investing in Israeli weapons manufacturers, because he admired the weapons being produced by Israeli weapons manufacturers. That statement shows the moral lows that the Labor Party has come to.
I support this bill, and I commend Senator Faruqi for bringing it to the Senate. (Time expired)
I rise today to speak against the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025. After spending two decades working in higher education before coming into this place, I know a little bit about how universities operate. I agree with the Greens on one thing—that our higher education system needs significant reform. But this bill is probably one of the silliest I have seen in my very short time being in the Senate. The Greens sound like they have a first-year-undergraduate level view of the world. They are like children who haven't yet fully developed their cognitive capacity. This just goes to show that the Greens, if they were running Australia, would mandate everything that they liked and ban everything that they didn't. They are the party that wants to control exactly what Australians do, how they live, what they're allowed to say and what they're not allowed to say, and I think this bill absolutely speaks to the heart of what the Greens have now become. They are activists rather than looking at sensible policies that are in the best interests of our nation, and I question whether they truly, really like Australia.
This bill is characteristic of exactly what the Greens are like. It is an exercise in virtue signalling, completely divorced from reality. I worked in higher education, as I said, for two decades. Research and development that occurs in our higher education system is vital. There is research that goes into sciences, engineering, medicine and all of those different areas which are vital for Australia and vital for our future. We want to have the best thinkers and doers in our nation. Our universities are a great bed for that research and development to occur.
Under this bill, the Greens would essentially ban all innovation that would happen, because, as my colleague Senator Kovacic pointed out, everything can be weaponised. What exactly would this bill exclude, if we're going to go through and say that we're not going to do anything in terms of weapons development? I can tell you that a lot of medical devices actually come from research that happens in other areas. What happens when there's research in one area that can be applied to another discipline? Under this bill, the Greens would basically say: 'Nope. That's banned. We're banning everything we don't like.' The Greens want our universities. They're quite happy for taxpayer dollars to go into indoctrinating the next generation of Australians, but, when it actually comes to genuine research and development, they want it banned. It is quite hilarious to be sitting here in the chamber, being lectured about how good the spending of taxpayer dollars is by the Greens. On this, they seem to worry. But, if it comes to the indoctrination of young people, the universities can have all the money they would like in the world. It's a blank cheque from the Greens for that.
This bill is completely unworkable. It wants to list a whole group of bodies that it will say are prohibited. What does that mean? It means anyone who's engaged in business in relation to fossil fuels, and we all know the Greens are a huge enemy of fossil fuels. How did they all get to parliament? I'm guessing fossil fuels played a role in them actually being able to get here and come to this place. 'But, no, we'll ban anything to do with fossil fuels. We'll ban anything to do with gambling, tobacco, weapons,' or any other endeavour that they might say they're not interested in at that particular time. What this means is that this bill would be completely unworkable, and it is incredibly vague. But what it's trying to do is to say that universities will only research or be able to teach in areas that the Greens want to give a tick to.
On this side of the chamber, with my colleagues, we believe in freedom of choice, and we want to give Australians the opportunity to explore whatever they like. We don't necessarily have to agree with them, but we want Australians to have the freedom to choose. What the Greens are doing is saying: 'You don't get the freedom to choose. You are just going to be mandated to in terms of what we say you will do and what you will like.' On this side of the chamber, we just cannot agree with that position. We are about freedom of choice.
It's up to universities to have to disclose whether they would be doing research with these particular groups, so if we are going to say they are banned—and I take my home state of South Australia, for instance, where we are going to be hugely involved in Australia's defence capabilities—that would take an enormous amount of research and jobs out of my home state alone, let alone other states, like Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. What this bill would seek to do is say: 'We're no longer going to train and educate young Australian people. We're no longer going to let them have the full choice of things they may want to engage with.'
The legislation basically says that, if you're involved in the manufacture or sale of weapons, you would be prohibited in this. Under this bill, would kitchen knives be weapons? What about baseball bats? What about radios? Radios are a huge part of armed conflicts, so would that be banned? We're not going to allow engineering students to look at that? We won't develop the best technology that we possibly can? Even things like cars are things you've got to use in combat; weapons systems are mounted on them. Of course, chemicals can be weapons, and chemical warfare is one of the most horrific forms of modern warfare that we could possibly see. We're no longer going to be able to do any kind of research and development in these areas. There are satellites; communications infrastructure is used across the modern battle space, and certainly controls modern battle. You could even go into shipping. What about trade and transport? They're also things which will be used in modern warfare. Will they be banned as well? Artificial intelligence and quantum computing—it is hugely important for Australians to be at the forefront of that development of machine learning. Are all of these going to be banned under the Greens' proposed bill? Because they certainly can be weaponised. All of these things can be weaponised, as, you could argue, anything in the world can be weaponised.
Does that mean that universities will be prohibited from partnerships with places like Coles, Woolworths and Target because they sell kitchen knives and baseball bats? Will universities no longer be able to go into partnerships with them? Does that mean that universities won't be able to go into a partnership with any kind of organisation that makes chemicals, including for cleaning or for medical purposes? Certainly, for our mathematics and engineering departments, quantum computing will be completely off the table under this proposal from the Greens. We wouldn't be able to look at artificial intelligence or computer science. All of those jobs of tomorrow, all of those industries of tomorrow, will be completely off the table.
This bill is so hopelessly broad that it will basically look to ban everything. I am struggling to think of anything other than the very woke that the universities are teaching now that will be exempt from this, which is probably exactly what the Greens want. That's of course going to be their agenda in this.
Looking at board appointments to universities, anyone who has any kind of investment in any of these businesses, which would include superannuation, would be exempt from being able to serve on a university board, which is just completely absurd. This is not well thought through. The Greens are just looking to come through and ban the things that they don't like but haven't thought of what the real-world consequences are.
So a vision of the world under the Greens is one where universities can't work with anyone—certainly, I can't think of any business; not Woolworths, not Coles, not a chemist, not hospitals; nobody—and no-one who has a superannuation fund will ever be able to sit on a university board.
We can look at things like the gambling industry. I would argue that research into gambling is actually really important. How do we know what the harms of things like the gambling industry are if you can't even talk about it or research it because that's banned? This is just completely ridiculous. 'The Greens don't like it, so we're going to ban it.' Even a newsagent who sells scratchies, every school fete that runs a chocolate wheel, or any club or pub that has pokies—banned by the Greens.
The whole fossil fuel industry will be prohibited, which means any corporation that involves the exploration, prospecting, discovery, development, extraction or exportation of fossil fuels. Last I checked, Australia was a pretty resource-rich nation, and the very economy that we live in is driven by our resources. Under this, the Greens will ban that. I'm not sure what they expect Australians to do when all of these things are banned, but I think we'll all be living in caves, having a little camp fire to cook our dinner on.
Any logistics company which transports fuels, any shipping company, any mining company—it's really anyone who has any kind of link to the fossil fuel supply chain. They're are all going to be banned as well. If you have, say, an investment fund that has BHP shares, you're not even going to be a fit and proper person to sit on a university board. Imagine if these categories were extended even more broadly and it was determined that any business or undertaking engaged in habitat destruction should be proscribed because it's harmful to the Australian community—there go all of the renewables because renewables are harming our natural environment. We're putting solar panels and transmission lines and wind turbines in our pristine natural environment. Under the Greens proposal—and I'm sure they haven't thought this through—that would all be banned as well. That's going to be problematic, and maybe they should have thought this through and not had their undergraduate, year 1 of university, understanding of how the world works.
Having said all of that, this is really about the Greens pushing their agenda on Australians, telling Australians what they should and shouldn't like and what they can and can't say and basically sending our economy backwards. This is probably one of the silliest bills I've seen in my very short time in the Senate, and I can only imagine that the Greens are doing this so they can make social media videos and get some spin out of this for the wider people they think they are here to serve. But this hasn't been thought through. It's a shameless attempt at social media, and this Senate should be focused on the things that matter to everyday Australians, who are in a cost-of-living crisis and need houses. Unfortunately the Greens are wasting the Senate's time with silly ideas like this. Obviously I won't be supporting this bill.
I rise to strongly support our Greens private senators' bill the Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025. I commend my excellent colleague Senator Faruqi, the Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens, for belling the cat on the corporatisation of unis and the insidious overreach of dirty corporations into university campuses.
Earlier this year the National Union of Students organised a referendum on universities taking funds from weapons companies. More than 5,000 students from universities across the country voted for universities to divest from all partnerships with weapons companies. A motion at the NUS conference passed with 98 per cent voting in favour. Movements led by students and staff have for years called for divestment from these dirty industries. The National Tertiary Education Union, NTEU, have longstanding opposition to university investment in the development and manufacture of weapons, and earlier this year they reaffirmed their call for universities to divest from military and weapons companies. I strongly support that position. I attended the encampment at the University of Queensland earlier this year, and the strength with which students and staff were speaking out against their university's relationship with weapons companies gave me hope then and continues to give me hope. But the university boards remain unmoved.
Just yesterday it was reported that ANU purchased shares in Elbit Systems, one of the key weapons companies profiting off Israel's genocide in Gaza; as recently as March this year they purchased those shares. And Western Sydney University has recently signed an agreement with weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin. I strongly endorse the comments of my colleagues on the appalling continuation of weapons investments by universities. They're meant to be places of learning, not killing factories. There can be no justification for universities investing in weapons companies who are profiting off Israel's genocide in Gaza.
I also want to speak about the way that fossil fuel funding is invading nearly every aspect of our lives. Sporting events, from big events to school sports; arts festivals; music festivals; galleries and other public buildings; and charity events—the grubby fingers of the fossil fuel corporations are all over these things as they attempt to launder their dirty image. Corporations greenwash their polluting activities and paint themselves as community minded. Their hope is that, by sponsoring the things that you love, you'll ignore the damage that they're doing to the places you love. Putting their dirty corporate brand on your favourite team is about making you forget that the climate crisis they are driving will make playing sport impossible in many places.
It's the same with universities. Putting their dirty, corporate members on the board of your favourite institution helps them muzzle criticism of their climate crimes. It has to stop. The links between universities and dirty industries are extensive, but often the details of these relationships and the strings that come with them are unclear. In its recent report Fossil-fuelled universities, the Australia Institute found that 26 of Australia's 37 public universities take money from fossil fuel companies—from Woodside, AGL, Santos and more. They sponsor scholarships, grants and graduate programs. They offer internships and academic positions. Fossil fuel giants have their names appear on university buildings, schools and research centres around the country.
Monash University has accepted millions in funding from Woodside since entering a partnership agreement in 2019. The Woodside Building for Technology and Design looms on campus. Monash hosted a secretive conference with Woodside at their campus in Italy, featuring speakers from the gas industry and the university and politicians. There can be no doubt that these funding arrangements influence decisions being made by universities. Whether it's overt or not, that influence is clear. Where research programs are funded by fossil fuel companies, it is likely that research proposals are skewed towards projects that the sponsoring fossil fuel giant will approve of. Where funding relies on support from fossil fuel companies, academics may be discouraged from speaking out against destructive coal and gas projects.
Students from Monash have waged a campaign calling on the university to end its Woodside partnership. I want to thank them for their bravery and commitment to making their university somewhere that they are proud to be. They've pointed out that Woodside's planet-destroying projects, including the Burrup Hub—that this government itself recognises threatens irreplaceable and ancient Aboriginal rock art—are wildly out of step with Monash's public commitments to sustainability. The university refused to end the partnership. But, earlier this month, the university did announce what it would end—its world-leading climate research facility, the Monash Sustainable Development Institute. It's a massive setback for climate research at a time when research into adaptation is more needed than ever. And yet the relationship with Woodside continues.
A few years ago, the University of Newcastle appointed Whitehaven Coal chairman Mark Vaile as chancellor, a decision that flew in the face of the university's public commitment to being carbon neutral by 2025. Thankfully, in that case, resignations from the university's board and rolling protests by staff and students forced them to rethink that terrible decision. The tireless efforts of students, staff and education unions to get dirty industries out of campuses have seen some progress, but it's not enough. Universities won't change on their own—and not when they're being underfunded by this government and successive governments before them.
This bill would stop the tentacles of the big, dirty corporations reaching into universities. It amends the Higher Education Support Act to make universities disclose their partnerships and their investments in weapons, fossil fuels, gambling and the tobacco industry, and to divest from those arrangements. It also prohibits unis from appointing board members from dirty industries. Too often, when the community calls to end fossil fuel sponsorship, we're told that we can't have nice things without them—that we need gas companies to pay for kids' sport or that we need coal barons to enjoy art. It is simply nonsense.
This bill puts responsibility where it should be. The government should provide universities with the additional funding needed to compensate for divestments. Universities must be fully funded so that they don't rely on these dirty partnerships. Our universities should be fully funded places of democracy, equity and public good. Their survival must not depend on the largesse of fossil fuel companies, weapons manufacturers, predatory gambling organisations or tobacco companies. These harmful industries are not in the public interest, and they should not greenwash their harms through public universities. This bill is about protecting academic integrity and restoring public trust in the independence of universities. It's about ensuring that our universities live up to their core mission of advancing public good and are not beholden to fossil fuel corporations that are actively making students' futures worse.
We had some, frankly, unhinged contributions from Liberal senators that funding universities with taxpayer dollars was 'indoctrination'. I kid you not; it was those actual words. Education is not indoctrination. There was also a bizarre conflation of innovation with weapons manufacturing. Well, I'm afraid that, while innovation is great and universities should be places of innovation, weapons companies should have nothing to do with that funding.
There was also an assertion that universities shouldn't be investigating gambling harm, that somehow this bill would stop research being undertaken by our chief research institutions, public universities. Of course, universities should be doing gambling research. They do that already. That research should not be funded by gambling companies. That is not a crazy assertion. Universities need to be places of education and innovation. They should not be puppets of weapons manufacturers, gambling companies or fossil fuel companies. Our universities must be fully funded, and they should be places of democracy, equity and public good. Weapons companies and fossil fuel companies in our universities betray the core purpose of public universities.
Staff and student movements have been tirelessly campaigning for decades to get these dirty industries out of our university campuses. But the universities have made it clear they won't change on their own accord because they're being starved of funding by this government and were by those before. They should not have to go, cap in hand, to industry to be able to deliver public education, which is a public good that benefits us all. Governments should be fully funding universities, and these universities should divest from those partnerships and those dodgy relationships with dirty industries. There can be no justification for unis investing in weapons companies that are profiting off Israel's genocide in Gaza. Universities shouldn't be providing cover for climate-destroying fossil fuel companies or getting into bed with gambling companies that prey on vulnerable communities for profit.
This bill is about protecting academic integrity, restoring public trust and ensuring that our universities live up to their core mission of advancing the public good and funding them from the taxpayer purse to do so. Students and staff shouldn't have to see their research sponsored by the same corporations that are driving the climate collapse and furthering genocide. This is about public education for public good. Governments should be funding universities so they're not going cap in hand to industry to stay functional.
While we're at it, governments should make university free again so that students can get further education that benefits not just them and not just our economy but the entire country. It is a public good, it should be publicly funded and it should be free again for students, like it used to be. The government could cancel just one nuclear submarine and fully fund universities and make it free for students. They could cancel some of those property developer perks and fully fund universities and make it free for students. They could make big corporations pay their fair share of tax and use that revenue to fund universities and make it free for students. Free university and TAFE and fully funded universities that are not in hock to dirty industries—all of this is possible. We used to have that, and we could have it again. We could have nice things. We just need a government that is on the side of the community and the planet and not in bed with the one per cent—the big corporations, the fossil fuel companies, the gambling companies and the weapons manufacturers. That is not too much to ask, and that is what Australians demand of their government. I am proud that the Greens will always back them in that call. I commend this excellent bill to the chamber.
Australia's universities need to understand something very, very clearly. What they need to understand is that, if they take money from fossil fuel corporations—and plenty of them do—they are complicit in the breakdown of this planet's climate and they are complicit in the slow march towards this planet being incapable of sustaining human life. They need to understand very clearly that it is not just about taking money from fossil fuel corporations. If they make money from fossil fuel corporations through buying shares, as many of them do, then they are complicit in the breakdown of our climate. They also need to understand that if they're involved in any way with weapons companies who are engaged in the genocide in Gaza as we speak—and I use those words advisedly, because the so-called ceasefire was of course a complete con by the Israeli government, and the slaughter is continuing apace in Gaza as we speak—as we understand the ANU is, through its recent purchase of shares in Elbit Systems, then they are complicit in that genocide. Our universities should always act and behave in the public interest. They have a moral obligation as cornerstone institutions in our society.
Universities have played a critical role in the evolution of humanity, and overwhelmingly that has been for the public good through human history. But it is now the case that far too many universities in this country have forgotten themselves; they've forgotten their purpose. They've abandoned their core mission of acting in the public interest. And I have to say that the actions of the political duopoly in this place, over many decades now, in slashing funding to universities have been something that has contributed to the situation that universities find themselves in. I do understand how universities are feeling, but it is no excuse whatsoever for becoming complicit in climate breakdown and genocide and, worse, in enabling climate breakdown and genocide. (Time expired)
I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Leave granted.
Yesterday, in the chamber, speaking to Senator Hume's private senator's bill on superannuation, I misspoke, describing former senator Richard Alston AO, a good friend of mine, as the 'late' senator. I indeed exaggerated his death. I can confirm that the former senator Richard Alston AO is A-okay, having spoken to him immediately after my speech to apologise for my mistake. Former senator Alston was instrumental in the early days of superannuation, being appointed shadow minister for superannuation during his tenure. However, the late senator to whom I was referring was Senator John Watson AM—may God rest his soul.
I thank former senator Richard Alston for his good grace and his humour and for encouraging me by saying, 'If that's the worst mistake you make in parliament, you'll be doing okay.' My sincere apologies to anyone who I may have taken by surprise. Thank you, Acting Deputy President, for your indulgence in allowing me to make a personal explanation to amend the record.
Thank you very much, Senator. I'm glad we clarified that and got that on the record. I'm sure Senator Alston is watching—hello!
From the outset, I want to be clear that the Greens support the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. We support its core intent. The Greens have been on record for some two-and-a-bit years calling for the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation. We've done that because we were listening to the community. We have close ties with the Iranian community in Australia and have worked with them, in particular, in their campaign, Woman, Life, Freedom, following the horrific killing of Jina Mahsa Amini. When you work with the Iranian community and you go to protests, speaking in support of the Woman, Life, Freedom campaign, they'll tell you about the fear inside the community, both in Iran and around the world, of the IRGC. The women in Iran are in fear for their freedom, for their physical safety and, as in the case of Jina Mahsa Amini, for their lives. They made it very clear to us that that was a core demand for them.
I also want to thank the Kurdish community in Australia for their advocacy in the matter too, and that has included their advocacy for the Woman, Life, Freedom campaign. The Kurdish community and other ethnic and religious groups inside Iran—there's diversity inside Iran—know the reality of persecution. They know the brutal reality of the IRGC. And we've put on record our concerns for the Kurdish community in Iran and the threats that they face. Of course, the killing of Jina Mahsa Amini was a part of that—a proud, strong Kurdish-Iranian woman targeted for how she looked and for her identity by a brutal terrorist grouping that terrorises the Iranian people. I do want to give credit as well to my colleague Senator Jordon Steele-John, who had the foreign affairs portfolio and did such a remarkably good job of it in the previous parliament. He stated on 13 September 2023:
Jina 'Mahsa' Amini's death sparked a wave of protests in Iran, and began the Woman Life Freedom movement globally. Over the past year people across the globe have been in solidarity with those targeted by the Iranian regime.
There continues to be unfair trials, egregious executions and continued removal of the rights of women and girls. Australia must maintain pressure on Iranian authorities to free peaceful protestors who are demanding freedom from their country.
Listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisations would send a strong signal that Australia will not stay silent in the face of human rights abuses and will act to punish perpetrators who are accountable for these heinous crimes.
The Australian Greens continue their solidarity with the Iranian Diaspora community in Australia and their ongoing fight for freedom. Women, Life, Freedom.
But, of course, those calls were met by a wall of obfuscation from the government, who said: 'It's all too hard. Changing the law would be an incredibly complex job. You can't list the IRGC, because it's part of a government entity. You know—impossibility, impossibility, impossibility.' And we said at the time—and we weren't the only ones to say it at the time; I know the coalition said it—'We'll bring the legislation forward and it will pass, provided it's well crafted and does the job. Bring the legislation forward, and you've got a clear parliamentary pathway to it. Don't talk to us about the problems; talk to us about the solution.' And all we got was obfuscation and inaction, the government hiding behind the current laws and saying, 'Well, you can't do it, because the current laws don't allow for the listing of a government related entity.' But, of course, other countries, like the United States and European countries, have listed the IRGC and have the capacity to list government associated government entities as terrorist organisations. Again, we said: 'Well, just look at what the United States has done. Look at what other countries have done. They permit government entities to be identified as terrorist organisations.' In truth, on this planet, some of the largest terror organisations are government entities, delivering obscene violence. It's indiscriminate, or it's often targeted political violence against minorities. Some of the worst offenders on the planet are government entities. I just want to raise this.
Although this has been an issue now for more than two years—the Greens have been calling for it, civil society has been calling for it—this process was still rushed. Once again, the government rushed scrutiny of this bill and sent it to the PJCIS, whose final report, while endorsing the bill, fails to take into account a number of significant concerns raised in that process, including what can often be the unfair—and, I assume, unintended—impacts on humanitarian aid delivery.
It doesn't come just from the effects of this bill. Those concerns have been baked into the listing legislation since its inception. Aid organisations, including the Australian Council for International Development and Save the Children Australia have called for broad humanitarian exemptions consistent with UN council resolutions to provide regulatory certainty for Australian NGOs who are responding to global humanitarian crises. These are critically important concerns, and we call on the government to consider them and consider them further. Indeed, the Greens will be presenting amendments to this bill to provide for the protection of Australian NGOs who are working in areas which are under de facto control of listed organisations to allow them to work to provide critical humanitarian relief—food, medicine, housing, water.
When you talk to NGOs who are active in the international humanitarian space, they say that there is incredible legal risk to them in providing basic humanitarian relief and saving lives in conflict zones such as Afghanistan because of listings. They say that those concerns also arise in parts of Palestine and Gaza because of the listings. They say that those concerns also arise in other conflict zones such as Sudan, where we absolutely know that there is an urgent need for humanitarian aid. To punish the people on the ground, who are under the de facto control of a listed organisation, facing the brutality of that listed organisation—often with that comes famine, comes a lack of access to medicine, comes internal displacement—and to punish them twice and say, 'Not only are you under the de facto control of a terrorist organisation against your will and being held at ransom at that level; because of that, Australian aid organisations can't provide aid to you like the food that you need to feed your kids, the housing you need to protect yourself and the medicine,' is a double punishment.
I want to read onto the record my thanks for my chief of staff, Kym Chapple, who has done a huge amount of work in speaking with the NGOs, coming to grips with the submissions that went to PJCIS and helping my party bring forward amendments which we think would be critical for helping humanitarian organisations. Sometimes the work of our staff doesn't get noticed. I want to tell you this has been noticed.
We also note submissions to the inquiry from the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, who recommended an inclusion to a specific exemption for journalism being undertaken in the public interest. Again, many of the concerns that apply to humanitarian organisations, who we want on the ground stopping people from starving, giving people access to clean water and helping people who are already being terrorised in these conflict zones—we also need journalists to be there to cover what's happening and to tell the truth about what's happening. Sometimes that requires engagement with these organisations, because that's the only way you can get access and maintain access. Journalists should also have a protection and a clear protection when they're engaged in public interest journalism. Because, unless we see the truth, how can we help? Again I say to the government, on behalf of my party: consider closely the amendments that are being brought in this space, because we have that obligation.
But now I want to address what we could describe as the elephant in the room. We are amending the law now to allow for government entities to be listed as terrorist entities under the law. By this bill's own criteria, the Israel Defense Forces, the IDF, would qualify for listing as a terrorist entity. The test is straightforward really: a foreign state entity that causes serious harm or death to Australian citizens to advance a political cause. Well, in April 2024, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was killed in Gaza by an IDF airstrike on a clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicle. I'll just repeat that. In April 2024, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was killed in Gaza by an IDF airstrike on a clearly marked World Central Kitchen vehicle. In October 2025, Australians on the Gaza flotilla were detained by Israeli forces illegally, had their arms dislocated and heads slammed to the ground and were held in torture-like conditions. If those two points don't meet the test of serious harm under this law, then what does?
Let's pass this bill, and let's get on with listing the IRGC. But then let's list the Israeli Defence Force as a state sponsor of terrorism for their actions against Australians. And that doesn't count the obscenity of their actions against millions of Palestinians. No more double standards based on who our purported friends are. That's not justice. That's just politics dressed up as national security. Let's amend the law. Let's allow for state entities to be listed as terrorist organisations, and then let's look clearly at the world and see where the largest state directed terror organisations are. If you cast your eyes fairly across this planet asking, 'Which are the largest terrorist organisations that are state terrorist organisations?' and you don't see the IDF, then you're not looking.
Today I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025. Terrorism is an ongoing threat to the security, democracy and values of the Australian people, and the coalition will always support sensible legislation that protects our national security. This bill empowers the Governor-General, on the advice of the AFP minister and with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister, to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. The bill also introduces new offences for financing, supporting or associating with listed state sponsors and extends existing law enforcement powers to these provisions. The coalition has long called for these reforms, and, while we may disagree with the government on the timeliness of the reforms, they are undoubtedly welcome in tackling the issue of state sponsored terrorism. I am, however, concerned with the government's approach to this legislation and the rushed and inadequate consultation with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Recently, my hometown of Sydney was sadly touched by terrorism and by those who would wish to harm many great Australians. A Sydney kosher restaurant was firebombed in October 2024. Thankfully, no-one was killed. Numerous other antisemitic attacks on synagogues, daycares and homes have been perpetrated. We now know, thanks to the tireless work of intelligence services, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for state sponsored, directed and enabled terrorism on Australian soil. This attack on our sovereignty and members of our community has not gone unpunished, and the coalition wholeheartedly supports the eviction of the Iranian ambassador. I ask the Australian government to consider further punitive actions on those responsible and the application of Interpol Red Notices on any persons overseas found to be involved in the execution and planning of these terrorist attacks on Australian soil.
Australia's national terrorism threat level has been raised to 'probable', meaning there is greater than 50 per cent chance of a terrorist attack or planning within the next year. Now more than ever, we need a strong government to send the message that Australia will not stand for terrorism, state sponsored or otherwise, on our streets. What does not send a strong message, however, is how the government has handled this bill and its substandard reference to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Submitters were only given seven clear days to respond to the bill at a two-hour public hearing. This truncated process prevented proper scrutiny by key national security stakeholders, and the parliament was unable to further examine the bill for deficiencies or opportunities for expansion.
I will not wait for after the next terror attack to happen in my community before speaking out on what we can do better. This parliament should be proactive, not reactive, to the national security challenges we face. On Tuesday evening, the Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, addressed the Lowy Institute with a sobering assessment of our domestic security posture and those who wish to do Australians harm. At least three foreign countries are willing to assassinate political dissidents on Australian soil and are capable of carrying out lethal targeting. Never before has our top security expert delivered such clear messaging that other states are acting against us, again making the case for the expansion of our counterterrorism and counter-foreign-interference legislation and agencies.
To that end, and as I have said before in this place, Australia needs to expand our ability to monitor and disrupt threats. Australia needs to urgently establish a national technical assistance centre that manages all of the national intelligence community access to lawfully intercepted information. This coordination and assistance mechanism would greatly enhance Australia's national security architecture to rapidly, proactively and effectively respond to emerging threats. Australian agencies possess the capabilities and expertise to stop threats before they occur, yet antiquated intelligence-sharing mechanisms hamper their ability to do so. Furthermore, each Australian state and territory has a joint counterterrorism team. This body coordinates and responds to emergent and enduring terrorism threats with federal agencies. There is no such federal equivalent. The Home Affairs Counter-Terrorism Coordination Centre does not handle operational detail or provide ongoing assessments and mitigations.
I call on the Senate to formalise an inquiry into the creation of such a body to draw on all areas of the national intelligence community to better respond to terrorism in Australia at an operational level. This body would bring law enforcement, signals intelligence, human intelligence and technical expertise into the same tent. Policy already exists to authorise classes of intelligence officers to proactively work across the powers present in the ASIO Act, the Intelligence Services Act and other pieces of national security legislation concurrently. The Attorney-General, home affairs minister, foreign minister and Minister for Defence can vastly expand government's capacity to keep Australians safe with the stroke of a pen, and I call on them to do so. Too often our capabilities are able to mitigate threats, but our bureaucracy gets in the way. Like with abolishing the arbitrary distinction between foreign and security intelligence, our collection apertures need to be cleared of red tape and ministerial interference. Let our agencies do their jobs.
Clearing this red tape is only half the battle. The other half is funding our agencies responsible for counterterrorism correctly. The Home Affairs portfolio, Foreign Affairs portfolio and Defence portfolio all have their roles to play in the defence of this nation from threats such as the IRGC. Again, the coalition calls for adequate funding to these entities charged by this parliament to counter domestic and foreign threats to our security.
While the national intelligence community agencies fulfil their counterterrorism responsibilities, the Australian Defence Force is not traditionally thought of by this government as a priority in facing these threats. Operation Okra was the Australian Defence Force contribution to the military intervention against the Islamic State. The operation commenced in August 2014 and concluded in December 2024.
The Defence Force is still vital in our counterterrorism efforts, and, with offshore threats still persisting in 2025, it is vital that the government is consistent with the strategic goals of this bill by also increasing the budget for our Australian Defence Force. To be ready for a geopolitically uncertain tomorrow, we must prepare for it today. The coalition led the way on this bill, and I, again, show my support for commonsense legislation that keeps Australians safe and offer my bipartisan collaboration to act against those who would do Australians harm.
I just want to make some brief remarks about the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 before the Senate today, in which we look at establishing a new framework for designating a foreign entity as a state sponsor of terrorism. Under this bill, an entity may be listed if the minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police is satisfied that a foreign state entity and/or one of its members has engaged in, prepared, planned, assisted in or fostered a terrorist act targeting Australia or has advocated for such an act. Before any regulation is made to list an entity, the AFP minister must first obtain the agreement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and arrange for the Leader of the Opposition to be briefed. These requirements ensure that proper foreign policy coordination and bipartisan oversight are maintained.
The bill also introduces new offences to criminalise terrorist activity carried out by listed state entities or their proxies, as well as conduct by persons who support such activities. Recognising the potential consequences of criminalising state entities, the bill includes defences and exemptions to protect lawful engagement for legitimate purposes such as humanitarian assistance. The legislation comes in response to ASIO's assessment that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, had directed at least two attacks in Australia. These attacks are utterly unacceptable, and the government is taking decisive action far stronger than any other government had previously done. While the previous coalition government did not impose sanctions on the IRGC, our government has taken on board the advice of our security agencies and the report that was conducted by the Senate committee only about 18 months ago and has targeted at least 200 sanctions on Iran and the IRGC. We've also acted on the United Nations and strengthened domestic laws.
Faced with evidence of attacks on Australian soil, we're also going further, and that is formalising the listing of the IRGC as a terrorist organisation. Through this bill, the government is once again doing what responsible governments must do—protecting Australians and defending our national sovereignty. We are closing the gap that allows malicious foreign actors to operate in this country, and we are doing so with clear purpose, firm resolve and proper oversight. These amendments before the Senate strengthen Australia's counterterrorism framework and ensure that our agencies have the tools that they need to act decisively against those that seek to do us harm. This is about keeping Australians safe—the foremost duty of any government.
While I'm on my feet, I'd like to acknowledge and thank the former deputy chair of the PJCIS, Mr Andrew Wallace MP, and former member and also a former deputy chair, Mr Hastie, who recently resigned from the committee. I want to acknowledge both gentlemen who served on this committee with distinction for many years, demonstrating their unwavering diligence, integrity and genuine commitment to bipartisanship for many, many years, particularly Mr Wallace. During his time on the committee as deputy chair, he assisted me in contributing to rigorous oversight, helped shape some key recommendations over a number of reports and played an important role in strengthening Australia's national security framework. Through his approach and dedication to the committee's work, we've been able to achieve some really great results. I want to wish him all the success—not too much—as the new shadow attorney-general.
One Nation has called out foreign governments and their agents who act against Australian citizens and even against our country right here in Australia. These include China, some Islamic nations and some members of the former Soviet Union.
The Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 would amend the Criminal Code to enable listing of certain foreign states or foreign state entities as terrorist organisations. Currently, this is not possible with the law, because foreign states or foreign state entities are not able to be listed as terrorist organisations. Two lawyers, including a barrister, and their staff have scrutinised this bill for One Nation, and our senators have considered and discussed the bill. The bill would authorise the Governor-General to list in a regulation foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism. That's wonderful. The precondition to this occurring is that the minister for the Australian Federal Police, who is the home affairs minister, must believe on reasonable grounds that the foreign state or entity has engaged in, prepared or planned, assisted or fostered the doing of a terrorist act targeted against Australia or, in addition, if the entity has advocated doing a terrorist act that was targeted at Australia. The minister can only act with the agreement of the foreign affairs minister.
Secondly, the bill creates new offences which would criminalise conduct in which these entities engage and criminalise the conduct of persons who would seek to assist or support these activities. Additionally, it provides for appropriate defences for people who the law requires, for example, to engage with a listed entity or engage with an entity for a legitimate purpose. One aspect that has raised some concerns, though, is the reversal of the onus of proof that will apply when some defendants raise certain defences, where the defendant must establish the defence on the balance of probabilities. For example, a defendant may have the onus of establishing that they took all reasonable steps to disassociate themselves from a particular terrorist entity. The reversal of the onus of proof is a major event in legislation and should not be done lightly. Nonetheless, it appears justified here because of the nature of the offending behaviour.
We in One Nation have noticed this increasing trend in Labor-sponsored legislation over the last few years, and that sounds alarm bells to those who are responsible for scrutinising good policy. We're very concerned about this trend. At times, this is a precursor to control and may reflect today's Labor's propensity to control. This reversal of the onus of proof must be carefully scrutinised on each occasion on which it's raised. On this occasion, the government has justified this approach because of the preventive nature of measures that are being enabled to protect the Australian community from targeted acts of terrorism and the high risks of death or injury associated with such acts of terrorism. This bill's additional protections are reasonable in the overall circumstances, given that radicalised Islamic extremists perpetrate relatively frequent terror attacks and Chinese Communist Party agents intimidate and bully law-abiding Australian citizens of Chinese dissent here in Australia. One Nation believes that Australian citizens of all backgrounds must be protected. We support this bill.
I want to thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 and to the committee process. Keeping our community safe from those who seek to do us harm is a top priority for the Albanese government. The government condemns in the strongest possible terms foreign states who seek to harm and terrify Australians. These actors seek to sow discord and division in our community and they will not be allowed to succeed. The bill amends the Criminal Code to introduce a framework to list foreign state entities as state sponsors of terrorism and respond to state terrorist acts. The bill will also provide a comprehensive suite of criminal offences addressing state sponsors of terrorism and the acts they seek to foster on our shores. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies will be provided the same powers to investigate and disrupt these threats as they have for non-state terrorist acts.
Many of my Senate colleagues have done a good job of summing up the structure of this bill and the way that it will seek to list state sponsored terrorism, so I won't go into that, but I wanted to address the second reading amendment that's been proposed by Senator Thorpe. I think it's important to put this on the record. Of course we respect Senator Thorpe, but the government will not be supporting her second reading amendment. There is no place in Australia for racism, hatred or discrimination of any kind, and we unequivocally condemn it. Every Australian, no matter their race or religion, should be able to enjoy their life in any Australian community without prejudice or discrimination. It is inappropriate to use a second reading amendment to attack or criticise our law enforcement agencies. We note that Senator Thorpe does have other mechanisms available to her to put motions to the Senate or debate this issue, and I urge the Senate to oppose this amendment.
In concluding on the bill itself, I want to reiterate that the bill sends the strongest possible signal that Australia condemns the actions of foreign states who seek to harm Australians and that any attack targeting Australians will not be tolerated. We must stand in unity against attempts to divide our society. In supporting this bill, this place would be displaying a strong resolve in defence of our sovereignty and our collective way of life. I thank the chamber.
Minister, you mentioned the second reading amendment. As of now, that hasn't been moved. Unless someone is proposing to move it, we will just put the— (Quorum formed)
by leave—On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move the amendment standing in her name:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) far-right extremism now poses one of the greatest threats to community safety in this country, with a rising number of violent attacks explicitly targeting First Peoples, migrants and refugees over the past year;
(ii) on 31 August 2025, far-right extremists, including members of the National Socialist Network, attacked Camp Sovereignty, a site of Aboriginal resistance and the sacred resting place for the ancestors of 38 Nations;
(iii) on that day, neo-Nazis armed with weapons targeted and violently assaulted Aboriginal mothers, inflicting serious injuries that required hospitalisation;
(iv) the attack on Camp Sovereignty is a continuation of the original violence and genocide perpetrated against First Peoples since invasion;
(v) First Peoples, migrants and refugees, particularly women, bear the brunt of this violence; and
(vi) the Government should be prioritising the very real threat of far-right terrorism happening here alongside threats from overseas; and
(b) condemns:
(i) the deliberate spread of racist and anti-immigrant narratives by politicians and media commentators that embolden far-right movements and normalise hate-fuelled violence;
(ii) the hypocrisy of governments and commentators who condemn peaceful protest and political expression while remaining silent on racially motivated attacks committed by neo-Nazis against First Nations people and women; and
(iii) the failure of the Government, the Australian Federal Police and Victoria Police to respond decisively and treat the Camp Sovereignty attack as both a terrorist attack and a hate crime; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) immediately investigate the Camp Sovereignty attack as a hate crime and an act of far-right terrorism; and
(ii) move without delay to list the National Socialist Network and other .far-right neo-Nazi groups as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code".
The question is that the second reading amendment standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, as moved by Senator Shoebridge on her behalf, be agreed to.
by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3480 together:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 56 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 5 — Terrorist organisation offences: exceptions for humanitarian aid
Criminal Code Act 1995
1 Subsection 102.1(1) of the Criminal Code
Insert:
designated humanitarian entity: see section 102.1AB.
2 After section 102.1AA of the Criminal Code
Insert:
102.1AB Meaning of designated humanitarian entity
(1) An entity is a designated humanitarian entity if the entity is specified by, or is in a class of entities specified by, the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
(2) The following are also designated humanitarian entities:
(a) the United Nations;
(b) an agency of the United Nations;
(c) the International Committee of the Red Cross;
(d) an entity accredited (whether at full or base level) by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the purposes of funding eligibility under the program known as the Australian NGO Cooperation Program;
(e) an entity that operates for the sole or dominant purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature.
Note: A list of entities accredited by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Australian NGO Cooperation Program could in 2025 be viewed on that Department's website (https://www.dfat.gov.au).
3 At the end of section 102.6 of the Criminal Code
Add:
(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the person's receipt, making available or collection of funds is only for the purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature; and
(b) the aid is provided, or to be provided, by, on behalf of, or with the authority of a designated humanitarian entity.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3).
4 At the end of section 102.7 of the Criminal Code
Add:
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the person's provision of support or resources is only for the purpose of providing aid of a humanitarian nature; and
(b) the aid is provided, or to be provided, by, on behalf of, or with the authority of a designated humanitarian entity.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3).
This amendment is an important carve-out that ensures humanitarian aid organisations can deliver life-saving aid that is so desperately needed in so many places around the world. Under our current legislation, humanitarian organisations are liable to criminal charges when delivering aid to civilians in regions controlled by proscribed terrorist actors, purely because of geographical proximity.
The unavoidable legal risks and challenges under the current framework have had a very chilling effect on aid delivery, funding and humanitarian organisations' ability to respond to crises. This morning, I was at the ACFID annual conference and heard again loudly and clearly how much the current framework hinders and hampers the delivery of much needed life-saving aid. Aid organisations across the country have been calling for this exemption under the Criminal Code for designated humanitarian entities for years and years. This is an amendment that could make a world of difference for these incredibly courageous humanitarian workers to be able to do their job. It will also bring our laws into line with those that already exist in the US, UK, Canada and the EU.
It also implements a UN Security Council resolution that our government has proudly supported. In fact, the UN Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, which our government has been touting leadership on, both here and abroad, demands this very exemption. Yet, today, from what I understand, the Labor government is going to vote against this amendment. But I guess, sadly, that is exactly what we have come to expect from Labor. They say one thing and do another. They wax lyrical about international law in this chamber and the UN but do nothing. It's time for the Labor government to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. This amendment is one that has previously received bipartisan support in a recommendation in the March 2025 final report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It was an inquiry into Australia's thematic sanctions framework. It is disappointing that, despite supporting this amendment and claiming to understand the importance of it for the aid sector, Labor and the coalition will both be voting against it. I cannot tell you how difficult it is to overstate the importance of international aid right now. We are living in increasingly bleak times, with the arms industry recording massive profits steeped in the blood of their war machines as they kill thousands, including aid workers in those thousands. Last year was the deadliest year on record for aid workers, and this year is on track to be even worse. Gaza and Sudan recovered the highest number of deaths. International aid should be a matter of justice. It should neither be dictated by political self-interest nor constrained by sanction regimes.
When operating in the most challenging circumstances that you can imagine and watching the extremes of human suffering, the last time humanitarian organisations and their workers need is to come under fire from indiscriminate Australian laws. Today we have an opportunity to do something that tackles at least one of the challenges aid organisations face. These organisations and their workers put their passion, compassion, hearts, souls and bodies on the line to provide aid for those who are being put through immense suffering.
I will say that I understand that neither of the major parties are going to support this amendment now, but I hope, given the significance of this change and that there has been a bipartisan agreement on making this change, that the government will look at doing this urgently. I commend the amendment to the Senate.
Senator Faruqi is correct—the government will not be supporting these amendments at this time. I want to put on the record some of the reasons and what the Criminal Code Amendment (State Sponsors of Terrorism) Bill 2025 does and doesn't do in terms of protections. The Australian government strongly supports the critical work of humanitarian workers in crisis zones around the world, and we are deeply committed to ensuring humanitarian workers are protected and afforded the access that they need to carry out lifesaving work. This is why we led the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, launched in September in New York, with over 100 signatories. We will continue to work across government and with the sector to ensure we can uphold the principles we committed to in the declaration.
The government acknowledges the advocacy of groups such as the Australian Council for International Development and the Save the Children Australia for greater humanitarian exemptions not only in respect of this bill but existing terrorism offences. The government is actively engaging with humanitarian organisations in relation to their concerns with these frameworks and their advocacy for a broad humanitarian exemption. These are complex matters requiring careful consideration, and we must avoid the risk of unintended consequences. The bill directly responds to the highly concerning emergence of the threat of state sponsored terrorism. It is not an appropriate vehicle to consider broader changes to Australia's counter-terrorism framework. Further these amendments propose changes to part 5.3 of the Criminal Code, which is supported by referral powers from the states. Consistent with section 100.8 of the Criminal Code and the Inter-Governmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws, the agreement of the first ministers is required to change part 5.3.
It is important to note that the bill contains general defences in relation to individuals performing an official duty or function of the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross. This acknowledges the mandates of these organisations under international law or as multilateral entities, which necessitate their engagement with all state actors. The bill also contains an express humanitarian defence to the offence of associating with a state sponsor of terrorism. This mirrors the existing defence of association with a terrorist organisation contained within part 5.3 of the Criminal Code. We believe any changes to humanitarian exemptions should be consistent across terrorism frameworks.
Noting that we are approaching the hard marker, I want to very briefly put on record the coalition's position on this amendment. As has been foreshadowed, we will not be supporting Senator Faruqi's amendment here today. We are very sympathetic to the substance of the NGOs' plea that Senator Faruqi alluded to in her contribution on this amendment, and we do urge the government to continue considering how humanitarian organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross and Save the Children can be better protected under the counterterrorism provisions within division 102 and 102A of the Criminal Code. But we do accept the advice that has been provided by the Attorney-General's Department that this bill is not the appropriate place to make those changes. We are incredibly mindful that any amendments, such as this one that was proposed today by Senator Faruqi, should be drafted very carefully to ensure that there are no unintended consequences which may thwart the objects of this bill. As we said in our second reading contributions, this is an incredibly important bill. We want to see this bill pass the Senate today. In the interests of that, the coalition will not be supporting Senator Faruqi's proposed amendment, and I hope we can move things along quickly before 11.15.
I will just put on the record that it is good to see that both the government and the opposition see the need for these amendments, or amendments to this effect, to come through to ensure that Australian humanitarian organisations have the protection they need. We hear the concerns raised about whether or not the referral from states under part 5.3 would potentially be a barrier and require the consent of state parties who referred those powers to the Commonwealth.
For the record, the humanitarian organisations have been asking for this to be clarified not for weeks or for months but for years, and what I would hope that we get from the government is some clear commitment to a timetable as to when they could expect the goodwill that we hear in the chamber to actually result in the legislative changes. I don't want to go beyond the hard marker, but could we get some short indication from the minister about whether there are processes in place, whether they are engaging with the states, whether there is a timetable and, if not, whether there is a commitment to make that happen? Can we just have that. I know that there are many humanitarian and aid organisations anxiously listening to see if their employees, their boards and others are going to get the protection that they need to do lifesaving work.
The brevity of my answer doesn't indicate the care that we have for this issue, but I think you've seen a willingness from the government and the opposition to consider these further, and we will undertake to do that. I don't have anything to add to my answer other than the broad humanitarian exemption is complex, and that is why we are considering it.
The question is that the Australian Greens amendments on sheet 3480 be agreed to.
I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
I table documents relating to the order of production of documents concerning the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
I present the eighth report of the 2025 of the Selection of Bills Committee and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
Selection of Bills Committee
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2025
6 November 2025
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator Lisa Darmanin (Acting Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)
Senator Sean Bell (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator Ralph Babet
Senator Leah Blyth
Senator Ross Cadell
Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm
Senator Jessica Collins
Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher
Senator Jacqui Lambie
Senator Fatima Payman
Senator David Pocock
Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip)
Senator Lidia Thorpe
Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2025
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 5 November 2025 at 7.08 pm.
2. The committee recommends that the provisions of the Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 December 2025 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
5. The committee considered the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 but was unable to reach agreement.
(Lisa Darmanin)
Chair
5 November 2025
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Copyright Amendment Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders about the importance of this legislation.
Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s): November to December 2025
Possible reporting date: 19 December 2025
(signed)
I move:
That the report be adopted.
I move the amendment circulated in my name:
At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of:
(a) the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026; and
(b) the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025, the bill be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2026".
And just to aid the chamber, the amendment to Senator Grogan's motion has two parts. One is that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2026, and that the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025—which I do note for the chamber is actually a private senator's bill standing in the name of Senator Barbara Pocock—be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2026.
In regards to that second matter, I will very briefly say that we are disappointed that, as we understand, the chamber is not going to support that amendment today. It has been a precedent in this Senate that, unless there are extraordinary reasons why a private senator's bill should not be referred for an inquiry, that private senators' bills are referred to an inquiry. We intend to continue to prosecute our case that the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025 be referred to an inquiry. It is a critical issue. And being a private senator's bill, I express in advance our ongoing disappointment should the Senate continue to block this private senator's bill from going to an inquiry.
The government won't be supporting the amendment moved by Senator McKim. I move:
At the end of the motion, add: ", and: the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 not be referred to a committee;
This amendment would ensure that the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill not be referred to a committee. The reason for that is that the treaty has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. They provided the recommendations of that committee to ratify the treaty on 29 October, as is practice across the parliament. We do not then normally start a Senate-only inquiry into a bill that's already been considered by a joint standing committee. So that's the reason why.
On the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill 2025, this bill was introduced yesterday. In discussions across the chamber, the position the government has put to the Greens is that we just want—it was introduced yesterday. We want to consider it before we make a decision about whether or not to refer. This is very similar to the way that the Greens approach government bills when they are for consideration for referral too. I think it's really a matter of timing. We can deal with that once we've had the appropriate time to have a look at what was introduced yesterday and take advice across government.
I rise to support Senator McKim's amendment in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. Today, what we're seeing is Labor and the Liberals joining forces to delay action on an issue that matters to millions of Australians out there—the right to work from home. My bill would give workers the right to work from home for up to two days a week—a modest, sensible reform. It's already a reform that's been adopted and pushed by people around the country and governments. It's a sensible reform that reflects how Australians actually do want to live and work. It's in the media every day. We see Westpac trying to roll back that right and being held to account in the Fair Work Commission. We see banks put on notice that they must honour those work-from-home provisions in agreements and make sure they look after workers.
This is a very live issue right now for millions of Australians. Instead of debating its merits, both major parties have voted to defer the decision to send this important bill to inquiry. This is extraordinary. It's a longstanding Senate convention that private senators' bills, especially those from the crossbench, are sent to inquiries so they can be properly examined. Stakeholders, experts and the public get to have a say. It begs the question: why have the major parties teamed up to delay this right for workers? The coalition has a long history of eroding workers' rights and siding with the bosses—no surprise there. But Labor is supposedly the party of the workers, yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding the rights and improving the lives of workers in this country, especially women, especially parents, especially carers and many others who also want the chance to work from home and have a protected right to work from home. Yet here they are, standing in the way of expanding those rights and improving the lives of workers. So, who benefits from this delay? Who is Labor working for in delaying it?
Let's be clear. They can't claim this work-from-home policy came out of the blue, as, Minister, you have just said. We gave plenty of warning about this, and we moved this very proposal as an amendment to the government's Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Bill six weeks ago. There's nothing surprising here. That is not an explanation for why Labor is doing what it's doing. Workers deserve a fair go, and that includes the right to flexibility, a protected right to work from home. Deferring this bill isn't just procedural, it's a slap in the face of every worker, every woman, every carer, every person who wants to work from home and have a fair go to access that right.
I endorse that contribution from my colleague, Senator Pocock. It is hard to comprehend why this special rule is being rolled out only in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Right to Work from Home) Bill. I'd urge the Senate to also endorse the position put by Senator Pocock.
I also rise to speak to the referral of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill. When we proposed referring this bill to inquiry, we were told that there was a rule that we didn't refer these treaty related bills off to inquiry. There's some rule. We've been hunting for that rule, just like the rule that you can't bring the United States alliance into domestic politics, which is a rule we were told about by Senator Wong the other day. We've been hunting for that rule, and we can't find that rule either. When we were looking for the rule that says you can't question the United States alliance or decisions made by people with gold braid in dark, smoky rooms, we couldn't find that rule written down anywhere either. Now we're told that there's a rule that says, 'No, this is an AUKUS related bill that's going to give some tariff relief to UK weapons manufacturers under the so-called Geelong treaty.'
Apparently, there's a rule somewhere—I'm not sure where—that we can't refer this off to an inquiry either. Well, we've hunted for those rules, and, apparently, those rules are only given to you if you go on a CIA funded fact-finding education trip to Washington. None of the Greens have been on those CIA funded fact-finding trips to Washington, so we haven't got a copy of the rule book that both Labor and the coalition have that says you actually can't investigate or look at these AUKUS related, United States alliance related bills.
Not being in possession of the rule book that's been given to Labor and the coalition, we're moving that this bill go off for an actual inquiry. Why should it go off for an inquiry? It should go off for an inquiry because the Geelong treaty is like a fairytale or a dystopian Minister Marles Disneyland tale. It suggests we're going to have a 50-year-long partnership with the United Kingdom to produce nuclear submarines for Australia. The UK can't keep their own submarines in the water! Last time I checked, I think they had one out of five in the water, and that was only allowed to go out to get the bows wet and then come back again. Their own auditor has said that they can't produce nuclear reactors and won't produce nuclear reactors for the AUKUS project. They can't deal with their own nuclear waste. They've got dozens of rusting hulks of their former nuclear submarines, chock-a-block with tonnes and tonnes of highly enriched uranium, just sitting there in ponds because they don't know what to do with them. They're spending billions of dollars a year keeping an eye on their rusting hulks. The UK is the sick person of Europe when it comes to defence expenditure. They literally can't keep their own defence force running. They can't put an aircraft carrier in the water, because they can't surround it with protection. They can't put their nuclear submarines in the water, because they can't maintain them. They can't build a new nuclear reactor, because they haven't got the money and Rolls-Royce, who Australia is giving billions of dollars to, won't produce a reactor.
We say we should look into this before we sign another treaty. What the war parties of Labor and the coalition say is, 'Actually, no, there's a rule. There's a rule, and you can't look into this.' They've got a CIA based rule book that we haven't got access to. Well, we say: bugger the rule book; we want this to go to an inquiry.
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to Senator McKim's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.
I will now deal with Senator McKim's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report.
I seek leave to make a very short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
Now that that amendment has been successful, that means that part (a) of my motion has been changed so that the Geelong treaty implementation bill will not be referred. Obviously that's not our position, so I'm now going to ask that the question be split on the two parts, (a) and (b).
The question is that part (a), as amended, be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
The question now is that part (b) of Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to.
I move:
That general business notice of motion no. 256 be considered during general business today.
Question agreed to.
If there is no objection, those matters are agreed to.
At the request of Senator Ruston, I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 May 2026:
The impact of microplastics, toxins and forever chemicals on human health, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact of microplastics, toxins and forever chemicals on reproductive health, including:
(i) women's fertility, hormonal disorders, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome and premature menopause,
(ii) in utero transmission of microplastics and the impact on placental function and foetal development,
(iii) maternal health, including impacts on pregnancy outcomes like miscarriage, preterm birth and still birth, and
(iv) fertility impacts across all populations, including men's fertility;
(b) disruption of key developmental pathways in the first 1,000 days of life that significantly impact later-life health outcomes like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cognitive function;
(c) cardiovascular impacts, including links between microplastic accumulation in arterial plaque and increased risks of heart attack, stroke and cardiovascular mortality;
(d) links between endocrine disrupters and increased rates of cancer in young people, fertility issues, hormone dysregulation, respiratory diseases, inflammatory conditions and immune system dysfunction;
(e) the effectiveness of any education or informative efforts to notify the public of potential harms and prevention opportunities;
(f) the potential benefits of a national standard for consumer products;
(g) protocols and policies of other countries which have proven to be effective;
(h) the adequacy of current research, monitoring and measurement standards for microplastic contamination in Australia; and
(i) any other related matter.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting this referral. The Senate recently reappointed a select committee on PFAS with a similar remit as the inquiry being proposed by Senator Ruston. This includes the health, environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of PFAS. Similarly, the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water only recently reported in May 2024 on the environmental impacts of plastic pollution and extensively canvassed the impact of microplastic pollution on human health. The Senate should have time to consider the findings of its existing work before commissioning further referrals on related issues.
The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Ruston be agreed to.
At the request of Senators Green, Shoebridge, David Pocock and Scarr, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern the recent escalation of violence in Sudan's Darfur region, including reports of large-scale atrocities, including mass killings, starvation, rapes and other violent crimes;
(b) acknowledges the profound grief and anguish felt by the Sudanese-Australian community, some of whom have lost family members to the violence and fear for the safety of loved ones still missing or detained;
(c) expresses solidarity with all members of the Sudanese-Australian community during this time of fear, mourning and helplessness; and
(d) expresses its sincere hope that international partners work urgently and cooperatively to secure humanitarian access, safe passage for civilians and a sustainable peace for Sudan.
I seek leave to make a short one-minute statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I would like to acknowledge Amad Mohamed—a proud Canberra and co-founder of the Sudanese-Australian Advocacy Network—along with other members of the Sudanese community in the gallery today. I thank you for your tireless advocacy and for continuing to speak out on this humanitarian tragedy. We stand with you in this time of tragedy for your community. I also wish to thank senators across this chamber for their constructive engagement, particularly Senators Scarr, Shoebridge and Green. I would really like to extend my sincere thanks and acknowledge the government and Minister Wong's office for their efforts, and I commend the announcement overnight of Australia's $10 million in humanitarian assistance for the people of Sudan.
by leave—I move an amendment that has been circulated in the chamber:
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep concern the recent escalation of violence in Sudan's Darfur region, including reports of large-scale atrocities, including mass killings, starvation, rapes and other violent crimes;
(b) acknowledges the profound grief and anguish felt by the Sudanese-Australian community, some of whom have lost family members to the violence and fear for the safety of loved ones still missing or detained;
(c) expresses solidarity with all members of the Sudanese-Australian community during this time of fear, mourning and helplessness;
(d) expresses its sincere hope that international partners work urgently and cooperatively to secure humanitarian access, safe passage for civilians and a sustainable peace for Sudan; and
(e) condemns the escalating terror campaign against Christians in Nigeria by Islamic terror organisations Boko Haram, Islamic State of West Africa Province and Fulani Militants which has resulted in more than 20,000 deaths of innocent civilians for their religious beliefs.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I would also like to acknowledge the importance of this motion in terms of our wonderful Sudanese Australian community. What is happening in Sudan is a human catastrophe. Millions and millions of people have been displaced. Famine is having a devastating effect across Sudan, and the images we saw coming out of Sudan last week were absolutely horrifying. This is an issue which should be on the international agenda, and it is fit and proper that this parliament, this Senate, stands in solidarity with our wonderful Sudanese Australian community at this time of great pain. I was very, very pleased to have the opportunity to co-sponsor this motion.
by leave—I want to say that we won't be supporting Senator Roberts' amendment. We had tried to reach agreement but have been unable to reach agreement. I would like to acknowledge the ACT Sudanese community leaders here today in the chamber—welcome to your parliament—and also place on the record the government's concern and our preparedness to provide assistance to support civilians in Sudan, where the world's largest humanitarian and displacement crisis is taking place, with more than 30 million people in need of urgent support due to ongoing the conflict. This includes approximately 11 million people who are internally displaced and another three million people who have fled to neighbouring countries. Australia's assistance, including the amount that was announced overnight of $10 million, will be directed through the United Nations and NGO partners. It will provide food, clean water and shelter and support to victims-survivors of gender based violence.
I seek leave to make a very brief contribution.
Leave is granted for one minute.
I want to note on behalf of my party, the Greens, that we're grateful to see the whole chamber coming together to support this consensus motion. We've all been so horrified by what we've seen happening in Sudan and el-Fasher, and I want to speak to the Sudanese community not just in the ACT but across the country. I met with representatives in Melbourne on the weekend. There is fear and anxiety in families being out of contact and not knowing what is happening. There's escalating violence. To be clear, this is not a conflict driven by the Sudanese people themselves. This is a proxy war driven by countries who seek to increase their wealth, increase their access to Sudanese resources, and the Sudanese people are paying the price of that. Our hearts and our minds and hopefully the actions of this government go out to the Sudanese people right now. We don't support the amendment because it simplifies a far more complex conflict. (Time expired)
The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Roberts be agreed to.
I will now put the motion as moved by Senator Gallagher, standing in the name of Senator Green.
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
The question is that government business No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.
I move:
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 14 November 2025, any documents, including all correspondence, ministerial briefing notes, legal advice briefs and departmental assessments and/or reports from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and/or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to the Northern Endeavour floating production storage and offloading vessel and the Hazardous Waste Act, Article 11 of the Basel Convention and/or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation approval condition 10(b).
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting this order for the production of documents, and I would encourage Senator Whish-Wilson to think about narrowing the scope. This motion seeks all documents, briefing notes, correspondence, ministerial briefing notes, advice, briefs and departmental assessments. There's no time period for the scope of the OPD, it's probably across a number of departments and it gives the minister five working days to comply. As I said in my remarks to the Senate yesterday, there is simply no way that the government can comply with an order that is that wide in scope and that has a timeliness of five days in order to report, and, as such, the government will not be supporting the OPD.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 206 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.
At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for the production of documents no. 27, agreed to by the Senate on 24 July 2025, requesting that the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025, table all documents relating to any advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion for 100,000 new homes for first home buyers and any advice provided to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing since 1 January 2025 in relation to the Government's plan to enable first home buyers to purchase a home with a 5% deposit was only partially complied with,
(ii) the tabled documents do not provide any briefings/modelling conducted by the Treasury into the scheme, as sought by the order,
(iii) the minister's explanation to the Senate pertaining to the failure to adequately comply with the order did not provide a credible response as to why the requested documents have not been released in their entirety, and
(iv) the Prime Minister has previously stated that the Treasury's briefing/modelling indicated an increase in house prices of 0.5%; and
(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for one minute.
The government will not be supporting this motion. The government has already responded to Senator Bragg's order for the production of documents. A number of documents had been identified as being in scope; two of them were released. PII claims were made over the rest of them because almost all of the rest were cabinet submissions or ERC submissions. PII claims were made over others because the policy for the 100,000 homes is negotiated with states and territories, and we would have to negotiate with them over the release of those documents.
This motion also seeks the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 today. I just wanted to let the Senate know that there are no further documents that I am in position to be able to table by 5.30 today. So the government will not be supporting this, because we cannot comply with the terms of the OPD.
The question is that general business notice of motion No. 244, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.
I seek leave to move a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper as circulated.
Leave not granted.
Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business of the Senate, namely a motion to discharge a bill from the Notice Paper.
Firstly, I would like to inform the chamber that Senator Lambie will be co-sponsoring this motion. I start by saying that I have a lot of respect for Minister Keogh, and I thank him for his work for veterans in the last term and the work that he is doing now. It's a big job, there's been a lot to work on when it comes to DVA, and I've appreciated his work and his engagement. But this so-called Defence honours bill doesn't honour our veterans. I'm also very concerned by the government's attempts to stop the Senate inquiry doing its job and reporting on this bill. There have been submissions—
Senator Pocock, I'm going to stop you right there. You moved a suspension motion, and the debate needs to be around why the suspension is urgent and why you need to put aside standing orders, not around the matters before that.
This is why it's urgent—
I haven't heard you express to the Senate the urgency, and that's what you need to focus on.
The Senate committee was ready to report weeks ago, and yet the government is delaying that. This is a completely friendless bill. It strips people of their right to a merits review—
Senator Pocock, I am going to remind you once again. It's not about the bill. You moved a suspension order; you want the Senate to agree with you that so much of standing orders be put aside for you to demonstrate your position. You need to focus on why you need to do that, not on the bill. Why do you believe that this suspension order is so urgent that the standing orders need to be put aside?
This is urgent because we have a friendless bill that the government is stopping a Senate committee reporting on. So I urge the Senate. It's time to actually say, as the Senate, that we won't stand for that. We will not deal with a bill that the department admitted they did no consultation on. That was very clear from the 60-odd submissions and very clear from every single witness who appeared before the Senate committee. It was a friendless bill. People were bemused by this bill and the need for it, and what I've heard in consulting with veterans here in the ACT is that, in the wake of the royal commission—
Senator Pocock, once again you are going to matters not related to the suspension.
Sure. I've heard from veterans about the urgency needed to send a message to the government that this should not be the priority. Responding and implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide should be the priority. That is why this is so urgent.
This is urgent because, again, it was disturbing that there was no consultation. This is urgent because this has been prioritised ahead of so many other things that could be done for our veterans, people who have served this country and deserve better recognition and to be looked after. This is urgent because had this bill been law a few years ago Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheehan would not have been recognised for his bravery and valour. This is urgent because the government is seeking to stop the next Teddy Sheehan from being recognised. This is urgent because we can't play these games any longer. We can't have a Senate committee being denied the opportunity to actually report on a bill which clearly has no support in the Senate.
That's why I'm suspending standing orders and moving this motion to actually discharge this bill, to send a message to the government when it comes to consultation on bills that you bring to the parliament and to the Senate and to send a very clear message to veterans and veterans' families out there that we see you, we hear what you're saying and the Senate will act to ensure the government gets the very clear message that there is a whole range of priorities when it comes to veterans and communities across the country but this is not one of them.
It gives me great pleasure to support Senator Pocock's suspension of standing orders, and the coalition will be supporting the suspension of standing orders that has been moved by Senator Pocock in order for the Senate to be able to discharge this friendless bill. The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is an affront to every Australian who has ever worn our uniform. This bill could not be fixed and should not be bought back—
Senator McKenzie, I am speaking. This is a suspension motion; that is what you need to address your remarks to.
It is a betrayal of trust on the eve of Remembrance Day for this Senate not to prioritise suspending our standing orders in order to be able to discharge this bill from our Notice Paper so it can go back from whence it came and the government can actually get on with implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. This bill is a betrayal of trust. It's a cynical attempt by this government to strip away the rights of veterans and their families to seek justice, recognition and accountability—
Senator McKenzie, the suspension order is not a proxy opportunity to debate the bill. You need to demonstrate to the chamber why the matter is so urgent that the standing orders need to be set aside. It's not a proxy debate. It's a new debate about why a suspension is necessary.
This bill does not fix a problem. It actually creates one. I'm trying to save the government, through this proxy sort of debate, from the embarrassment of having this bill on their books and continuing to support this bill becoming law on the eve of Remembrance Day.
Senator McKenzie, I'm going to ask you to sit—
That's directly relevant.
I will determine what's relevant and what's not. There is a suspension order before the Senate. Senators are seeking to suspend standing orders to do something other than what is next. Your arguments, your debate, need to be relevant to why we need to suspend, not the bill. Please continue.
We need to suspend the Senate in order to discharge this bill because we are five days away from 11 November, Remembrance Day, when veterans from around the country will gather to remember those that have fallen in battle, those who were maimed in battle and the great joy of victory and peace. Having this bill on the Senate Notice Paper at that time would, I believe, bring our chamber into disrepute. We want to stand with veterans on Remembrance Day, and we are only days out from that day. We want to be united with our veterans on 11 November and tell them that, while the Labor Party may want to only remember you for 20 years, we, the Senate, are prepared to hold you in our hearts and remember you forever. To say that it's only two decades before you can actually limit—
Senator McKenzie, you have drifted once again.
I've drifted?
You need to focus on the need for the suspension.
I think the Senate needs to suspend standing orders to save Minister Conroy from the embarrassment that he is in the other chamber.
Keogh!
Keogh. The government are so arrogant that they thought extending the reporting day would buy them time to convince us this bill was palatable, but here we stand, united, to say it can't be fixed. When questioned in the other chamber, Minister Keogh rolled his eyes—
Senator McKenzie.
and I don't want Minister Keogh—
Senator McKenzie! You are using this suspension order as a proxy for another debate. You are to focus on why the matter before us, the suspension order, is so important that we have to stand aside the chamber's standing orders. That's the focus.
Setting aside the standing orders so the Senate can take a decision about this bill is important. If the government won't recognise that this bill is friendless and withdraw it themselves, then we believe suspending standing orders in this chamber is an appropriate course of action for our chamber to take on the eve of Remembrance Day.
For every single day this bill stays as part of this parliament's consideration, veterans and their families, grandchildren and great-grandchildren would see it as a great disrespect. I think the Labor Party should do themselves a favour and vote with the rest of the chamber to suspend standing orders and discharge the bill. It's okay to admit defeat. It's okay to say you got it wrong. It's actually good leadership to be able to say, 'We should have consulted, and this is a dog of a bill.' To do it quickly, rather than to leave it here and show disrespect to our veteran community over coming days, when they will be gathering on Remembrance Day in country towns, regional capital cities and indeed on barracks, would, I think, be the right thing for the government to do. Please support the suspension motion.
I rise to make a couple of points, but, before I do, I'll respond to where Senator McKenzie ended. There isn't a government that's done more for veterans than this government has. There isn't a minister who has done more than Minister Keogh has in shepherding through the recommendations from the royal commission and ensuring that veterans get their entitlements, which is something that this government has done. That's meant that thousands of veterans have actually got the compensation that they were owed and that they weren't getting under the former government. I come back to the point. I had to respond to where you left it, Senator McKenzie.
I've got Senator McKenzie on a point of order.
It's on relevance to the suspension motion before the chamber. Could you draw the minister to the motion.
The minister has drawn herself to the suspension order.
I think it's right that the government is able to respond to the sledges that you just did in your contribution, Senator McKenzie.
I've got a couple of points here. The government understand how the numbers work in the Senate, so we understand that this suspension will get up and that this bill will be discharged. I'll say a few things: (1) this is the first the government has heard of it. This is the first the minister has heard of it. So it's clear that Senator Pocock, Senator McKenzie and Senator Shoebridge did not have the courtesy to raise this with Minister Keogh—
This isn't the first time—
We're not in committee. Why are you on your feet?
The shadow minister has been raising this issue—
Senator McKenzie! You don't just stand and launch into a debate. You're either standing on a point of order or standing on something else. Senator Shoebridge?
I have a point of order as to relevance, given your earlier rulings in relation to both my other colleagues.
I think that Minister Gallagher is being relevant to the suspension order. I will continue to listen closely. If the minister is not relevant, I will draw her to the suspension order.
It's relevant because we are suspending on a matter to discharge a bill that has not been raised with the minister by any of you. He's just told me. He said, 'This is the first I have heard of it.' This is why it is not urgent. That courtesy should've been extended to Minister Keogh.
Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge?
A courtesy to a minister is not—
Senator Shoebridge, we are not in a debate!
My point of order is to relevance. I again draw you to your earlier rulings to Senator McKenzie and Senator Pocock, and I ask that you address the same rulings to government speakers.
I am addressing the same ruling, and the minister is being relevant.
This motion wasn't even on the Notice Paper. The motion that you seek to discharge legislation—we just had formal motions. Why wasn't it put on the Notice Paper yesterday? Why are you having to suspend to put this on? You've had all week. You've had two weeks!
An honourable senator interjecting—
No! You put it as a formal motion.
Because you denied leave! You denied leave. That's why we have to suspend!
What, because you didn't get it in on time?
Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat—
Senator McKenzie! This is not—this is the Senate chamber. It's not okay to be trying to engage in some debate. You are out of order. Minister, please continue.
The Senate has sat for eight days. This is day 8. It could have been put on the Notice Paper. The minister could have been afforded the opportunity to speak with people about it or indeed to withdraw the bill himself if he felt that that was the outcome that was going to be needed to be done. But there was no courtesy—no observing of how the Senate runs through formal motions. It's just a straight stunt pulled at the end of formal motions on the final sitting day without any courtesy to the minister and whilst a bill is before a committee.
I've been in here long enough to have had lectures from a number of people in this place that, if a bill is before a committee, it's sacrosanct. That is, the inquiry is underway. The Senate voted on 20 October to extend the reporting date to 21 November. We haven't got to the reporting date. The government hasn't received the report of the committee. That report of the committee might have said, 'Discharge the bill from the Notice Paper,' and the government would have responded to the report. But the report hasn't even been written. It hasn't been delivered. I have sat here plenty of times and been given lectures about why bills before committee should be allowed to report—but not this one, after the Senate itself has voted to extend the reporting date.
I understand how this is going to go today. But I am saying the standards here are unusual: the lack of consultation, the lack of discussion and the lack of opportunity for the minister to speak with any of the movers of this motion—Senator Pocock, Senator McKenzie or Senator Shoebridge—and to respond to your concerns on a matter that is currently before a committee which Senator Ciccone chairs and isn't due to report until 21 November. I would have thought—again, after we've just resolved one of the other issues in the Senate this week—that courtesy and convention matter. It just seems that that doesn't matter to most in this chamber. They can go and stand and pontificate about everyone else but when it comes to actually observing some of the conventions in this place—have a talk to a minister, for goodness's sake. Put it on the Notice Paper. Put a formal motion. Put a notice of motion on the Notice Paper. That is why you give notice that people have courtesy to actually understand and the opportunity to talk or amend or discuss or—
Or shut down!
Well, no, Senator Henderson, we don't shut down. No-one has the numbers in this place. We all work together to deliver the outcome. This is an ambush without proper consideration of all parties who are involved, including the committee and including the Senate that voted to extend the reporting date to the 21st. That doesn't matter anymore. I urge people to think about that.
I support Senator Pocock's motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it's serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they're shocked, they're in pain and they're in anguish. It's the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It's the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days.
Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension.
We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That's why it has to be done today. That's why it's urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that's coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin.
Lack of consultation and lack of discussion—that's what the government says is the fault of this urgency motion seeking to discharge this bill. 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion'—is there no sense of shame in the Labor Party? 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion' is almost the definition of Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill. 'Lack of consultation and lack of discussion' is why the Labor Party are where they are at this moment in the Senate.
They brought in legislation, in relation to veterans, which impacts deeply on the veterans community. You don't understand that until you sit there and listen to them. We've consulted with a series of veterans and veterans organisations, and this bill touches deeply on them. What they find utterly insulting is that this bill came without ever speaking to them. Then, the government here seeks to criticise this motion to wipe the bill off the papers because of a lack of consultation and a lack of discussion.
I say this—through you, President—to the minister: I did meet with Minister Keogh in the last week, and I conveyed to him what I'm going to convey to the Senate now. This bill has no friends. Every single veterans community feels attacked by this bill. They were excluded from the consultation for this bill. I said to the minister, 'The sensible thing would be for the government to withdraw the bill.' The government hasn't withdrawn the bill. That's why this motion, co-sponsored by Senators Pocock and McKenzie and by myself on behalf of the Greens, is before the Senate now—because the government hasn't withdrawn a friendless bill.
Every day that the bill remains on the papers—you ask why it's urgent, President—the veterans community feels insulted and attacked. They feel like the rights that they have for their family members—their grandfathers and their great-grandmas—to be recognised could be taken away. Every day this bill is on the Notice Paper, the veterans community feels insulted because they're being disrespected and ignored.
I'm not going to pretend the government hasn't done good work for veterans. I've celebrated the work that the government has done in putting extra money into processing veterans' claims. I think the secretary is doing great work within the department trying to fix some of that claim stuff.
Senator Shoebridge, I bring you back to the suspension.
I'll stop saying nice things about the government. But, with the history of that work—then coming in without talking to any of the key stakeholders and not even talking to the tribunal itself—how could they bring a bill that is amending the tribunal without getting the views of the tribunal? I invite those members who might be thinking to vote against this resolution to read the submission from the tribunal. The tribunal itself said that this bill is not only unnecessary; it's harmful for their work. In many ways, by bringing this motion up, we're actually doing the government a favour. It's a nice, clean, early kill to a bill which has no friends and which causes the Labor Party harm every day it's on the Notice Paper. Most of the time the work in the veteran space is multipartisan. We try and work it out to help the veterans community, because we all care about ensuring the outcome to help the veterans community, and this bill really stands out as being seriously against that flow. I say again that every minute it's on the Notice Paper it's causing actual harm in the veterans community. Let's get this urgency motion done. Let's get the motion adopted, and then, if there are significant issues—and they have yet to be ventilated through this bill—in how the tribunal works, work with the veterans community, talk through the issues and come forward with something which we can all agree on.
I stand to make a very brief contribution today also in support of Senator Gallagher's contribution on behalf of the government. As chair of the relevant committee where this report and this bill is before, I find it quite offensive that senators in this place are effectively denying other senators the ability to make a contribution to this bill in the normal democratic processes that this institution so proudly upholds. If senators are so strongly wedded to this bill, then allow the committee to present a report like every other committee does. Let's not pre-empt what the committee and I will put forward to this Senate to consider.
The other point is that thank God that I had the minister here today to tell me that this was on for debate, because I was stuck in another committee and was not able to make a contribution to the substantiveness of this bill. I understand that we are dealing with suspension that is before us today, but you are denying other senators who are not aware of this suspension right now the ability to put their voices on the bill, whether it's for or against. The irony coming from those opposite and the crossbench, who come in here and lecture the government every day about how undemocratic this place is—look at yourselves. How undemocratic is this? You're not allowing senators to come in and prepare an argument for all of us to consider this bill before us. Let's suspend and let's vote on a bill, but let's not wait for the committee's decision. The committee has been working very hard on this bill. We held an inquiry some weeks ago. We've had 73 submitters to the inquiry. There were around six to eight witnesses that appeared before the committee when we held the public hearing here in Canberra and many others.
I've spoken to many senators like Senator Shoebridge and Senator Henderson about me bringing forward a draft report to the committee. In fact I mentioned in our meeting yesterday that I was planning to bring one next week. This is good faith, and this is how you treat me and the committee? Shame on you for making a mockery of the Senate's procedures and the Senate committee processes. I have given the opposition and other members on my committee really great respect and worked very hard with you all on these really important issues. As someone who is married to someone who is a veteran and currently serving in the ADF, I say to all of you: think about what you are doing today. Allow these democratic processes that people like my wife and others have fought so bloody hard for in this place and protect our country every single day. At the end of the day all we are after is to fulfill our democratic processes. This is why the Australian people elected us—to make those tough decisions. Some days we'll win, and some days we'll lose. But allow me and my committee to come to this place and say: 'Here are the recommendations. Here is the evidence.' Guess what? I might even say to the government, 'Go back and reconsider.' But it is the right of the committee to do that, and it's right for this place and every single senator here to have a say and be prepared.
Sadly I feel like this suspension is more a stunt for some in this place, and I hate to say that, but let's stop treating veterans as a political football and be serious about how we treat every man and woman of the fine ADF and every single veteran who serves our country and puts on that uniform every single day with pride. There are a lot of people who have made sacrifices. One of the very important issues before us is around honours and awards. Let's make no mistake; that bill needs to be looked at. There needs to be reform. I don't want to get into the merits of that bill, President, because I know your earlier rulings. But all I plead with every single senator here today is to discharge this motion before us and allow the committee to present a report, and let's have that debate in the last sitting week here in November. At the end of the day, I think collectively, we can all come together and make the right call about how we envisage our honours and awards system for those people who put on the uniform and who have defended this country with great pride. The least we can do is say thank you to each of those people.
As the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I support this motion because this is democracy in action. I speak on behalf of veterans across this country who came before us in every guise to say, 'This bill is so flawed.' This bill is so flawed it cannot proceed. The fact that this bill is still on the Notice Paper demonstrates that this government is not listening.
I am not able to discuss private discussions and committee discussions that I've had with Senator Ciccone and other members of our committee, because they are confidential. But I want to put on the record one thing very clearly to Minister Gallagher. The shadow minister for veterans' affairs, Mr Chester, has been imploring Minister Keogh to withdraw this bill all week. I think it's also fair to say—
Senator Henderson, I refer you to the suspension motion.
That is why this is so urgent, Madam President, because the government is not listening, and I reject completely the pious—
The time allotted for this debate has expired.
The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Pocock be agreed to.
I move:
That the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper.
I want to outline again that the government will not be supporting this motion. We do not agree that the bill should be discharged from the Notice Paper. For those senators that weren't in the chamber, the contribution made by my colleague Senator Ciccone, the chair of the committee that this bill is currently before, was very convincing about why this bill should not be discharged at this point, prior to the committee reporting and prior to the government being able to consider that report—the view of the committee—and being able to consider those recommendations that the committee might find. That includes perhaps a finding from the committee that the bill be discharged; I don't know. Senator Ciccone chaired a meeting yesterday. I don't know what that committee was deliberating on at that point, but there are opportunities to allow the committee to finish its work.
I've been in consultation with the minister responsible in the last half an hour, as I've been trying to understand the origins of this motion because there was no notice given about this motion being moved or the decision of others in this place to have this bill discharged from the Notice Paper. But the minister advises me that there has been consultation. Again, the committee might come back and say that there should be further consultation or that the tribunal should be able to provide a submission further to how the bill is drafted. I don't know. I don't know because the committee hasn't been in a position to report.
But I can say that, when we came to government, the Department of Veterans' Affairs was broken. To those opposite that sit there and lecture us: it was broken. The backlog was months. Veterans, the men and women who served this country with distinction, did not get the entitlements that were owed to them, because of the enormous backlog—because guess what? There were no staff in the department. The staff had been—
No, it's not a debate, Senator McKenzie.
Senator McKenzie?
On relevance to the question before the chair, it is about discharging the bill, not about staffing issues in Veterans' Affairs.
The minister is free to talk about the bill, Senator McKenzie. She is being relevant.
I think senators would know that, when we move into debating the actual motion, there usually is a fairly broad and wide-ranging debate that occurs. But, in relation to the comments that were made by Senator Pocock, by Senator McKenzie and by Senator Shoebridge, criticising the government's approach to support for veterans, I think it's only right that we put on the table exactly what has happened in our approach to veterans, whether it be in implementing the recommendations of the royal commission or, indeed, the very substantial increases in entitlements and support for veterans that the government have implemented.
If you look back through the last couple of budgets, you will see that the largest movement of funds, of increases in estimates variations, has occurred in veterans' payments. And why is that? That's because the Department of Veterans' Affairs is being appropriately staffed. They have permanent staff—not contractors, not people that come and go through labour hire arrangements, but permanent staff—that work there and are able to process those compensation claims. That's what has happened. Those massive, multibillion dollar increases in funding have occurred because we have shown veterans the respect that they weren't shown by the former government when it comes to access to their entitlements and when it comes to the department being able to do the job of supporting veterans. That is the approach this government has taken. With Minister Keogh, we're the ones that have been implementing the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. In fact, I had a meeting with Minister Keogh just this week—I think it was on Monday—to talk through some of the next steps that he's bringing to strengthen support and to strengthen the wellbeing arrangements for veterans in this country.
This is priority work for this government, and there were a number of recommendations that Minister Keogh is now overseeing and implementing, including establishing a wellbeing agency and framework to, again, better support veterans. One of the things that the royal commission found was a capability gap. That is the work that Minister Keogh is doing. I know how much he invests in senators in this place. I know how much he puts in relationships to make sure that the work in this area is as bipartisan or tripartisan—multipartisan—as it can be. It's important. The parliament's support for veterans matters. And that is perhaps why this is done today, without notice, without respect, without communication, without even giving a heads-up to the chair who is currently doing the inquiry into the bill.
I mean, honestly! The lectures we get from people in this place about their ability to contribute, and the Senate, this chamber, agrees to agrees to extend the reporting date to the 21st. Honestly, Greens party, we get lectures from you all the time about process, about fairness, about bills before committees—but not on this one, due to report in a week or so, due to provide recommendations to government and let government consider them. But no. The bill isn't due for debate. It's not being brought to the chamber for debate, because it's before a committee, and yet all the democratic warriors in this place who are always championing free speech and saying to allow the debate—not on this bill. There is no courtesy, no consultation, no discussion. 'Discharge the bill.' I honestly don't think I have seen something like this being done and supported. I can understand some senators supporting it. With others, I am surprised that this would be the approach.
Also, even if—we don't know; the committee could have recommended the bill be discharged, in which case we would have responded to that. But, even in the event that the bill comes to this chamber, allow the debate. Vote the bill down. That's what happens. That's what this chamber is for. It's for scrutiny and for consideration of legislation and, at the end of the day, if there isn't a majority of votes, the bill gets voted down. But we allow others to contribute to it. We allow people to give a speech to the bill. You're not even allowing that. That is the extraordinary step that is being taken today.
Bills have been discharged. I think you, Senator McKenzie, discharged a bill on agricultural levies. So it has happened, but it happens rarely and it usually happens with some discussion or some notice, putting a motion on notice in this chamber so people can have a talk about it before it comes to a vote—but not on this. I mean, really. The Senate is going to stop functioning if people continue to dismiss and disregard how the Senate operates, how the committee system operates, how courtesy operates. This is something that has shaped this chamber for 124 years. Yet those practices which have been shaped over decades, into our second century, are now being torn apart because Senator Pocock didn't want to pick up the phone and say to Minister Keogh: 'Let's have a chat about this. We're thinking about discharging your bill from the Notice Paper.' Senator McKenzie didn't want to speak to the chair of the committee and say: 'Hey, Senator Ciccone, I know there's a bill before your committee, and I know it doesn't report till 21 November, which is about a fortnight away, but I'm thinking of supporting a motion to discharge it from the Notice Paper. Do you have a view on that?' None of that has been shown.
Can I interrupt for a second. The chatter that's happening at the back of the chamber—can you move your conversation to outside the chamber? The noise is carrying to the front of the chamber while the minister is on her feet. Please be aware that that noise carries across the chamber and is disruptive. Please be respectful while the minister is on her feet.
That's why people deserve the right to debate this motion, and that's why the government will be debating this motion. People should be able to debate this and raise concerns about the approach that this Senate has taken. If you think you can just walk in here without notice and seek to discharge a piece of legislation without even having the courtesy to speak to the minister, then the government does reserve its right to make a contribution on this.
We have seen, I think, in this sitting fortnight, the way that the chamber approaches its work fundamentally shifting. It might be that the majority of this chamber feels that that's okay, but, in the meantime, I think it's within our responsibility as a government to draw that to the chamber's attention and to be allowed to put an alternative view. That alternative view is that this bill should not be discharged from the Notice Paper. Put this motion on notice and bring it back when we resume on 24 November. By then, Senator Ciccone's committee will have reported in the timeframe that this Senate set. I note there were contributions earlier that said the government had refused to report. That is not the case. The Senate decided—
The committee decided.
Well, when I look up this bill on the Notice Paper, it says, 'The Senate agreed on 20 October that the committee report on 21 November.' When you look this up on the committee's website, that is what it says. Put the motion on then. Put it on the 24th. Let's have the vote on the 24th. At least the committee will have reported, and at least there will have been notice and there will have been respect shown to people, including the minister, about what the Senate parties' views are on this. Show respect to the minister, allow that to happen, allow the committee to report and have this vote on the 24th. Put the motion on notice. That is the approach that should have been followed, instead of, right at the end of formal motions, lodging this without any notice to anyone at all.
The approach that the Senate is taking—and it appears that the majority of the Senate is taking—on this motion is wrong. It sets a precedent, I think, that should worry any committee who are currently rolling up their sleeves and inquiring into any piece of legislation. 'Don't worry; you can be seven-eighths, one-quarter or two-thirds of the way through your committee inquiry, and the Senate might just discharge the whole thing because we don't care what the committee process that underpins the Senate means anymore. When we do it, we won't talk to the chair, we won't talk to people who are on the committee'—or, maybe, even worse, other people on the committee knew what was going to happen here, Senator Ciccone, but they just didn't tell the chair. That's even more disrespectful. Senator Shoebridge, you must have known about this, but you didn't tell the chair. Well, what an approach. You should pat yourself on the back for that! Honestly, how is the committee system going to work if members of the committee knew what was going to happen today on an inquiry before the committee and didn't have the courtesy to tell the chair?
Senator Henderson, a point of order?
An imputation has been made against other senators, named as members of this committee. I would ask the minister to withdraw that imputation.
I didn't hear the comment, Senator Henderson, so I will rely on the minister in relation to her withdrawal—if that was actually made.
If there was any offence to any senator, I withdraw.
An opposition senator interjecting—
I have said, 'I withdraw.' I unconditionally withdraw, but I would say that the idea that senators on a committee knew of this and did not advise the chair—I think that seriously damages that committee's ability to do work in the future because the chair had no idea that this was the approach that colleagues he was working on an inquiry with were going to take.
The point I'm making here is: show some respect. The bill's before a committee. The inquiry should be allowed to finish, and the report should be tabled. If people feel passionately, to the point that they want to discharge the legislation, put the motion on notice and deal with it at that point, once the committee has done its work. I think people should seriously consider this before voting.
Minister Wong?
I rise to speak—
I have precedence.
Senator McKenzie, a point of order?
On precedence, around the call being circulated across the chamber, the Minister for Finance has spoken for 15 minutes. A leader of another political party on the opposite side of the chamber has stood up to seek the call, and, inconsistent with other rulings from the chair, the call has proceeded across the Senate chamber.
I will hand the call to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. That is the ruling, on the advice I have from the clerk.
On a point of order, I'm curious as to whether that guidance could be sought from the Clerk.
Order! There is a senator on their feet seeking clarification.
It is just unusual for it not to come back to this side of the chamber.
I have received advice from the clerk, and I have made the ruling based on the advice from the clerk. Minister?
In support of your ruling, this is a matter that I've raised with the Clerk directly in the last week, about the order of the call and how it usually does go to and fro across the chamber. He advised me that that is normally the case, other than in relation to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, where precedence does apply. That was certainly the advice the Clerk gave me, and it is consistent with the advice that you have been provided.
I now hand the call to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Wong.
I appreciate the call and the opportunity to speak on this motion. I say to Senators Shoebridge and Pocock: I think there's a fair bit of relevance deprivation in this motion. I think this is a motion about a couple of blokes who really feel a bit of relevance deprivation, so instead of—
On a point of order, Acting Deputy President, the senator is impugning the character of other senators in the chamber, and that is against the standing orders.
I don't believe that Minister Wong had made a direct imputation or named any senators, and that's contained within the standing orders. If her commentary has caused offence, I would invite the minister to withdraw in good faith of the work of the chamber.
I'm always happy to withdraw. If people are sensitive about the fact that we point out the lack of good faith and the way in which Senator Pocock has handled this—someone who comes into the chamber and tells us how we should behave better. I would say to him that an unholy alliance with Senator McKenzie and the coalition, to prevent a committee from doing the Senate's work, is not your best self, Senator Pocock. What I would say is that I understand that the configuration of the Senate has meant that some crossbenchers feel like they are less relevant. I don't think that is an excuse to engage in stunts and the disruption of the Senate and, frankly, disruption of a committee.
To be honest with you, I find it quite remarkable that Senator Pocock and Senator Shoebridge, along with the coalition, which is the alliance of the same people who blocked more housing in Australia—actually I don't think you were part of this Senator Pocock, but I can't recall—now want to come to this place and say: 'We won't even talk to the minister. We won't participate in the committee. We won't tell the Leader of the Government in the Senate or the manager that we're going to move a stunt.'
Or the chair.
Or the chair of the committee who is dealing with the inquiry that the Senate referred to it—you're not going to give any of those colleagues the respect of saying, 'By the way, we're going to do this.' You're just going to rock up and discharge legislation from the Notice Paper while Senator Ciccone and his committee are in the middle of an inquiry. And you say, Senator Pocock—
I'll take the interjection, Senator Pocock. He said, 'It's a Labor dominated inquiry.' That's what legislation committees are, Senator. They are legislation committees, which are chaired by the government, and that situation has been the case for a very long time. That doesn't prevent minority reports. As someone who has spent more time in opposition than in government, I wrote many minority reports. I did the work. You do the work. You show up; you do the work, and you provide a minority report.
Senator Pocock, you joked this morning about not going to question time. You joked this morning about not turning up for work. If any of your constituents didn't turn up for work, how would their job be? What you could do, Senator, is actually turn up to the committee with your friends in the coalition—
On a point of order, it's not appropriate for Minister Wong to reflect on any senator in relation to their attendance in the chamber or at a committee. I would ask the minister to desist from reflecting on any senator in that way.
I might just add to the point of order in terms of misleading the Senate. I was actually at the inquiry into this bill. I've heard a number of times today that I wasn't.
I will deal with the point of order, if you can take your seat, Senator Pocock. I would invite the minister to withdraw comments that may have had adverse reflections in relation to the senator's attendance.
There are a lot of very sensitive people here today—both relevance deprivation and sensitivity.
What do you want me to withdraw? I'm always happy to withdraw. I'm sorry. Whatever it is that I'm supposed to withdraw, I withdraw.
Senator Pocock, I'm glad you turned up for the inquiry, but you choose to come in here with Senator Shoebridge and the coalition to discharge a bill without chatting to us. Why would you do that? Why would you not have the courtesy to use the processes of the Senate? The committee system has been hard fought for in this place for a long time. One of the reasons I wanted to be a senator is we actually do legislation. We actually legislate, and part of how we do that are committee processes, where we can actually do the work in opposition and in government of making suggestions and recommendations around changes to policy and around changes to legislation. That has been a powerful tool for this Senate. It's one I respect. I don't always agree with committee reports, but I respect the legislation committees' work. Why didn't you do that? You don't do that because you want to come in here and pull a stunt. I think it should be called out.
You might be sensitive about it, Senator Pocock, but you should be called out for the fact that you're just working with the non-government parties to discharge a bill without even talking to us, participating in the committee or actually debating the bill. I find it quite remarkable actually. We will remember this next time you talk to us about the processes of the Senate. I know that there are differences of views about this bill, and I know that the minister has been someone who has engaged very closely with senators in this place. I know he engages very closely with Senator Lambie on these issues, and I know the authenticity with which she champions the rights of veterans. I appreciate there may be people in the community who don't want this legislation, and the opportunity for that to be ventilated is in the legislation inquiry, just as the opportunity to speak on and vote against this bill is when this bill comes to the parliament, as it should. It isn't the way to deal with these issues to simply have senators decide that legislation that is before the Senate should be discharged from the Notice Paper summarily and without even the courtesy of the chamber being advised of this ahead of that motion being moved.
Senator Gallagher made some important points about how this chamber operates. We see a number of people in this place who seem to want to use every procedural aspect to frankly make the work of this chamber much more difficult. We have a political contest. I think we're all up for that. We all also know how to play procedure. We're all up for that too. But it might actually help our constituents, the people we represent, the states and territories we represent, and the people who have an interest in legislation if we could at least make sure that how we deal with legislation and committee inquiries is given a little more respect than is being done at this moment by this motion that Senator Shoebridge and Senator Pocock have come up with.
I now want to talk about the opposition. I suspect from the opposition's behaviour that they believe that they're out of government for a while, because there is no other explanation for the lack of responsibility in so many areas. One of the things that has generally made sure that the contest and conflict in this place has been contained has been the recognition by both parties of government that we all have an interest in this chamber ultimately being able to function because we both are parties of government. We understand the importance of this second chamber from a government perspective. I don't think that's the approach Senator McKenzie takes. That's okay; that's up to her. But I would say to the Liberal Party—I appreciate there's a lot of division between the National Party and the Liberal Party at this point—don't let the National Party be the tail that wags the dog in every way, whether it's on climate change or frankly on how you approach the Senate. You are a party of government, and that should be something that is considered by your leadership group in the context of how you deal with procedure inside this chamber.
I propose to move an amendment to the motion that was moved by Senators Pocock, McKenzie and Shoebridge. That's a lovely alliance; isn't it—the National Party, the Greens and Senator Pocock? What an alliance! It's the people who don't believe in climate change, the people who engage in culture wars on a whole range of issues that I and many of my colleagues find so personally objectionable, the people who opposed marriage equality—you're lining up with them on this. Let's remember.
I move:
Omit all words after "That" substitute:
That the question on whether the government business order of the day relating to the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be discharged from the Notice Paper not be considered until after the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee has tabled its final report on the bill.
I commend that to the chamber, because it's a very reasonable position. It's actually saying, 'Look, I get that you don't agree with the bill, but let's at least have the Senate consider the committee report and, frankly, the government.' You may not believe this, but ministers actually look at what the legislation committees say. They may not always agree—
I'm sorry Senator Shoebridge?
I don't think they do always, but thank you for asking.
Senator, I know you're deeply cynical.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Sorry, I can't hear what you're shouting, Senator Shoebridge.
Well, you asked me.
Order on my right! I don't want there to be any interjecting.
Senator Shoebridge, I think you're wrong. I can say to you that I know when amendments are being considered as a consequence of committee reports, and, of course, we don't always agree. There are different policy propositions. We know, sometimes, the crossbench will move something. We say we don't think that can happen or be dealt with in that way, but it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be ventilated. I would say to the Senate let's make sure that the committee can do its work. Let's make sure Senator Ciccone, who is a very able chair, can finalise his report, and let's consider this legislation in the context of having received that report and what other senators think.
I'm just going to finish on this point. Senator Pocock, if you express a view about a bill—you say you have spoken to the minister. I don't understand that you have flagged with him that your intention is to line up with the Nats to try and knock this off. Maybe you don't have to. We all move motions where we suspend standing orders and we do things, but was that really needed on this one? Was that really needed on this one? Do you think you could have just said to Minister Keogh that 'I'm going to try and get rid of this' or 'I'm really worried about this'? As I said, I'm not across all the policy on this. I remember this legislation. I'm not across some of the controversy about this. Did you really have to do this on this one, or could you have had a conversation in good faith with the minister that said: 'I am really minded to do this. I've got a problem with this legislation. Is there a way through it?' That would have been—and then you could still have moved it after that conversation. I'd encourage you, Senator, to do that and to actually have a chat. If you really are concerned about something, if you really want something to be resolved, perhaps have an opportunity to talk to the minister about it first.
I commend the amendment to the chamber. What I would say to the chamber is that we shouldn't forget history. This committee system has been a really important part of our parliament. It is a really important part of our parliament. It might be the case that legislation committees are chaired by and have majority government members on the committee. It has been for a long time.
Debate interrupted.
I note that last month was Cyber Security Awareness month, so I wanted to take the opportunity today to raise this incredibly important issue here in the Senate chamber. We know that Australia is under sustained cyberattacks, and they are not just from rogue and uncoordinated criminals but also from foreign adversaries exploiting our institutions. Today, I note the government has a sanctioned North Korean entities responsible for industrial scale cyberthreats. These actors stole nearly $2 billion in cryptocurrency last year using fake IT jobs and malware to infiltrate global systems, including in Australian firms, and the coalition certainly welcomes these sanctions. But we need to be looking closer to home when it comes to this threat.
Just today, we heard that Macquarie University is under a national security review for a deal with Chinese firms linked to the People's Liberation Army. Such partnerships risk exposing the sensitive data and intellectual property of universities to foreign control. This isn't a new concern. Experts have been warning universities for years. Indeed, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute has flagged over 180 high-risk Chinese institutions, yet some universities have ignored internal advice and public scrutiny and have continued collaborations that potentially compromise our national security.
This isn't some theoretical concern. We have to ask ourselves who has access to Australian networks, Australian students, Australian institutions, our research and why. Cybersecurity isn't just about passwords; it is about protecting our democracy, our economy and our sovereignty. Yet our response remains fragmented, and, frankly, we need to do more.
Next week marks 50 years since the dismissal of a prime minister who transformed Australia. On 11 November 1975, Gough Whitlam stood on the steps of Old Parliament House and told Australians that nothing would ever take away their right to be heard. It was a moment that shook our nation—the first and only time a democratically elected Australian government was dismissed. It sparked anger and protest, but it also strengthened the nation's belief in the power of the Australian people to choose their government and their future.
Gough Whitlam expanded the horizons of our nation. He believed government could be a force for fairness, equality and opportunity. He opened the doors of universities to every young Australian. He recognised the rights of First Nations people. He made women's equality a national priority. He gave Australians universal health care through Medibank, a world-leading reform that the Liberals later scrapped but which Labor rebuilt as Medicare. His optimism changed Australia's sense of what was possible. He imagined a fairer, more educated, more equal nation and then set about building it.
We still see the results of Whitlam's vision in the way we live today, in our universities, in the Medicare card that guarantees care when we are sick and in the belief that every person deserves dignity and opportunity. His reforms changed not only laws and institutions but the way Australians saw themselves and the country's potential. As we approach the anniversary of his dismissal, we remember not the event itself but the legacy that continues to shape our country and the values that guide Labor governments to this very day.
Last week, Billie Eilish asked:
If you're a billionaire, why are you a billionaire?
That's so true, Billie. Here in little old Australia, we are home to over 160 billionaires. Gina Rinehart is worth $38 billion; Clive Palmer, $20 billion; Anthony Pratt, Donald Trump's mate, is worth $25 billion. Add them all up and it's well over half a trillion dollars held by so few people that they could all have a seat in this room. If you're an Australian billionaire, on average, you're making $67,000 every hour—more than many Australians make in an entire year.
Meanwhile, one in seven Australians is living in poverty. Last year, one in five households skipped meals or whole days of eating because they couldn't afford it. Among renters, that number was one in two. All of those billionaires' money didn't just come out of thin air. It came from ordinary people, skyrocketing corporate profits, stolen wages, extortionate rents and shipping off our natural resources overseas without paying tax. Labor and the Liberals are not going to fix this system. They're the ones who built it, and they're on the billionaires' payroll.
Billie, you told the billionaires:
No hate, but yeah, give your money away …
I'll go you one better. We need to tax them. If we took the power back from billionaires, we could raise enough money to build enough public homes that renters could actually afford. We could make it free to see the GP or the dentist. We could take child care and aged care out of the hands of greedy corporations and make those free too. By doing so, we could give hope to everyday people—hope over big money and small ideas. That's what the Greens are fighting for, and, if you believe in that too, join us.
Although still open for business, some SA coastal communities remain captured by uncertainty in relation to the algal bloom. Fishers, seafood processors, tourism operators and small family businesses are right to be disappointed in both the Albanese and Malinauskas governments for their slow, reactive and disorganised response. There is new news now from scientists who have identified a rarely recorded algal species likely responsible for the toxin production driving this prolonged event. I can't stress this enough: stay informed.
The impacts are real and lasting, and Labor's response has fallen very, very short. One fisher holding more than eight tonnes of squid quota has not landed a single catch since April. Boats are tied up, and families are eating into savings. Tourism businesses have suffered booking cancellations, although those vouchers provide some relief. Researchers have requested $40 million over 10 years to monitor the Great Southern Reef and are still waiting for an answer.
Our seafood is safe, world-class and tested. You can still buy local seafood from commercial retailers. Every plate of our world-class oysters, King George whiting and southern calamari sold supports everyone in some way, even those who don't work. Our coastal towns are open for business. SA communities are resilient and deserve our attention, not just when these types of issues force it. Sure, the cities need to be heard, but people in the regions, in rural areas and in remote communities who drive economic performance—and feed us—need attention too.
This week in parliament, I've heard from stakeholders as diverse as credit unions, dentists and palliative care specialists who are frustrated by the lack of attention to those who live outside the capital cities. Having been born and raised in a regional area with ongoing regional interests, I will continue to pursue and raise issues in here that are relevant to you. The coalition will stand with you if you're in the regions and in the cities.
Recent research shows that nearly 40 per cent of young people deal with mental health experiences. That's almost one in two young people. That is why I would like to speak about an Australian organisation, Orygen , the largest research and innovation centre of its kind anywhere in the world, dedicated solely to improving the mental wellbeing of young people. Orygen has become a global powerhouse in early intervention, creating programs and policies that are actually informed by young people, their families and those who support them. Orygen has built a team of more than 600 specialists, the biggest youth mental health workforce in the world, which uses cutting-edge research to translate into real-world solutions. They're not just treating illness; they're helping young people thrive. In 2023, 392 people lost their lives to suicide in Australia. Suicide is the leading cause of death among young Australians aged 15 to 25. Too many young people don't seek help, often because of stigma, cost or long wait times. Many turn to social media for support, a space that can both heal and harm.
Orygen's work helps us find that balance using evidence based research to reduce potential harm while preserving connection. Orygen's world leading suicide prevention unit, headed by Professor Jo Robinson, is tackling the complex social and emotional drivers of suicide in young Australians. Their chatsafe program, for example, teaches young people and their families how to safely talk about suicide online, and it's already reached millions worldwide. Today I want to thank the Orygen team for their leadership, their compassion and their relentless strive to make sure every young Australia has access to the care and mental health support they need.
I'd like to associate myself with Senator Walker's remarks and thank Orygen for the great work that they do. I rise today to talk about the Solar Sharer Offer that the government has announced, and I thank Minister Bowen for his leadership on this. This is the exact direction we should be going in with renewables and the democratisation of energy in this country.
Canberrans are proud to live in a city that leads the nation on renewable energy. We were the first jurisdiction to reach 100 per cent renewable electricity, so it was unfortunate that, under the new Solar Sharer Offer which offers three hours of free electricity each day, the ACT was left out. I think this is a missed opportunity for Canberrans to cut power bills and make better use of cheap, clean solar energy in the middle of the day when we do have a glut. But because the ACT operates under a different electricity pricing framework local residents will miss out for now. I urge the federal and territory governments to work together to ensure that Canberrans can also benefit from this. Canberrans shouldn't pay more or wait longer for the same clean energy benefits being enjoyed elsewhere.
Again, I thank Minister Bowen for his leadership on this. The Solar Sharer Offer should be national in name and in practice. We now have the technology to ensure that households can generate, store and share electricity. That is the future we should be working towards. I really appreciate this new scheme from the government. I urge them to work with the ACT government and to go further to ensure that we are looking at the way we regulate electricity in the country and that households are the ones that benefit. We can cut down on transmissions by ensuring that households can generate, store, use and share electricity with their neighbours, with their suburb and with others in their city or town.
I take this opportunity to note in the Senate the extraordinary work of the Milson's Point community which was able to band together and save its post office. There was an amazing campaign led by Venietta Slama-Powell, a local small-businessperson, bringing together a petition of locals. This remaining post office has tremendous benefit to people in public housing and retirement estates in the Milson's Point area. Many of these people, including Bryce Gunn who I met from the Greenway Tenants Group, are not in a position to walk a long way to access a different post office, and many of these residents have physical constraints which would have prevented them from travelling any distance at all. The maintenance of this particular Australia Post facility is a great thing for the residents of Milson's Point.
I understand there are commercial pressures on these government business enterprises, and everyone's got a good case for a branch or a particular outlet to remain open. But this was, I think, a remarkable case given the topography and the demography of the residents of that area. CEO of Australia Post Paul Graham, who we were able to engage with, made the right judgement call for these residents. It is more than just a post office for the locals, who of course are able to post their letters, get their stamps and also have an outing for the day in what otherwise might be a day when they don't do a whole lot. I want to acknowledge the work of Venietta; also the local state member, Felicity Wilson; and also the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall.
Yesterday I was so proud to host a roundtable here in this building with the elite of the Australian road transport industry, who were in attendance to talk about sham contracting and tax avoidance in our industry. I was very proud to be joined by the Transport Workers' Union; the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organization; the national road transport organisation; the Australian Trucking Association; the Australian Furniture Removers Association; the National Road Freighters Association; the Victorian Transport Association; the Tasmanian Transport Association; the Tasmanian transport livestockers association; Road Freight NSW; the Queensland Trucking Association; the Western Roads Federation from WA, representing also the Northern Territory Road Transport Association; and the South Australian Road Transport Association. Every square inch of this magnificent nation was represented in that room yesterday; 47 sectors of the road transport industry were represented in that room yesterday and had the ability to talk with ministers and bureaucrats at ATO, Border Force, DEWR and fair work.
In this magnificent industry, which represents nearly nine per cent of GDP in this nation and employs over 640,000 direct employees, we have a new pox that has crept into the industry. It is sham contracting, where we have drivers being exploited by rogue employers and crooked accountants being very creative, bending the laws and demanding Australian business numbers or ACNs for employees and paying them minimum rates with absolutely no protections, workers compensation, annual leave, sick leave, superannuation—none of that stuff. What makes it even worse—and every single senator needs to get engaged in this—is that the drivers are fooling themselves thinking $40 an hour is great because they're not paying tax. How much, as a nation, are we losing out?
I stand in solidarity with the Sudanese communities, including the proud community in my home of Victoria—one of the largest Sudanese diasporas outside of Africa. I want to acknowledge the Sudanese-Australian Advocacy Network, who have called on parliament to recognise the urgency of the proxy war playing out in Sudan. I will read a statement from members of the network, Basil and Yassin:
Each of us here carries the solemn responsibility not only to represent Australians but to uphold our nation's values of compassion, fairness, and humanity.
It would be easy to say we were unaware of the suffering unfolding in Sudan; one of the gravest humanitarian crises of our time.
It would be easy to claim we never heard the pleas of the Australian-Sudanese community, who fled unimaginable hardship seeking safety.
It would be easy to insist we never saw the images of families torn apart by violence, by armed groups funded by foreign powers.
But the truth is undeniable. We did see. We did hear. We did know—and yet, as a nation, we have not acted with the urgency this crisis demands.
The Australian-Sudanese community should not face this pain alone. We have the means, the capacity, and the moral duty to do more. Australia must expand its humanitarian aid, increase emergency relief funding, and support diplomatic efforts that protect civilians and restore stability.
If any of us question the urgency of this moment, I urge you to look at the satellite images—evidence of atrocities visible from space. We cannot claim ignorance. We can only choose action. Let that action be compassion, through decisive humanitarian support.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting Louise Lamont and Jay Wright from Phoenix Support & Advocacy Service, a small but extraordinary WA organisation that has supported adult survivors of child sex abuse for over 40 years. Phoenix was the first non-government service of its kind in WA. Today its trauma informed counsellors create safe, client led spaces for survivors to rebuild their lives, whether face-to-face or online. In the last financial year, 100 per cent of clients surveyed said they felt safe, welcome and supported, and would recommend Phoenix's services to others.
Behind those figures lies a national crisis. The Australian Child Maltreatment Study found that one in four Australians—one in three girls and one in five boys—have been sexually abused as children. In WA alone, that equates to over 178,000 children under 19 and over half a million adults who are survivors of historic abuse.
Despite limited funding, short-term contracts and reduced service days, Phoenix continues to punch above its weight, with a growing waitlist for trauma informed counselling. Its advocacy is equally vital, supporting 11 other child sexual abuse therapeutic and Indigenous healing services across WA, while hosting roundtables and trainings and leading national conversations.
This week, Phoenix hosted British psychologist and bestselling author Dr Jessica Taylor for an event on creating compassionate communities. I was in Canberra, but my staff attended and shared how powerfully it underscored Phoenix's impact. The federal government must do more to ensure services like Phoenix are properly funded if we're serious about protecting children.
This week the National Party did what we have been doing for over a century. We took action, showed leadership and proposed to the Australian people a cheaper, better and fairer plan to power our nation's future. Families are paying too much for energy, jobs are being lost, and forests and farmlands are being destroyed. We need to bring common sense back to addressing the challenge of climate change.
Lowering emissions is not negotiable, but that burden of lowering emissions needs to be shared. It needs to be shared here domestically at home between poorer Australians and those with more means. It needs to be shared between the regions and the cities. Internationally, this task needs to be shared fairly amongst all nations, rather than the burden and the negative impacts being felt by a few.
The fact is that net zero by 2050 under the Labor Party has affected all facets of the Australian economy, and not in a good way. Groceries, power bills, even housing prices are all skyrocketing due to the flow-on effect of large government subsidies for renewable developments and to keep our industrial manufacturing capacity here onshore.
We want a cheaper, better and fairer way forward. The Nationals envisage an Australia where the cost of energy is shared. We envisage an Australia where heavy industrial jobs are defended. The Labor Party call themselves the party of the working class, yet when you look at Tomago, when you look at Whyalla, when you look at Bell Bay and aluminium smelting across the country, the facts show that they're not. The National Party has a plan for your future.
When did Australia become a country where you can march with radical Islamists on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and burn the Australian flag, but you're not allowed to wave one in a park, protesting mass immigration and net zero? That's what's happening in Sydney, and it says everything about the state of this country under the Albanese Labor government.
A group of proud Australians reached out to me recently. They call themselves Put Australia First. They explained they were planning a peaceful protest at a public park. They wanted to speak out about what has been crushing everyday Aussies: mass immigration, unaffordable housing and rising power prices. They'd even worked with police to change the date of the march to 29 November because of the threat of left-wing violence, but the Sydney council has denied their permit. The excuse? They said the protest might damage the grass and, because of climate change, it might not grow back. Talk about a stitch-up!
This has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with shutting people up. This is the same council that lets activists shut down the Sydney Harbour Bridge, wave terrorist flags, march with Islamists and burn the Australian flag in protest. That's fine with them, but Aussies attending a stage in a park, waving their own flags, speaking the truth, protesting the Labor government's policies apparently is too dangerous to the grass because of climate change.
I think we all know that isn't about protecting grass; it's a desperate attempt to stop a growing grassroots movement. The government don't want debate; they want you to go away. They are terrified because people are waking up and asking: 'Why can't I afford a home? Why are my power bills so high? Why are we importing more people when services are already stretched to breaking point? And why are we being silenced for asking these questions?' The people will not be silenced forever. One Nation will keep leading the way, and together we can put Australia first and take our country back.
I rise to speak about the housing crisis. In the past year, rents around Australia have risen between seven and 14 per cent—in a single year. That's two to four times the rate of increase in wages in that same year. How are renters meant to keep up when their rents are growing two, three or even four times as fast as their incomes? It's even worse for low-income households. A hospitality worker living in a one-bedroom unit in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane or the ACT spends nearly half their income on rent. People on JobSeeker who have been forced into the private rental market, due to a lack of public and social housing, simply cannot afford these rents.
Most renters have a landlord who owns two or more properties and whose household wealth is more than double their own. Why are we prioritising these wealthy landlords over hardworking renters—60 per cent of these renters don't think they will ever be able to own their own home. We've consistently put the needs of an elite few above the needs of the majority. In the last two decades, we have seen a housing crisis that both the major parties have fuelled. If a rent regulation policy were introduced just five years ago, Adelaide renters could be paying around $140 a week less on their rent right now. Think about what a difference that $140 would make. We can't turn back time, but we must act now, or rents will continue to increase exponentially. The Greens are the only party pushing to end unlimited rent increases.
I rise to echo a commonly spoken sentiment—the NDIS is fundamentally broken. It was meant to change lives, but, right now, too many Australians aren't receiving the help they need—the help they deserve. Consider this, as just one of many sobering examples since the full rollout of the scheme in 2020—access for those with psychosocial disabilities has dropped by 62 per cent. For many, that's the end of the line. There are hardly any other supports available and the recommendations to fix that are still sitting in reports unimplemented. But this isn't just about one group; it's a sign of a system that's drifting away from its purpose. We see the focus on diagnosis over function, making it harder for people with less 'neat' conditions to qualify. Providers are under strain. Many can't pay above award wages, so workers are leaving. We should be thankful to our migrant workers in this space as they are keeping things running. But it's not sustainable, and it's not fair to anyone.
Even inside the system, things are broken. Nearly a quarter of staff at the NDIS regulator report burnout, citing a toxic culture. When the people running the scheme are burning out, how can we expect the system to properly care for participants? If face-to-face services aren't practical for everyone, fund smarter alternatives like digital platforms or accessible communication apps. Meet people where they are. The NDIS was built on fairness and inclusion. Right now, it's not living up to either. It's time we stopped writing reports and started fixing what we already know is broken so the scheme can finally deliver on its promises to help Australians with a disability.
The AWU and MEU have been fighting for years for Queensland mine workers to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Thanks to Labor's same job, same pay legislation, it is finally payday for labour hire workers. They are people who have been treated like second-class citizens for too long, and our unions have fought hard to right that wrong. Of course, the multinational mining companies fought tooth and nail against Labor's same job, same pay legislation. BHP even went so far as to take their fight to the Fair Work Commission—not once, but twice. The big mining company lost, and Labor's laws stood the test. The Fair Work Commission ordered that labour hire workers at three BHP Central Queensland mines get a pay rise up of up to $30,000 more. That is money that they were always entitled to and money they deserve. On the contrary, it means that they were being underpaid by $30,000 per year under the watch of those opposite. They were happy to see that happen. They were happy to see Queensland families underpaid under their watch, under their sham labour hire arrangements. Thanks to the hardworking unions, those companies now have to pay workers the same pay for the same job, full stop.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, who's already ready to go, I see! Warren Hogan, an economist at Judo Bank, said on the ABC's 7.30 on Tuesday night: 'A big structural lift in government spending in the past decade, which has continued at pace in the last three years under this current government, is really all about recurrent spending. That, I think, is increasingly looking like a key factor why, ultimately, the problem we be faced with is that interest rates are not high enough to get inflation down.' Does the government take responsibility for the rise in inflation and consequential decisions by the RBA to keep the cash rate high?
I thank the shadow finance minister for that question. The Treasurer and I proudly present the budgets and the updates to those budgets to the Australian people and to this chamber. That has ensured that we have been able to invest in those key areas of service delivery.
Senator Paterson often cites increased government spending. What he doesn't say—what he never says—is the vast majority of that was going into things like increased pensions, increased support for people with a disability and increased payments. Some of that is influenced by higher inflation because those payments can be indexed. That is the bit that Senator Paterson never says out loud. They like to criticise spending, but they don't like to talk about the fact that much of that was demand driven programs, which are variations in the budget, but also that they are important investments.
When we came to government, we did find that there were areas where we needed to make additional investments, and people expected that. Whether that be in payments like the single parenting payment, or whether it be in Commonwealth rent relief to help people through some of those really difficult times, these were the areas that the government prioritised. We will continue to do so, whether it be investments in Medicare; whether it be investments in education so that needs based funding gets delivered to our children; or whether it be investments in early education and care—the work that Senator Walsh is doing—to make sure that every child, regardless of their situation, has an entitlement to early education and care.
We on this side of the chamber believe that it builds a better country if we invest in our people. The government has a role to play there. So while Senator Paterson sees increased spending as a negative, we see it as investment in the future of the country. (Time expired)
Senator Paterson, first supplementary?
Griffith University Professor Graeme Hughes said:
This means homeowners must prepare for the cash rate to stay put for the foreseeable future. Adding to the pressure is Canberra's spending … effectively working against the RBA's efforts to bring rising prices under control.
Minister, do you admit the economic reality that growth in government spending running four times faster than the growth in the economy is now having real effects on prices, inflation, interest rates and real wages?
We've been very mindful where we have carefully calibrated our spending to ensure that it hasn't made the job of the bank harder. We have been dealing with those big global pressures that have led to higher inflation. The bank itself—I have heard Senator Paterson in interviews; I don't want to say you are misleading or misrepresenting the bank, but you've certainly got a different interpretation of what the governor has said in relation to that.
What you don't say is the things we have done to assist the bank in its work: deliver two surpluses and pay down debt by returning extra revenue back into the budget so we have less debt and less interest on that debt. Where we are investing, we are making a difference to people's lives. It's in the productive side of our economy, in our people and in those people's skills.
Senator Paterson, second supplementary?
At present the RBA is having to do all the heavy lifting via monetary policy to get inflation down. Will the government consider any changes in fiscal policy to support these efforts, or is the government's attitude to higher prices and lower real wages, 'Nothing to see here'?
Again, I don't accept the proposition in the question at all, and I don't think and I don't believe that that is the bank's view. Again, the bank can speak for itself. But we are mindful of the role that the Commonwealth budget plays in our economy. We are mindful of our responsibilities to the Australian people to deliver the commitments that we took to the election.
But I think, when you look at your record, Senator Paterson—when your party was last in government—and ours, you'll see that your two deficits, two massive Liberal deficits, turned into two Labor surpluses, $100 billion worth of savings, $188 billion less debt and $60 billion less interest on that debt so that we have been in a position to repair the budget, to get it in better shape and to make sure that all the wastes and rorts that you had are being put into good investment— (Time expired)
I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 37th Delegation from the United States of America, led by the honourable Kelly Gee. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate.
Honourable senators: Hear, hear!
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government is focused on the things that Australians are focused on—providing cost-of-living relief and strengthening Medicare, just to name a few. What is the government doing to deliver on our commitments to the Australian people?
Thank you to my fellow South Australian Senator Walker for that excellent question—and welcome to our American friends. Welcome to the Australian Senate.
Our government, the Albanese government, is building on our record in our first term, focused on delivering our commitments to the Australian people to ease cost-of-living pressures, and that focus puts us in stark contrast with those opposite, who, really, have spent this week focused on themselves—on that side, division; and, on this side, delivering. Division and delivery.
Just in this fortnight we have passed our payday super bill to require employers to pay workers super at the same time as salary and wages. We've passed Baby Priya's bill, which means that parents who experience the stillbirth or death of a child will have their parental leave protected—and I want to express publicly my personal appreciation for the sensitivity shown by Ms Ley, Senator Hume and others in their comments on this matter. We have strengthened Medicare with the largest investment since its inception, through Labor's tripled bulk-billing incentives. We are giving women better access to affordable contraceptive options through our landmark women's health package. We're making cheaper medicines even cheaper.
And this government backs high wages. We back higher wages after a decade in which lower wages were a deliberate design feature of those opposite. We've delivered income tax cuts for every taxpayer, with more to come, and we are cutting student debt by 20 per cent because we on this side of the chamber want to make sure Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's right—earn more and keep more of what they earn. It's a far cry from the divided rabble opposite, who have forgotten about the people they represent.
Senator Walker, first supplementary?
In May the Australian people voted for a government that would focus on the things that really matter to Australians, like building more homes and making it easier for Australians to buy them. How is the government delivering on its commitment to make it easier for more Australians to access the security of homeownership?
Senator Walker rightly focused on housing as one of the issues in her first speech. We took to the election an ambitious plan to build more houses and to make it easier for Australians to buy a home of their own. Unlike those opposite, who neglected housing for a decade, this government is making it easier for Australians to achieve the security of homeownership.
Unfortunately, the Liberals and the Nationals still don't take housing seriously. The reality is no-one can actually keep up with their policies. On Monday, Senator Bragg declared, 'We can pretty much close the book on the coalition's disastrous super-for-housing policy,' but he forgot to share his plans with his mate Mr Wilson, who was continuing his campaign to let young people raid their retirement incomes. It's all pretty embarrassing—and it would never happen under a Wilson government, would it, Senator Bragg!
Senator Walker, second supplementary?
The Albanese government is focusing on building on the strong foundation of its first term to keep delivering for Australians. What progress is the government making, and what are the obstacles to that progress?
I'm asked about obstacles to progress, and, to be honest, there they are. They're sitting across from me in this chamber: an opposition entirely focused on infighting, an opposition in which, according to earlier reports, we've seen senior Liberals—Senator Cash, Senator Duniam, Senator Paterson—all arguing to dump net zero and their response on climate. They've made it pretty obvious where they're headed, but, unfortunately, it's not where the leader is headed. It's not where Ms Ley is headed. So how are Australians meant to believe the Liberals when the Liberals don't even believe in their own leader? This is not a credible party of government.
Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?
I would ask you, on relevance, if maybe you could direct the leader back to the question that was asked by her own side.
I believe the minister is being relevant to the question which was asked.
This is not the behaviour of a credible party of government. I rarely agree with a headline in the Australianalmost never!—but 'the worst performance in 40 years' had a ring of truth. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. In his statement on Tuesday, Minister, the Treasurer defended the government's economic policies by noting that real wages are growing. Minister, given the RBA's updated forecast released this week, for how much longer will that be the case?
I thank Senator Sharma for the question. This government is determined to ensure that people's wages keep growing. That is why we have done a number of things, including amendments to the Fair Work Act but also supporting minimum wage increases. We remember the times when those opposite had a special section in their application to the Fair Work Commission on the minimum wage review. It was a special chapter that said 'The importance of low wages'—
Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson?
On direct relevance: I'm not sure what the Fair Work Commission under the previous government has to do with Senator Sharma's question.
Senator Paterson, the minister is being relevant to the question. The question went to wages, among other things.
We know what those opposite stood for and that a deliberate design feature of their economic policy was to keep wages down. We know they had that chapter in their submission. We know that, on this side, since coming to government, we have actively sought to ensure that wages get moving again. Real wages grew 1.3 per cent through the year to the June quarter, the strongest annual growth in five years.
I know Senator Ruston won't like this. They've grown for seven consecutive quarters under this government—and what were they under you, Senator Ruston, when you were at the decision-making table? They were going backwards by 3.4 per cent.
Senator Sharma, first supplementary?
Minister, the RBA now expects headline inflation to soar to 3.7 per cent and remain high across 2026. At the same time, the RBA is predicting wage growth of 3 per cent by mid-2026. With inflation rising to 3.7 per cent and wage growth rising only 3 per cent, what do you say to the millions of Australians whose purchasing power will fall next year?
What I would say, Senator Sharma, to those people is that they have a government who cares about working people in this country, who cares about wages, who cares about the role that service workers play in our economy, for example. We care about it so much that we've increased the wages for early childhood educators and carers. We've increased the wages for aged-care workers, and we will continue that approach. We want working people to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We want the economy to grow, and we want people to benefit from that. So our approach will be of a mature party of government that takes our role seriously, that remains united and that delivers on the commitments we took to the election. We'll continue to manage the budget in a responsible way so that the working people of this country get a fair deal, get paid appropriately for the work they do and understand that they have a government that cares about that.
Senator Sharma, second supplementary?
Due to the inflation fuelled by out-of-control government spending, inflation is higher and projected to stay high, interest rates are staying high, power prices are rising exponentially, and, next year, Australians will have lower real wages to pay for it all. Minister, isn't it very clear now that Australians are worse off under Labor?
The Australian people had their say in May, so I'll just draw that to your attention. I think the dissembling of those opposite in the months since May shows that the Australian people have got it right again, because you are not fit for government. But, when you talk about spending, you are talking about age pension increases, energy bill relief, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, urgent care clinics, bulk-billing, paid parental leave—
Senator Henderson?
On a point of order, the minister made a number of references to you, could she direct her comments through the chair, please.
I think the minister is directing her comments through me, but I'll continue to look. Thank you for drawing me to that.
When they complain about government spending, that is what they are talking about—PPL, free TAFE, new affordable housing, the Leaving Violence Program, the investments in the NDIS and our aged-care workforce, and in veterans compensation, which we talked about earlier today. These are investments that this government has made, but they are important investments in the health of our country, not only the health of our people but also the economic future of this country as well.
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It looks increasingly unlikely that Australia's bid to host COP31 with Pacific nations will be successful. No arrangement with Turkiye has been reached, and the Turkish leader isn't even responding to our Prime Minister's letters. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are not going to COP30, and the South Australian Premier is not going to COP30. Is the government even trying to pretend that it wants to host this important international climate opportunity, or have your mining mates told you to let it go, just like they told you this morning, through the Minerals Council, to pass the mining fast-track EPBC reforms before Christmas?
Senator Waters, if you will indulge me, I just want to give a shout-out to the kids from Darwin, at Malarndirri McCarthy's request. To Indiana, Ebony, your classmates and teachers at St Paul's primary: Senator McCarthy says, 'G'day,' as do we all.
Senator, your question is an array of many inaccuracies. We want to host the COP primarily and most importantly because we want to elevate the voices of the Pacific. That is the approach we have taken all the way along. That is why I've engaged at the Pacific Islands Forum at the foreign minister's level. That's why Minister Bowen has engaged with the PIF in his track, and the Prime Minister has engaged with the Pacific Islands Forum at a leader level. We have engaged very closely with the Pacific, not only then but also at UNGA, the UN General Assembly, where both Minister Bowen and I met with Pacific representatives to talk through trying to find a way through to get this conference held in Australia, importantly, to elevate Pacific experience and Pacific voices.
In terms of the assertion about the mining companies, I don't believe I have ever—I might be wrong—but I can't recall ever having a conversation with a resource company about our bid to hold COP. I know you like conspiracy theories, but what I would say to you is that you're not on track. The discussions continue. I wish we had resolved this earlier, of course I do. Certainly I know the importance of elevating the Pacific experience, because the Pacific, as you know, are experiencing climate change here and now. It's affecting livelihoods, national security, economies as well as food security and so much more.
Senator Waters, first supplementary?
Pacific nations and First Nations communities have urged all nations, including Australia, to phase out fossil fuels in order to prevent the climate catastrophe that is making their homes unliveable. How can we expect the UN to take our bid seriously if we're not even doing what our bid partners are asking of us?
Senator, sometimes I wish that you could actually see some of the engagement or in fact engage with some of the Pacific leaders whom you utilise in your political rhetoric here; we do, and what you are suggesting about some of the approaches is simply not accurate. For example, President Whipps, of Palau, recognised Australia's leadership in setting what he described as 'incredibly ambitious and achievable 2035 emissions reduction targets'. I know that doesn't assist your narrative, but have some respect for the Pacific leaders who actually do recognise what we are doing. What I'd also say to you is we have had widespread support for our bid from across the international community and in the group that we are part of within the UNFCCC.
Senator Waters, second supplementary?
This government's proposed new environmental laws don't take account of climate impacts but do include a new fast-track pathway for coal and gas projects that the Minerals Council and Chevron and BHP are delighted by. Has Australia's determination to fast-track fossil fuels jeopardised our bid to host COP31?
I can, hand on heart, say I don't recall anyone ever raising the EPBC Act with me in any international forum. If I've misled you, I will come back to the chamber and correct it. I don't believe there's been any discussion about the EPBC legislation that Minister Watt is putting forward. Obviously people do have views, and I would say this, very simply: we want stronger protections for the environment and we want faster decisions for business. It's entirely up to the Greens whether you choose a path that ensures that you are not relevant to a discussion about where the environmental laws will be in decades to come or whether you choose a path where you are. That relevance does depend on whether you are prepared to engage with the government of the day or whether you continue to stake out a position that you know will lead to legislation being passed with the support of the coalition.
My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. As the world embarks on the biggest economic transformation since the Industrial Revolution, only Labor is protecting the environment whilst pursuing the enormous economic and jobs opportunities that the energy transition offers Australia. Can the minister please outline the government's practical plan to seize these opportunities. Why is it important to send the right investment signals to investors in the energy transition? Those opposite might want to hear this. You might learn something.
I thank Senator Sterle for that question because it's a very important question around how Australia approaches the massive economic transition that's going on across the world in relation to the renewable energy transition. The Albanese government has a clear and credible path to net zero and to manage and maximise the benefits of this economic transformation. Our policies need to help Australia attract investment, lift wages, grow living standards, create jobs and spread economic opportunity right around the country.
The modelling that was released by Treasury to accompany Labor's announcement on our 2035 target makes clear five key conclusions:
1. Australia can be a primary beneficiary of the global net zero transformation if we continue to take decisive action on climate change
2. Cheaper, cleaner energy will strengthen Australia's international competitiveness
3. Clear and credible climate action will lead to more jobs, higher wages and better living standards for Australians
4. Our orderly net zero plan gives businesses the clarity and certainty they need to invest in Australia with confidence
5. A disorderly transition would mean fewer jobs, less business investment, lower wages, lower living standards and higher power prices in a smaller economy.
These are the clear findings from Treasury. They, as the experts, have had a very close look, including across the world. The benefits for Australia are clear, which is why, on this side of the chamber, we are united in our approach to grabbing those economic opportunities that come, walking together and making sure that we don't miss those opportunities. The jobs and higher living standards that come with them will benefit all Australians. (Time expired)
Senator Sterle, first supplementary?
The government knows that energy prices are a key concern for Australian households, which is why we have delivered energy bill relief. As the world looks towards a green energy future, what benefit does the energy transition offer Australians when it comes to the cost of electricity?
I thank Senator Sterle for that question. All of the advice to government makes it very clear that the cheapest form of new energy is firmed renewables—that's right; that upward pressure on electricity is overwhelmingly due to ageing fossil fuel assets; and that, if we don't have an orderly transition to the renewable energy future, it means higher prices for households, higher prices for business, fewer jobs and less business investment. Those opposite, the party of the free market—as Senator Bragg so eloquently put it in one of his 3,000 interviews this week: 'Well, the debate is over. The capital markets have made up their minds here. There is a wall of money going to renewable energy.' Where has the party of free markets gone to? (Time expired)
Senator Sterle, second supplementary?
Thank you, Minister. Treasury has told us that abandoning net zero would result in fewer jobs, less growth, lower investment, lower wages and lower living standards. What is the government doing to ensure that Australia avoids a disorderly transition or, even worse, a scenario where net zero is abandoned?
I thank Senator Sterle for the excellent delivery of that question. This government is focused on making sure that this generation and, importantly, future generations benefit from the opportunities that come with the global energy transition and the economic transition that are currently underway. We know, from information given to us—and this would have normally been enough to convince the old Liberal Party, or the traditional Liberal Party, to stick with an energy policy or, at least, not abandon net zero—that the economy would be projected to be $2 trillion smaller by 2050, GDP per capita would be $4½ thousand lower by 2050 and wholesale electricity prices, if you are worried about prices, would be about 50 per cent higher by 2050. That is the reality of what you are about to do when you abandon net zero.
My question is to the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australians reported more than 108,000 scams and financial losses of about $174 million to the National Anti-Scam Centre's Scamwatch in the first half of this year. In February this year, the parliament passed the Scams Prevention Framework, and, at the time, the Assistant Treasurer gave multiple assurances that the industry codes enforcing the framework would be developed as quickly as possible. Is it correct that the drafts of the industry codes are yet to be released for consultation?
I thank Senator Pocock for the question, and he is right to remind the chamber that, in November 2024, we introduced landmark legislation to establish the Scams Prevention Framework. It passed the House in February 2025. That framework provides a new model of accountability for banks, telcos and digital platforms, and it also imposes tough mandatory obligations to prevent, detect, report and disrupt scams. These laws made Australia the toughest place in the world for scammers to operate, and they also provided a clear pathway for consumers to be compensated if a bank, telco or digital platform have done the wrong thing. I acknowledge the work of former assistant treasurer Stephen Jones for the work that he did right across the community in ensuring we had the Scams Prevention Framework in place.
I was just waiting for information around where the codes are up to. My advice is that Treasury is working towards designating and developing codes for the banking and telecommunications sector and certain digital platform services, including social media, paid search engine advertising and direct-messaging services. I have no further information in front of me, but, if there is anything further, I will provide it to Senator Pocock.
Senator Pocock, first supplementary?
Thank you for that, Minister. Do you know what the draft timeline for the release of the draft industry codes is?
I do not have that information in front of me. I have a lot of information about this, but that is not a piece that I can quickly identify. I will ask the Assistant Treasurer to provide you with that information directly.
Senator Pocock, second supplementary?
Thank you, Minister. I know you can't give us a date, but do you know why the government has taken this long to release the draft codes? I'm hearing from people that it's just too slow, given we passed this in February and we're seeing Australians being scammed.
On that issue, I will ask that the Assistant Treasurer correspond directly with Senator Pocock on the time. I imagine there is consultation underway. I know how the Treasury operates. They have established consultation processes, so I have no doubt that there is work underway. If there is a date that can be provided to Senator Pocock, I ask that it occur.
In relation to the response to scams, whilst this code is important, there are already measures in place to protect people from scams, including from the banks and telcos themselves, who I met with recently. This is one of the top issues they raise with me, not only in protecting their customers but in ensuring that their reputation and business is maintained. They are very motivated to protect customers from scams. On the question itself, I will ask the Assistant Treasurer to provide an answer.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Given the rapid acceleration in the illicit tobacco trade in the years of the Albanese government and all of the dangerous black market and organised crime activity associated with it, does the minister accept that the lack of any meaningful or decisive practical action by your government is severely hampering state and territory governments' efforts to shut down this illegal activity within their jurisdictions.
Thank you, Senator Duniam. Congratulations on your recent appointment as the shadow home affairs minister.
Hear, hear!
The only person happier about that than me was Senator Paterson, who, we might recall, at the most recent estimates, was the acting temporary interim shadow home affairs minister. It's good to have an actual shadow home affairs minister, and I look forward to seeing you at estimates.
I think I was asked a question about this in the last fortnight, and the point I made there was that the government has taken serious action about what is a serious problem, and that is the growth of illicit tobacco. We provided $256.4 million in funding in 2023-24 to Border Force to strengthen the border against illegal tobacco and vaping products. There is a substantial amount of work being undertaken in combination with state and territory police forces to combat illegal tobacco. For example, we've set up the Illegal Tobacco National Disruption Group, which comprises the AFP and other federal agencies and every state and territory police force. We recognise this as a serious problem. It's going to take a lot of effort not just from federal government agencies but from state and territory agencies. We remain committed to supporting them.
Senator Duniam, first supplementary?
In 2023, Minister Mark Butler forecast the tobacco excise would deliver an extra $3.3 billion in revenue over the forward estimates instead of what's now turned into a roughly $25 billion loss as a result of the exploding illegal tobacco trade. Minister, can you tell the Senate exactly how much worse off the bottom line will be as a result of this hands-off approach and the lack of any effective action being taken by your government?
Thanks, Senator Duniam. I don't have figures to hand as to the budget impact of these matters, but, as I say—
It's $23 billion.
Well, if you know the answer, I'm not sure why you are asking the question. It sounds like Senator Duniam has answered his own question.
Senator Duniam, second supplementary?
I was after an exact figure. Anyway, in light of the answers to both of those questions, what is the minister's response to the clear exasperation of the New South Wales health minister, Ryan Park, who told reporters yesterday that he was very disappointed with the lack of action from the federal government, including that the government has no intention to change anything in this area despite the near constant pledge from state governments to do something about it?
Thanks, Senator Duniam. I haven't seen those comments myself, but what I can say, as I have already said, is that we are very committed to working with state and territory agencies to tackle this serious problem. There's effort going in at a police enforcement level. There's effort going in from Border Force. There is a range of other efforts being undertaken at the federal level as well. We know that it will take time, but we are already seeing results from some of these efforts. Over 2.5 billion illegal cigarettes and a total of 2,000 tonnes of tobacco were seized by Border Force last year, which is up 320 per cent over three years. But we recognise there is more to be done. We will keep sticking at it as an important issue.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. We got some very bad news this week from the RBA. Inflation is at the top of the target band and moving upwards, unemployment is up and the RBA predicts wage growth will be zero by Christmas and negative in the New Year. Labor takes credit for every little scrap of good news on the economy. Will you accept responsibility for the disastrous figures from the RBA we have seen this week?
I don't agree with all of the language that was used by Senator Whitten in that question. But, of course, the government take responsibility for the decisions that we make and the fact that inflation has come down. When we came to government it had a 'six' in front of it, Senator Whitten. You weren't here then, but that was the reality. That is a fact. It is now half of that, and that makes a difference. That's why the decisions we took in the last parliament were focused on getting inflation down and back into band, and that's what's happened.
Debt is down. Again, what has an important role to play in the economy is how we manage our debt, which is why $188 billion less debt was an important part of our plan to respond. We're getting real wages growing again. That's a key priority of this government. After a decade of no wage growth or stagnant wage growth, we saw seven successive quarters of wage growth under this government because of the decisions we took. We take responsibility for those.
Unemployment is down. Unemployment is at historic lows, with 1.1 million jobs created under this government, including seeing women's participation in the labour market at record highs. Why do you think that is? It's because we're getting the gender pay gap down. It's because we're investing in early education and care so that women can make more choices. We're getting rid of things like the activity test and punitive restraints on women's economic participation. That is what we are doing. That is what we are doing. And interest have fallen three times. So there is more work to do. The Treasurer and I say that all the time. There is more work to do. Our work is not finished, but the Australian people have a government that will continue to invest and make the right decisions.
I just remind those on my left that your constant interjections are disorderly. I asked you to be quiet on several occasions; you completely ignored me. Not only that, this is not your question. It's Senator Whitten's—Senator McGrath!—and he is entitled to hear the answer. Senator Whitten, first supplementary?
Labor is driving up housing demand with their five per cent deposit scheme. Young Australians are taking out 95 per cent mortgages with massively inflated house prices. Many would be relying on further interest rate cuts. The current indicator suggests that an interest rate rise looks more like. Labor has handed young Australians a poisoned chalice. Is Labor driving young Australians into mortgage stress?
Thank you very much, and no—the short answer to that question is no. This is a government that is seeking to address some of those intergenerational inequities that exist across our economy, like in relation to HECS debt, for example. In the situation of young people and where there are areas where the government can help, we will look to help and address that inequity that we see. And, when it comes to housing, there is not enough supply of housing in this country. We are building housing. That is what we have to do. We have to continue to focus on supply so that we can provide the housing opportunities for younger people that I had when I was looking to buy my first home. That is what this government is about. That is why we are investing in every single aspect right along the housing continuum from homelessness all the way to homeownership, because it matters. That is what this government will continue to do.
Senator Whitten, second supplementary?
All of the numbers are pointing the wrong way. Inflation is up. Unemployment is up. Housing prices are up. Supply is inadequate. GDP per capita is down. Disposable income is down. Productivity is down. Australians are not thriving under Labor; they are suffering. Does Labor take responsibility for putting Australians, especially young Australians, in the path of a recession that we didn't have to have?
Here are some other statistics. Employment is up, the participation rate is up, the gender pay gap is down, the number of women employed full time is up, manufacturing jobs are up, annual wage growth is up, annual real wages are up, wholesale electricity prices are down, gas prices are down, and private business investment is up. These are the things that matter. We are focused on helping households. We're dealing with the inflation challenge. We are making sure that we help people with cost-of-living pressures where we can, and we will continue to do so.
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Energy has always been the foundation of Australian industries' international competitive advantage, with our abundant renewable resources and the falling cost of renewable generation. We have the chance to secure Australia's industrial future and tens of thousands of jobs in regional Australia. How is the government seizing this opportunity, and what are the examples of industrial investments driven by cleaner and cheaper energy?
I think what really annoys those opposite the most is that we've set out a very credible plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. Now, it's not me saying that. That's Senator Matthew O'Sullivan. On Tuesday, 23 November 2021, that's what he said. We are the only party of government in this place that understands that competitive energy prices have been, are and will be the source of Australia's future competitive advantage in industry. And if the show over here for a moment could abandon the imported far-right talking points from Senator Canavan's social media account, they would understand that what industry is demanding is more electricity—more renewables backed by storage and gas.
That is the cheapest form of a modern electricity system for this country. There are 15 gigawatts of renewables in storage into the system and 20 more in the pipeline. Your miserable record was four gigawatts out and only one tiny gigawatt in. The source of Australia's current competitive problems in energy is all over there. There was a decade of delinquency and inaction and a frozen ideological paralysis. What we are watching is the slow march across here of far-right extremism. (Time expired)
Senator Ghosh, first supplementary?
Underinvestment in the energy system and political neglect have eroded Australia's industrial competitiveness. Can the minister confirm that neither the Gladstone nor Bayswater coal power plants could offer enough cheap energy to keep their respective aluminium smelters operating at full capacity?
Senator Ghosh, you're right. Rio was clear that the coal power from Bayswater would be too expensive after 2028, and Rio curtailed production at Boyne Island in 2017 because the electricity from the Gladstone coal power plant was too expensive. Why were these smelters forced to go to ageing coal plants for power? It was because of the previous government's supreme incompetence. Its lack of diligence and its lack of capacity to be able to deliver more than one puny gigawatt in the national interest meant that we had a decade-long investment drought. Disinvestment has a consequence for real people. To quote a letter from the Newcastle Herald today: 'Energy uncertainty is hurting industry. Tomago's situation should prompt urgent investment in clean, reliable and affordable energy.' (Time expired)
A cheaper and cleaner energy system requires partnerships between the Commonwealth and state governments, along with private investors. Why is coherent and serious policy key for these partnerships and what parts of the community are affected if policy is incoherent?
They are the party of the sort of gourmet food Sunday morning market. We are the party that actually wants to use markets in the public interest. I think Ted O'Brien said on 23 November 2021, 'My view is that we can all win from getting to net zero.' That's what he said. What has happened to the Liberal Party? Liberal moderates are now Australia's largest invertebrate species. All through there, they not only have an incapacity to have the political spine to stand up to a right-wing extremist imported takeover. They are also without the intellectual coherence to mount an argument that is based on investor certainty and policy coherence. (Time expired)
I am shooketh, President! My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McAllister. The government has issued its Consultation Regulatory Impact Analysis on a proposal to reduce speed limits to as low as 70 kilometres per hour on rural roads. The government's consultation cost benefit analysis says:
There is evidence to suggest increased speed can increase fuel consumption and therefore increase CO2 emissions.
It also says:
The value of GHG emissions, therefore, is not internalised in the market, which means individuals do not make decisions based on the overall impact. This is a classic market failure, making the value of emissions difficult to estimate accurately.
Is government reducing speed limits on rural roads so that it can reach its net zero goals, and why are people only in rural areas being asked to reduce their speeds to reach Labor's net zero target?
Senator Cadell, I can put the question to Minister McAllister, but I would only ask her to answer it in the best way she can. The correct minister is Senator McCarthy. I am happy to direct the question to Senator McCarthy, but equally you called—
I'll redirect the question.
Thank you, Senator Cadell. It's interesting that the focus is on speed limits. It makes you wonder just how fast these guys on the other side want to keep going. How many questions there have been around this has been really, really interesting. This was a Nationals policy in 2018 when the member for New England and then the member for Riverina held the infrastructure portfolio. Suggestions that our government have suddenly decided it's time to change regional speed limits—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. I can't hear a word. That means, on my left, there is way too much noise.
Suggestions that our government has suddenly decided that it's time to change regional speed limits are wrong. Priority action No. 1 of their road safety action plan was to consult on changing speed limits.
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order on my left!
Senator McKenzie! I've called order. That applies to you.
Priority action No. 1 of their road safety action plan was to consult on changing speed limits on high-risk regional roads. We're putting their idea out to consultation for Australians to settle it. The other part of this scare campaign is to say: 'We just need to fix the roads. We want potholes filled and roads improved. That's why we're investing more than ever in making our roads safer.' They're not interested in making our roads safer. We've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program.
Senator Canavan?
It's a point of order on relevance. The question was about the reference to carbon emission reductions as a benefit in the government's consultation paper. The minister hasn't gone anywhere near that.
Senator Canavan, as you well know, that was not the only part of the question.
Order, Senator Ayres! Senator Hanson-Young, no. I had Senator Canavan on his feet with a point of order. Before I even had a chance to finish my response to that, we had interjections across the chamber.
Senator Paterson, I've called you way too many times today. Minister McCarthy is being relevant, Senator Canavan. However, I will continue to listen carefully. That means no interjections, Senator McKenzie.
Thanks for your protection, President. To let the other side know: we've doubled funding for the Roads to Recovery Program to $1 billion per year to help councils upgrade their roads. We've reversed the Liberal freeze on highway maintenance funding to get on with fixing potholes and resurfacing our national highways. The coalition could have done that in their wasted decade of government, but they didn't. We're making big investments in our roads, making them safer and more efficient. It's no thanks to those opposite.
Senator Cadell, first supplementary?
The Consultation regulatory impact analysis says that the government plans to apply a carbon price to show the benefits of lower carbon emissions from reduced speeds on rural roads. Why is the government applying up to a $179 carbon tax on people who drive on country roads?
As I said in my previous response, it was priority action No. 1 in your plan to review speed limits on high-risk regional roads. Can I just say—
Well, if you know the answer, I don't need to speak.
Yes, Senator McKenzie?
I have a point of order on relevance. Senator Cadell's questions have gone to the government's own consultation paper, and the minister has not come near it.
The minister is being relevant. I believe she's answered the first supplementary question. Senator Cadell, second supplementary?
Minister, will the government rule out using—
An honourable senator interjecting—
That's hurtful, sir! Minister, will the government rule out any calculation of carbon emissions reductions in its decision regulatory impact analysis? Can the government commit that any decision to reduce speed limits will be purely based on safety concerns, not the ideological pursuit of Labor's net zero?
When we talk about the ideological pursuit of net zero, we know where the Nationals sit but we have no idea where the Liberals sit on net zero. In fact, if you listen to the media or if you go up to—
I have a point of order on relevance. The question went to a government decision and the release of a decision regulatory impact analysis. Immediately the minister started talking about an opposition party. I don't think that is relevant. I also seek leave to table the consultation regulatory impact assessment—
Leave is not granted.
which includes a carbon tax of $179 and which includes seeking to reduce speed limits—
Order! Senator Canavan, resume your seat. It is hard for me to take you seriously when you stand up and make a point of order if you then deliberately ignore me when I try to seek order and you continue on to make a statement. I have said time and time in this place: make your point of order and don't make a statement.
First, in relation to the document, Senator Canavan, there are courtesies, as you are aware. If those are observed, our general view is usually to be amenable to tabling. Those courtesies can be extended if the whips are consulted in the usual way. In relation to point of order itself, I would humbly submit that a discussion about net zero ideology probably does invite a discussion about the opposition.
Senator Canavan, the words 'net zero ideology' were part of the question. I will listen carefully to the minister. If she's not addressing the question I will draw her to it.
I've finished.
My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Today is a landmark day for the environment in Australia. The Albanese Labor government's environmental law reforms are expected to pass the House of Representatives today. Can the minister outline how these reforms will protect the environment and why they're so important to achieve our climate goals?
Thank you, Senator Brown. Today is indeed a landmark day for the environment in Australia. It's another—
They don't like it. They don't like making progress on the environment, do they? How green is the Greens party when they don't even want to support progress on the environment? Today is another stop on the journey towards achieving meaningful reform for Australia's broken environmental laws. The Environment Protection Reform Bill is set to pass the House of Representatives today with the support of every Labor MP as well as some Independents, bringing real benefits to the environment, business and community one step closer.
Senator Hanson-Young, come to order!
The legislation includes stronger environmental protections, more efficient and robust project approvals and greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making. Unfortunately, it's back to the future with a rerun of Australia's worst reality TV show: the 'no-alition'. It's back for another season.
But, in this season—happening today in the House of Representatives—we see the Greens party team up with Barnaby Joyce and his other anti-renewable, climate-denying MPs in voting against these laws. We see the Greens political party vote against reforms that will deliver Australia's first National Environmental Protection Agency, new national environmental standards that projects must meet and higher penalties for those who illegally damage our environment. At the same time, we see the Liberal and National parties vote against reforms that will deliver faster assessments and approvals for major projects, up to $7 billion injected into the national economy and updated bilateral agreement frameworks for states and territories to fast-track assessments and approvals.
It's vital that these laws are passed so we can build the housing and renewables we need to reach net zero by 2050. Of course, this is a policy—net zero—that is about to be dropped by the Liberal Party at the behest of their junior coalition partner, who are less than one-sixth the size of them in the Senate. (Time expired)
Minister, if you are referring to people in the other place, I remind you to use their correct titles. Senator Brown, first supplementary?
These reforms are vital not only to protect our precious environment but also to ensure that we can accelerate investment in key national priorities like housing and renewable energy. Minister, can you outline the broad support for this bill and for climate action from across the community?
We are seeing support from a wide range of parties for these reforms. In the last few days we've seen support from the Housing Industry Association, the Ai Group and the Clean Energy Council—a group who like to deliver renewable energy, something the Greens party once upon a time supported, until they wanted to stop it because they want to stop everything. We've got the Clean Energy Council supporting more renewables and supporting these reforms, while the Greens party want to team up with Barnaby Joyce and say no. What a horrible thought!
Minister Watt, I did remind you to refer to others in that other place by their correct titles.
As I say, it is very, very disturbing to see the once proud Liberal Party being led by the nose by the National Party to drop net zero—probably to oppose these reforms as well. I did a quick count and reminded myself that in the Senate we have four National Party senators and we have 23 Liberal Party senators. In fact, you poached one of the Nationals in Senator Nampijinpa Price, and you're still being led by the National Party. There are as many Liberal senators called James and Andrew—
Thank you, Minister. The time for answering—
as there are National Party senators, and you are following them.
Minister, when I ask you to stop, you need to stop. Senator Brown, second supplementary?
The Albanese Labor government is unified in its approach to investing in renewables to achieve net zero by 2050, which will ultimately protect our precious environment. How important is policy certainty around our energy market, particularly for business investment around the country?
It is vital for investment certainty in the energy transition that we have policy certainty when it comes to climate change, energy and our environmental law reform. That's what we're seeking support for with these reforms when we come back for the final sitting week of the year. As I was saying, when it comes to the Liberals, there are as many Jameses and Andrews in the Liberal Party room in the Senate as there are National Party senators. All you needed to do was to get one more. You could get an Anne, you could get a Dave, you could get a Maria and you'd have the numbers on the Nationals, but you are still letting this rump of four senators drag you by the nose into oblivion.
Point of order, President. I would ask that you ask the minister, who is being most disrespectful, to refer to senators by their proper names.
Senator Henderson, get to the point of order.
The minister needs to refer to senators by their proper and correct names.
Thank you, Senator Henderson. You will note I have been asking the minister to do that, and I will remind him once again.
You could have a Sarah, or a Senator Henderson even, join you and have the numbers over the Nats, but you're still letting them lead you along. Now, it appears that the Liberal lapdogs are taking commands from the farmers in the National Party. We've got the National Party saying 'heel', and they heel. We've got them saying 'sit', and they sit.
Minister Watt, resume your seat.
And now they're rolling over just like a lapdog on net zero.
Minister Watt, resume your seat! Senator Ruston was on her feet. I was struggling to get Minister Watt to resume his seat.
I would ask you to ask Minister Watt if he would consider withdrawing some of the offensive remarks he made about my party.
I withdraw.
On that basis, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.
I will just add, if I may, to an answer that I gave Senator Waters. I'm sorry I didn't get an opportunity to give you a heads-up, Senator. I think you asserted Minister Bowen is not going to COP30. That's not correct. Minister Bowen is going, and he will be representing Australia.
This is an attendance required by a motion in this place for an order for the production of documents. On 17 July the ABS announced it would not release statistics from the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing, noting that data did not meet the ABS's high standards for official statistics. Data quality issues were the result of changes to the survey questionnaire, the implementation of new sampling approaches and unanticipated challenges in combining survey and administrative data sources. The ABS will only release statistics that meet rigorous quality standards and made this decision independently of government, consistent with its role as Australia's independent national statistical organisation.
Senator Payman's office was offered a briefing from the Treasurer's office on the decision to not release the 2023-24 Survey of Income and Housing data, which was declined. Additionally, I'm advised that Senator Payman has also been offered a briefing from ABS. We encourage Senator Payman to accept the ABS's offer to brief her office directly on the reasons they cannot comply with her motion to produce documents. The Treasurer has noted to Senator Payman that the ABS published a paper on 12 September 2025 which was released to ensure transparency around the decision not to publish the data, and I'm happy to table a copy of that report as part of this attendance.
With regard to the ABS's advice and position on this matter, the government respects their expertise, their independence and their professionalism. We are confident that Senator Payman would share that respect, should she accept the offer of a direct briefing from ABS on this matter.
I move:
The Senate take note of the explanation.
This order of the Senate relates to a survey conducted by the ABS. On the surface, it may not seem that special, but it goes to the heart of a century's old rivalry between the executive and the legislature. We saw this dynamic play out just yesterday when Senator Gallagher, in relation to the order for the production of documents No. 110 said, 'Links were provided to the information already available online either in part or in full'. I moved OPD 110 relating to the age-assurance technology trial report, which the Senate agreed to on 27 August this year. The report was not released until four days after the order was made. So, when Senator Gallagher claimed that it was already available online, she appears to have misled the Senate, and I would invite Senator Gallagher to make a statement in the chamber to correct the record.
Turning back to this OPD, on 28 October the Senate agreed that some parts of the data which contain personal information could remain confidential. However, other sections of the data, particularly those that did not contain any personal information, should not be immune to disclosure. What is most concerning, though, is the second justification the government has offered for withholding the data. This was in a letter dated 17 September where the Treasurer wrote, 'Further, the ABS is unable to release aggregate results from the survey of income and housing 2023-24 due to serious shortcomings in the questionnaire design and data collection processes that could not be overcome.' Let's unpack these words; I'll rephrase them. Essentially, the government is saying we don't want to and, in fact, refuse to publish this data because we made a mistake. All governments make mistakes. All governments try to cover up their mistakes. It is a fact of political life.
But it is our job, not only as non-government senators but as senators in general in this place, members as we are of this house of review, to scrutinise the activities of government, to find out the mistakes that are being made so that processes can be improved and those errors do not happen again. The ABS has reviewed the failures that led to these deficiencies and identified ways to improve its processes, which is appropriate. But the cost of this survey was in the neighbourhood of $13 million—millions of taxpayer dollars spent on a survey that was ultimately thrown in the bin. Worst still, the 2023-24 survey was meant to follow the 2019-2020 edition. Because this one has been withheld, both industry and government are relying on pre COVID data to shape income and housing policy. That's just unacceptable. Much has changed since COVID, particularly in terms of housing distress. Rents and mortgage repayments are up, and vacancies are down. A lot's changed.
In a letter on 30 October, the Treasurer said that releasing the documents could mislead those using this data or these results to inform important social and economic programs and policies. The ABS itself has said the data is flawed, yet, interestingly, it has published portions of that same data. In its review, the ABS includes a graph from the 2023-24 survey showing a spike in homeownership and a crash in renters which the ABS has attributed to an overrepresentation of homeowners and the underrepresentation of renters. So the ABS can release this data when it suits, but just not to the Senate. If data can be released for review, it can be tabled for scrutiny. So long as it is clearly marked as unsuitable for statistical purposes, there is no justification for withholding it from parliament.
Australians have paid good money for this survey, and they deserve transparency. I call on the government to table all findings as soon as possible because the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. If this Senate allows a flimsy claim of public interest immunity and stands by it, it would mean accepting the culture of mediocrity and secrecy that this government and this Prime Minister have been demonstrating for four years now. (Time expired.)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by coalition senators during questions without notice today.
In moving that motion, I want to start with the question that I asked, and that was in relation to the exploding industry of illegal tobacco in this country that has happened on this government's watch. It didn't just happen overnight. It's happened over the last three or more years now while this government has been on the Treasury benches, and it has had devastating impacts on the lives of many Australians. Indeed, the government itself is not immune to the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade, losing billions of dollars of revenue in excise collections every year as a result of their hands off approach when it comes to dealing with this insidious issue.
There's not an Australian—particularly in major population centres like Melbourne or Sydney, Brisbane perhaps, or even, indeed, some of the regional communities around Australia—that cannot see firsthand the impacts of the illicit tobacco trade. I understand that every day in this country these cartel operations, these crime gangs, are making a $13 million profit off illegal tobacco, and this government has sat on its hands for the last 3½ years. They talk about hundreds of millions of dollars being ploughed into enforcement initiatives. The problem is that it is not stopping the problem. It is not stemming the flow of these terrible products coming into our country, be they illegal cigarettes, loose leaf tobacco or illegal vape products. Of course, we know that these products can be laced with some of the most harmful chemicals with terrible consequences for human health with no approval from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
Again this government and the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs say, 'Virtually nothing to see here.' This is a terrible indictment on government that should have, in its top few priorities, a desire to keep this nation secure and a desire to keep Australians safe, healthy and protected from, as I said before, the insidiousness and harms associated with the illicit tobacco trade.
I was in Melbourne, just a couple of weeks ago, and I was able to stand and do a media conference with the Victorian shadow Attorney-General, Mr James Newbury, in a vacant tenancy in the suburb of Prahran. As we know, and as we've seen night after night on television news, in places like Melbourne—and Sydney, as I mentioned before—there are countless firebombings, ram raids, theft activity and physical assaults which are all associated with the illegal tobacco trade.
The tenancy we stood in was not a large premises, but it was one that had an insurance cost, I'm told, of roughly $2,000 per annum for the landlord to pay in order to have insurance protection around that tenancy. In a 12-month period, that insurance bill went up from $2,000 per annum to $200,000 per annum because a tenant in that shop area was a legitimate tobacconist. They are someone who was actually paying their GST bills and ensuring that excise was collected on the products that they sold. They dealt in legitimate products, but, because they were doing so, they presented a risk that insurance companies weren't willing to stomach. Therefore, they saw insurance bills for that particular business go up from $2,000 to $200,000 in a one-year period. That is one of the many consequences flowing from this industry. We know of firebombings of people's houses. Representatives of crime gangs have had their homes targeted by rival crime gangs. There have been firebombings gone wrong. We know of fatalities related to that.
Again, this government seem to say: 'It's all under control. We're doing everything we can.' The fact of the matter is you are not. The impact from the number of products, and the weight of those products, coming into this country is growing. It's exploding, and there is nothing that these crime gangs are seeing this government do that will in any way deter them from doing what it is they do. The government is losing billions of dollars every year—$3.3 billion last year alone—and billions of dollars over the forward estimates. Humans' lives are at risk.
Our country's security and safety is very much under threat because of, as I say, a hands-off approach. This is a government that's happy to set up a taskforce here, a group there and a committee here, but it does nothing meaningful or tangible about this. It's an indictment on this government. It does indicate to me that their priorities are wrong. It is the kind of thing that needs urgent action in collaboration with state and territory authorities, intelligence authorities and law enforcement agencies more broadly. But it is an indictment on this government nonetheless. (Time expired)
You could have knocked me over with a feather today as I watched the coalition come into this place and talk about real wage growth. The cheek of it! When Labor came to office, real wages and income were going backwards under the coalition. Real wages fell for five consecutive quarters under the coalition. That's their record. On our watch, real wages and living standards are growing again under Labor. Let's have a look at who's received a pay rise under Labor: aged-care workers, childcare workers and award workers—these are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia and all have received a pay rise under this government. Four hundred thousand aged-care workers have benefited from wage increases, in addition to a 15 per cent award wage increase paid directly to aged-care workers in 2023. Childcare and early educators are receiving a 15 per cent pay rise funded by the government. That's a pay rise of at least $155 per week. Three million Australians who are award workers received a 3.5 per cent pay rise from 1 July. That's a real wage increase above inflation.
What did this government do about increases for working people? We put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission arguing for an economically sustainable pay rise for supermarket workers, for distribution workers, for hospitality workers, for retail workers—the list goes on. Under the former coalition government, what did they do? Their government's submission to the Fair Work Commission voted against a substantive pay rise, and they did that in 2016, 2017 and 2019.
Let's talk about what also puts more money in the back pockets of workers, and that's tax cuts. Delivering tax cuts for every single Australian taxpayer is the record of this government. We delivered one last year and we'll deliver one next year and another the year after. We've also delivered an instant $1,000 tax deduction. Labor's tax cuts will help 14 million Australian taxpayers. The coalition voted against that. They tried to stand between working people and a tax cut. Imagine coming into this place and lecturing the Labor Party on wages growth while voting against tax cuts.
I'll now move to Senator Cadell's question about rural road limits and drawing a very long bow towards net zero. I'm not sure where Senator Cadell is getting this stuff from—
From your own documents.
I will come to that in a minute. 'Your policy; your document'—it sounds a bit like more fake news from the CNN, the 'Canavan News Network', over there, pumping out wall-to-wall fake news.
Honourable senators interjecting—
Let's talk about that for a minute. Every time the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, tries to get their show back on the road, to get their energy policy back on the road, the Nationals go off like a malfunctioning smoke alarm, leaving the Liberals running for cover. What do we get? A painful loud noise that everyone wants to be quiet.
Let me talk a little bit about those speed limits for a moment. The previous coalition government—in fact, the then deputy prime minister, Michael McCormack—made a commitment to review default speed limits as part of the Road Safety Action Plan 2018-2020. In fact, it was priority action No. 1 in your plan to review speed limits in high-risk regional roads. Senator Canavan's government—
Senator Mulholland, can we try to address our remarks through the chair, not directly to another senator.
Noted. Strangely, after introducing the idea, we now see in here today that the Nationals have flip-flopped and are now actively campaigning against their own policy.
Which one?
That's true! I've only got 20 seconds. I can't go through them all. What we have at the moment is public consultation open under that process that started under the National Party. Again, they're now crab-walking away from their own policy.
The previous senator asked where the coalition got the idea that the government is considering reducing speed limits based on the potential reduction in carbon emissions that would follow. We got that from the government's own documents. The government released a consultation regulatory impact assessment in September this year. It was a document released by the department of infrastructure. I have it here in front of me. Obviously, their minister doesn't seem to have read it, seemingly neither has the senator who just spoke, so I'm happy to read some extracts to the Senate so we can all be well informed here.
The regulatory impact assessment has a section saying 'cost-of-carbon benefit' that says—the whole section is about three or four pages. The document says:
Consumption of petrol and diesel in petrol and diesel vehicles produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
It goes on to say:
There is evidence to suggest that increased speed can increase fuel consumption and therefore increase CO2 emissions.
Later on in the document, it says:
The value of GHG emissions—
greenhouse gas emissions, that is—
therefore, is not internalised in the market, which means that individuals do not make decisions based on the overall impact. This is a classic market failure, making the value of emissions difficult to estimate accurately.
Despite that difficulty, the document goes on to try to do that and says:
This RIA—
regulatory impact assessment—
will use the AER's—
Australian Energy Regulator's—
Cost of carbon estimates as shown in figure 11 below. The total dollar value of the reduction in emissions is therefore the total tonnes of abated carbon per year multiplied by the social cost of carbon in that year.
If you go to that figure 11, it has a range of carbon value estimates that start at $79 a tonne—three times the size of Julia Gillard's carbon tax—and goes to a total of $179 a tonne by the year 2036.
The question here is not whether or not a government should consider reducing the speed to save Australian lives. The question is: should a government decide on the speed limit to reach a reduction in carbon emissions? That's the question. The government's own document says, 'We will make this decision on whether to reduce speed limits not just on what it means for safety'—it's very important; I agree with that—'we will also consider whether or not reducing emissions justifies making Australians go slower on their own roads.' That is in their own documents. It is what they put out publicly. They have whole armies of bureaucrats in this town estimating these costs of carbon. It's wasting a huge amount of money. They're not doing much for our economy, for our productivity or to help Australians survive and pay their bills, but they are imposing new imposts and new means and reasons to tell Australians what to do, based on rules in Canberra. It's in their own documents.
What is worse here, as someone in the National Party, is that this document relates only to unsealed roads and roads without speed limits. Obviously almost all of those are outside our major cities, so the question that has to be asked, which my colleague Senator Cadell did today, is: why is the government considering the benefits—they say 'benefits'—of reducing emissions for slower speed limits only in rural areas? They're imposing this $179 carbon tax on driving in rural areas. Why is that happening? Why would your own government be making a decision about the safety of roads, only in country areas, based on, 'That might create a few emissions'?
Obviously it is in country areas that we often have to drive quite large vehicles. It can be quite dangerous on some of these roads, so you probably don't want to be driving a Ford Focus down by Mistake Creek on the Clermont-Alpha Road. I wouldn't advise that. You probably would want to be in, if you can, a Toyota LandCruiser. That would be the ideal vehicle. It's heavy, and you'll probably have a bull bar on the front of it to keep you and your family safe—and that's heavy; that'll create more emissions. And the government is using that data from those larger cars, which necessarily do create more emissions—and cost us more money, too, to drive—to justify making us go slower.
This shows that this whole net zero idea is about control. It is about controlling your life, because the only way the government can meet net zero is if it tells you what car you can drive, how fast you can drive, what food you can eat, what energy you can use and what clothes you can wear. Everything you do has to be controlled to reach net zero emissions. I don't think the Australian people want to be told what to do by a bunch of rich, self-entitled politicians, investors and bankers. I think they want their freedom back. I think they want their standard of living back, and most of all we want our jobs back.
What a delight it is to see the opposition return to their economic base and to come into this place in question time and actually ask some decent questions about the economy, because that's been lacking and absent in the 48th Parliament up until today. So congratulations, folks. You've come in here and actually put some decent questions.
But you've missed out some of the very key facts. When the Albanese Labor government came to office, the opposition had absolutely no economic credibility. At the last election, the Liberal Party actually ran on promising higher income taxes for every Australian, more savage cuts—
Cuts, cuts, cuts—Senator Henderson. That's exactly what the opposition went out and told the Australian people.
Senator Cox, through the chair, please. Senator Henderson, interjections are always disorderly.
She loves a debate with me, Deputy President.
No, through the chair, Senator Cox.
Through you, I'd be happy to invite Senator Henderson up for a cup of tea and a chat sometime.
Senator Henderson, please stop interjecting. Senator Cox, please direct your speech through the chair.
Thank you, Deputy President, and you know, as a proud Western Australian, that economics is so important to us in Western Australia; it's a fine state.
But our government have worked particularly hard. There were two large Liberal deficits that they left behind, and Labor turned those into surpluses. We got our debt down to $188 billion in 2024-25, after what they left us. We turned around the rabble that was left behind by the opposition. The average real payment growth has been limited to 1.7 per cent per year and around 3.2 percent over a 30-year average. Our finance team and our treasury have done amazing work to do that.
I know that it pains the opposition to sit here and listen to that, given what's currently going on within the Liberal-National coalition. It was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy to keep wages lower in this country, but we over here on this side of the chamber, the Albanese Labor government, are absolutely committed to real wage growth. Our government is a government that cares about real wage growth for Australians, and we want to make sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. That is what we are about. We are a mature party of government; that's exactly what the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher, said during question time. And unity is at the heart of that. We see over there the different policies coming in and out of the different folk that are putting their hands up for leadership positions. But we care about what Australians want: real wage growth. And that's at the heart of what we are doing in our economic work across our treasury and finance areas.
Let me go to some of the other conversations. I think Senator Mulholland spoke about the speed limits on roads. They're important for our regional centres, and it's important they're maintained. Our wonderful repping minister, Minister McCarthy, articulated the investment that we, the Albanese Labor government, are making. So I won't do that one to death during this time, in taking note.
I'll also talk a little bit about Minister Watt's contribution and his responses to questions from Senator Duniam in relation to illegal tobacco and the $256 million investment that we are making to ensure that we are tackling this problem. I'm a member of the law enforcement committee, chaired by the wonderful Senator Polley from Tasmania. We are working with our state and territory partners, Border Force, law enforcement agencies and other agencies—more importantly—to ensure that this is front of mind in our communities.
I want to finish with something that is absolutely critical. As Minister Watt responded today—what a landmark day for the environment here in Australia. It is the work of Minister Watt, and I want to congratulate him for his leadership and congratulate those over in the House. We've heard the bells going all day, with the voting that's been going on. This is important—get behind EPBC reform!
I'm going to start a little bit off topic, and I hope you indulge me. I just noted that Senator Cox referenced her great state of WA. I want to note that my great state of New South Wales contributes 30.7 per cent of Australia's GDP, and Western Australia contributes only about 17 per cent.
You're going to create a row there, Maria!
But I do digress—
I might have to call you to order!
I thank you for your indulgence. We were talking about the Reserve Bank. Senator Paterson asked questions to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, about the comments of the RBA in relation to government spending. It is a fact that the RBA has made numerous comments in relation to the spending of this government.
Over the past term, the Albanese Labor government has pointed to the fact that their inflationary problems are the fault of the Opposition, even though the RBA has pointed to government spending and the Treasury has pointed to government spending.
Now, today, we have Senator Gallagher telling us that it's actually because of big global pressures. It's never the fault of the Albanese Labor government! Whatever happens in this country seems to be somebody else's fault—usually ours, even though we are in opposition. We do appreciate the sentiment of being able to control what the government does, from opposition, but that's not quite the fact.
Seriously though, this is a significant problem for Australians. Inflation in our country has been described as sticky. It's been described as persistent. Call it what you will, but the reality is that inflation is causing significant cost-of-living pressures for Australians. I'll talk about housing in particular. Those opposite, when you hear them speak, will often reference the three rate cuts under this government, but what they will not reference is the 12 rate rises under this government that preceded the three rate cuts. According to my very basic maths, there were a lot more rate increases than rate reductions. Maybe we should have a think about that, because that differentiation is still costing Australians about $1,800 a month more on their mortgage repayments. That's a lot of money. We're not just talking about mortgage repayments. If we talk about rents, there's a significant price increase there too.
You've heard me talk many times in this chamber about the plight of young Australians who want to own their own home. I first spoke about it in my maiden speech. The reality is—and I'll say it again—no matter how hard young Australians work they fear that they'll never own their own home. How can they, when the cost of everything has gone through the roof under this government? Mr O'Brien in the other place referred to it as 'Jimflation', but the inflation that is a product of this government, that is homegrown, has put so much cost pressure on every Australian. Can you imagine what it's like to be a young Australian paying extraordinary rents and trying to save for your first home? Think about that. You're paying rents that have gone through the roof. You're trying to save for your own home. Everything, from your groceries, your electricity and your insurance to your petrol, is more expensive, and those opposite are trying to pretend that there's nothing to see here. Well, there's plenty to see here, and it is a result of their actions and inactions.
Treasury has said that this is the biggest-spending government since the Second World War. That's a problem, and young Australians are paying for it today with their inability to save and get into housing, to buy and own their own home—because that's what we want. We want young Australians to buy their own home and not be subject to a lifetime of renting under the build-to-rent proposals of the government. But the government don't seem to care. They are focused on doing what it is that they want to do, because of their vested interests in big super, the CFMEU and the impacts that they have on the cost of housing in our country. It is a real shame that they will not acknowledge the impacts that their reckless spending has on Australians, which they are ignoring. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change.
Australia has an extraordinary opportunity in front of it to host the world's biggest climate conference, COP31, in Adelaide next year. It could be a defining moment for Australia to show genuine global leadership and put an end to dirty fossil fuel projects across the country. The Prime Minister should do everything—everything—within his power to secure this bid. Frankly, his failing to attend this year's COP is a massive cop-out. By hosting COP31, Australia would show that it is serious about tackling the climate crisis and building a clean energy future. It's about working hand in hand with our Pacific neighbours, who are already leading with courage and conviction on the global stage. The Pacific is ready to lead alongside us. Their leaders have deep, proven climate credentials on the world stage. Pacific nations have been the moral compass of the climate movement for decades. As Pacific climate leader Joseph Sikulu said, 'If anybody is owed a COP in this world, it's the Pacific.'
Right now, Australia remains one of the biggest exporters of climate chaos in the world. Today, the Western Australian government's own report confirms our LNG exports to Asian countries are undermining cuts to global emissions—a narrative that this Labor government frequently peddles, dusted. Securing COP21 matters. It forces us to show the world who we are. Are we a nation that clings to the past or one that wants to lead the region towards a cleaner, fairer future? The Prime Minister must pull out all stops in these final days to secure the bid and show that we can match ambition with action. If this government doesn't secure it, they need to know that they are certainly not off the hook. This government's responsibility does not end with a lost bid; it starts with real action. Stop approving new coal and gas projects. Commit to a fair and fast phase-out of fossil fuels, invest in clean energy and support the communities already being pummelled by the climate crisis.
Minister, the irony is, quite frankly, striking. You gave a shout-out to the young people at the start of your answer while the government condemns the young people of this country to a future of climate calamity and uncertainty. You ask us to see the engagement that you've had with the Pacific nations. Well, I've had the privilege of working alongside Pacific nations on the front lines of the climate crisis right across the region, from Tuvalu to Vanuatu to Samoa to Fiji to Kiribati to Solomon Islands. These are some of the most extraordinary activists you will ever encounter, and they know that the difference between 1.5 and two degrees of warming is catastrophic for them. It's the difference between them been able to stay on their lands to continue their culture, their traditions, their languages, and being forced to move because their islands simply go underwater, taking with them generations of history, cultural traditions—and their livelihoods, of course.
There is so much at stake, and they watched on in horror as this government approved the North West Shelf expansion and introduced climate targets that are woefully inadequate and will not keep us close to 1.5 degrees to keep them on their homelands. It is an utter disgrace. You call for respect for these leaders, but where is respect for Australians and young Pacific leaders fighting for their futures? Instead, we see your engagement with Chevron, with BHP and with the Minerals Council, who have all greenlit the loophole-ridden, so-called environment reforms, the outcome of which will be worse than the status quo. We've heard that from environment groups right across the sector here at Parliament House today. They're absolutely appalled at the speaking points that Labour are putting out and the falseness of the narrative that 'In a Hurry' Murray is peddling. You say there's been no discussion with multinationals about this bill—
Senator Hodgins-May, we need to refer to people by their correct titles.
Minister Watt. Better yet, maybe all ministers in this place could open their diaries so the public could see who those meetings are happening with.
The Greens say: Prime Minister Albanese, step up, show up and use every diplomatic and political lever you have to land COP31. The world is watching, the Pacific is leading and it's time that Australia did too.
Question agreed to.
I present the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference Committee on the National Volunteer Incentive Scheme, together with accompanying documents. I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I am very pleased to table this report. This inquiry examined how Australia can better encourage and sustain volunteer participation in disaster preparedness, response and recovery. It follows the earlier work of the Senate Select Committee on Disaster Resilience and builds on the findings of the Colvin Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding.
Our committee considered whether a national incentive scheme for volunteers could strengthen Australia's ability to respond to disasters, ease the burden on existing emergency services and ensure volunteers are properly trained, recognised and supported.
Australia has long depended on volunteers. When fires rage, when floodwaters rise and when cyclones hit, it is hardworking Australians from every part of our country who turn up, often at great personal risk and expense, to help their neighbours and communities in times of dire need. From our state emergency services, rural fire services and country fire authorities to organisations like Australian Red Cross, Disaster Relief Australia and Conservation Volunteers Australia, volunteers are integral to our national response effort. They represent the very best of who we are as Australians—community minded, resourceful and ready to help without expectation of reward. Yet this inquiry made clear that this is a proud tradition under strain. Volunteer numbers have fallen steadily over the past decade. In the fire services alone, volunteer numbers declined by over 14 per cent between 2014-15 and 2023-24. Our committee heard that many Australians want to help but are finding it harder to do so with the added pressures of work, the cost of living and a lack of employer support.
Our inquiry sought to test whether a national volunteer incentive scheme could help reverse these trends. Could a coordinated national model mobilise volunteers, particularly young Australians, in a way which supports existing volunteer services? We received a variety of evidence. Some stakeholders argued that a national umbrella body could create new pathways and strengthen resilience, while others, including fire and emergency services, warned that duplicating existing structures could be counterproductive.
The committee wants to focus on what works—what practical and sustainable steps could genuinely increase volunteer participation, improve training and recognition and support the people who already do this most extraordinary work. Volunteering Australia told us that formal volunteering rates have fallen from one-third of adults in 2002 to one-quarter in 2020. The reasons are complex. The cost-of-living pressures and ageing demographics are key barriers. We also heard concerns that young Australians are volunteering less and less. Some submissions challenged this perception and suggested young people often volunteer informally and are motivated by purpose and values, rather than institutional affiliation.
But there is no doubt that, as a nation, we need to make volunteering more accessible and more rewarding. Financial barriers such as travel, training and equipment costs should not deter participation. Volunteers should not be left out of pocket for choosing to serve their communities. Similarly, volunteers deserve clear pathways for training and recognition. Many seek skills and qualifications which can translate into career opportunities, and that's a win-win for both individuals and Australia's disaster response capability.
We had a look at successful overseas models like the Student Volunteer Army in New Zealand, the Peace Corps in the United States and the European Solidarity Corps in the European Union, all of which demonstrated the power of structured and skills based volunteering. It is also important to remember we have proven Australian examples. Disaster Relief Australia, founded by veterans, now has nearly 6½ thousand volunteers nationwide and continues to grow at 38 per cent per year, which is incredible. Its model provides training, national coordination and strong community partnerships while preserving the volunteer spirit. Conservation Volunteers Australia has decades of experience in engaging young people in environmental recovery projects.
One of the clearest messages to emerge from the inquiry was that Australia does not lack volunteer organisations; what it lacks is a coordinated framework and consistent support. State and territory governments retain primary responsibility for emergency management, so any national scheme must therefore complement the existing arrangements and not cut across them. On balance, we recommend that the Commonwealth work with the National Emergency Management Agency and with volunteer based organisations to strengthen the frameworks we already have, particularly through targeted funding, streamlined training standards and a national volunteer credentialing system.
Training is central to sustaining a capable volunteer force. We found strong support for standardised national training which recognises existing skills and builds new ones through the vocational education and training system. Volunteers could also seek and gain microcredentials or nationally recognised qualifications which are portable across state and organisations.
Safety was another major focus. Volunteers face not only physical but psychological risks. Therefore, that was really identified as a key focus in any further work that needs to be done.
There was some concern about reference to the title 'climate army'. We had some submissions from those who felt that that overmilitarised and took away from the volunteering spirit which underpins so many organisations.
In summary, the committee made two recommendations. First was that the Australian government undertake deeper consultation with the emergency response and broader volunteering sectors before any decisions about the feasibility, risks and benefits of establishing a national volunteer incentive scheme are made. Second was that the Australian government perhaps move away from the reference to the term 'climate army'.
On behalf of the committee, I want to extend our sincere thanks to the many individuals and organisations who contributed to this inquiry—from state emergency services and local councils to not-for-profit organisations, academics and, of course, the many wonderful volunteers who shared their experiences. Above all, I really want to acknowledge and salute Australia's volunteers. They are the first to step forward the last to leave. They ask for little, yet they give so much. Their courage, compassion and resilience define us as a nation.
This report calls for a system which matches our volunteers' commitment to our great country—a system which values service, strengthens communities and ensures Australia is always ready when the next challenge comes our way. I commend our report to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present the report of the committee on the NDIS participant experience in rural, regional and remote Australia.
At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, together with accompanying documents.
I present additional information received by the Economics Legislation Committee relating to estimates.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:
Access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases
OCTOBER 2025
Overview
The Australian Government appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee list of recommendations on the Access to diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases. The Government thanks the Committee and the various stakeholders for their valuable and thoughtful input to the Inquiry.
The Government acknowledges the concerns of patients who are facing issues accessing diagnosis and treatment with tick-borne illnesses. In early 2013, the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing began engaging with patients, medical practitioners, and advocacy groups to discuss concerns about Lyme disease. In 2016, the department engaged and addressed the Senate Inquiry recommendations into Growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness (2016 Inquiry) through a range of measures such as public education materials, research and guidance for medical practitioners. As a result, the department has gained a deeper appreciation and growing concern for those Australians experiencing issues relating to tick-borne diseases.
This response addresses the specific recommendations raised in the current Senate Committee's Report. The Government remains open-minded about the cause of the various complexes which manifest as a range of chronic debilitating symptoms. The best outcome for patients and health practitioners is to not draw conclusions based on poor levels of evidence, but to consider each patient thoroughly in a multidisciplinary medical approach that makes the best use of clinical expertise and available diagnostic skills and technology.
The Government remains engaged with the patient and medical community to continue to find, share and understand the evidence associated with tick-borne diseases. The Government hopes its continued work with clinical medicine and research communities will result in answers and relief for patients and their families.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing work with state and territory governments to develop public education and awareness campaigns to prevent tick-bites, provide information on the treatment of tick-bites, and the symptoms of tick-borne illnesses.
The Government supports this recommendation.
In the first instance the department will work with state and territory governments to review existing public education materials on the prevention of tick-bites, treatment of .tick-bites, and the symptoms of tick-borne illnesses.
Following the recommendations of the 2016 Inquiry, the department engaged Allen and Clarke Consulting to produce a suite of tick educational materials. This included fact sheets for the general public and guidance notes for clinicians. Tick educational materials are available on the department's website. Fact sheets and guidance notes on the topic of .tick-borne diseases describe best practice principles for tick prevention and tick bite management.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing fund research to collect data on the prevalence, frequency and geographical distribution of tick bites in Australia.
The Government notes this recommendation.
It is not economically nor practically feasible to track all tick bites in Australia, nor would it be for any other vector bite such as mosquitoes.
The department manages the Nationally Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS) that provides coordinated national surveillance data for over 70 diseases on the National Notifiable Disease List (NNDL). Unspecified tick-borne infections are not notifiable and unlikely to meet the criteria, including presenting a risk to public health if there is an outbreak, to warrant the addition to the NNDL.
The Government will explore sampling surveys that could track some epidemiology of tick bites.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing consult medical practitioners and patient stakeholder groups to develop a term to replace Debilitating Symptom Complexes Attributed to Ticks ( DSCATT ) that removes the stigma that is felt by patients, and provides clarity for medical practitioners.
The Government supports this recommendation in principle.
Following the 2016 Inquiry, the department strongly supported the removal of the terms "Lyme Disease", "Lyme disease like Illness" and "Chronic Lyme Disease" from diagnostic discussions. As there was no clear agreed alternative nomenclature, the department proposed to use the term "Debilitating Symptom Complexes Attributed to Ticks" (DSCATT). NHMRC adopted the term for its Targeted Call for Research, to describe the heterogeneous nature of the debilitating symptom subgroups with an acknowledgement that ticks may have a role.
Since then, DSCATT has been a term used by the Government to describe the group of Australian patients suffering from the symptoms of a chronic debilitating illness, which many associate with a tick bite. It has been used to appropriately acknowledge this patient group and the multifaceted illness they are experiencing, and acknowledge their illness is poorly understood based on the available evidence. DSCATT was also proposed as a name to move away from the stigma and controversy associated with the terms previously used to describe this patient's group such as "Lyme disease-like Illness" and "Chronic Lyme Disease".
The Government will explore the implementation of this recommendation with medical practitioners and patient stakeholder groups accordingly. The department stresses that all terms must provide an accurate description, be acceptable, and not mislead or contribute to misinformation or disinformation.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing replace the DSCATT Clinical Pathway with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) guidelines and patient information.
The Government supports this recommendation in principle.
The Government understands from the public hearing as well as the submissions from experts, that the recommendation is to ensure the clinical pathway document contains and explains the level of evidence used in the development of a clinical pathway document. .The Government acknowledges this approach will provide transparency about the quality of the evidence in the clinical pathway document.
The Government notes that the DSCATT Clinical Pathway was developed to support decision-making in diagnosing and referring patients presenting with either new onset or unresolved debilitating symptoms with or without a history of tick bites that cannot be attributed to another condition. The evidence-based DSCATT clinical pathway and .multi-disciplinary care model for patients presenting with DSCATT helps doctors to make diagnoses and referrals for DSCATT patients.
Patient groups were consulted during the development of the DSCATT Clinical Pathway, as were medical and scientific experts. The DSCATT Clinical Pathway was considered by subject matter experts and was provided to the then Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and relevant subcommittees prior to publication. Overall, the DSCATT clinical pathway was well accepted and viewed as a valuable resource, particularly among authoritative medical and government health authorities. The Government understands there is dissatisfaction on the Clinical Pathway among some stakeholders and is open to exploring this recommendation.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing review its suite of fact sheets for the public, and guidance notes for practitioners, to ensure that they are fit for purpose.
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government acknowledges the dissatisfaction expressed in the report in relation to tick illness related information that is available for the public and practitioners. The Government is committed to reviewing the fact sheets to ensure that they are patient centred and support practitioners to provide suitable care.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide funding for urgent research to identify and treat tick-borne diseases, including through: the identification of tick-borne pathogens in Australia; determining whether these pathogens are transmissible to humans; and evaluating the efficacy of treatment protocols accessed by patients both domestically and internationally.
The Government supports this recommendation in principle.
Following the 2016 Inquiry the department urgently funded a targeted call for research to identify and treat tick-borne diseases. This includes recently published research by the CSIRO and the National Health and Medical Research Council currently in progress. The Government will consider the findings of current research, including the CSIRO's findings that after extensive research, no Lyme disease causing Borrelia species was found in Australia. Any future investment and potential research will build on the evidence available, rather than further exploring borrelia as a vector for DSCATT in Australia. This reduces the risk of duplication and ensures investment in targeted research to identify gaps, including through projects funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the Government urgently review diagnostic testing available internationally to determine the efficacy and suitability for use in Australia.
The Government supports the recommendation in principle and will engage with pathology expert groups to seek advice.
The Government acknowledges the contributions made from witnesses with interests in the testing methodologies available internationally. The Government supports the recommendation in principle and will engage with pathology expert groups to seek advice. The Government notes that:
It would not be viable for the Government to adopt international diagnostic devices that target international pathogens not identified in Australia to date.
Current research has not found evidence of Lyme disease to occur indigenously in Australia.
The importation of diagnostic devices targeting non-indigenous pathogens in Australia is therefore not deemed feasible.
The department maintains familiarity with testing methodologies used internationally and keeps abreast of the available diagnostic approaches to help determine suitability for use in Australia.
______
The document w as unavailable at the time of publishing—
I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Quality and Safeguards Commission is the only regulatory body that over 700,000 NDIS participants can turn to when they experience abuse, neglect and poor-quality service. Yet the commission itself has been neglected and chronically underfunded, left without the basic tools that it needs to both prevent and address abuse and neglect effectively. The result is a commission that is struggling to meet its mandate. This failure is happening entirely on this government's watch. The National Audit Office report highlighted some alarming issues. It brought razor focus to the reality that the quality and safeguards commission is failing on so many fronts.
Let us take a look at what the auditor found. The commission, it found, has a flawed decision-making process. It lacks a risk based approach to decision-making—something you would hope to find in a safeguarding commission. The commission's record system is noncompliant. The commission did not have an up-to-date statement of expectations from its minister. Since the release of the audit report, they've scrambled to publish one. Here we are, in 2025. We've had the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. We know the harms that disabled people are subjected to in everyday life, and yet the quality and safeguards commission that is supposed to support disabled people is lacking the absolute basics that you should be able to expect from an institution like this. In 2025, more than a decade after the establishment of the NDIS, this should not be happening. We should all be deeply concerned that the quality and safeguards commission is not adequately resourced to do its job.
Participants tell my office that the commission fails in its duty to participants again and again. Participants tell my office that they report to the commission what they are experiencing, and yet there is no consequence. They don't hear back after raising a serious issue. One participant told me they waited 14 months before receiving a response to their complaint. We must do better.
One of the recommendations in this report that I want to highlight is recommendation No. 4, which states that the commission should 'publicly outline its regulatory processes and decision-making criteria to support public understanding of how the Commission regulates the NDIS'. It is absolutely vital that the public understand how the commission makes its decisions, what it takes seriously and what standards it is prepared to uphold.
Another key recommendation, recommendation No. 9, calls on the commission to support its staff to 'apply a consistent approach to compliance' by 'finalising fit-for-purpose policies and procedures for compliance actions and developing guidance to assist staff with selecting the most suitable compliance tool for specific circumstances'. In what world it is not already a reality? It is frankly shocking that the commission does not have in place these basics. Disabled people deserve better. This government must do better. The Australian Greens will push for better.
Senator, your time has expired.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning resettling arrangements for Nauru, ministerial submissions by the Department of Industry Science and Resources, and the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation's annual report.
The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of committees.
by leave—I move:
That senators be appointed to committees as follows:
Intergenerational Housing Inequity — Select Committee —
Appointed [from the establishment of the committee on 17 March 2026]—
Senators Brown and Mulholland
Participating members: Senators Ananda-Rajah, Ciccone, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Dowling, Ghosh, Grogan, O'Neill, Polley, Sheldon, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Walker and Whiteaker
Operation of the Capital Gains Tax Discount — Select Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Bragg, Dowling, McKim, Sharma and Whiteaker
Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Ananda-Rajah, Antic, Askew, Blyth, Brockman, Brown, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Collins, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Duniam, Faruqi, Ghosh, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Henderson, Hodgins-May, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Mulholland, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Ruston, Scarr, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Walker, Waters and Whish-Wilson
Productivity in Australia — Select Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Ananda-Rajah, Bragg, Grogan and McKenzie
Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Blyth, Brockman, Brown, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Collins, Cox, Darmanin, Dolega, Dowling, Duniam, Ghosh, Henderson, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McLachlan, Mulholland, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Polley, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Sheldon, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Sterle, Stewart, Walker and Whiteaker
Question agreed to.
I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (GEELONG TREATY IMPLEMENTATION) BILL 2025
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement a waiver on customs duties for goods imported under 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 Agreement—known as the Geelong Treaty—was signed in Geelong by the Deputy Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence in July this year.
The Geelong Treaty is a historic agreement, a commitment to the next 50 years of United Kingdom-Australian bilateral defence cooperation under AUKUS Pillar 1 with respect to delivering Australia's SSN-AUKUS submarines.
This Bill enables Australia to comply with its obligations under the Geelong Treaty. Under the Geelong Treaty, Australia and the United Kingdom will not impose value added taxes, excise and customs duties and other similar charges on imports and exports of goods in connection with the Geelong Treaty.
If those charges are levied, the Geelong Treaty provides that the levying Party will be liable for payment of the charges.
The Bill implements Australia's obligations under the Geelong Treaty with respect to customs duties. This Bill amends Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act to insert a new table item, Item 58A, which will prescribe a free rate of duty for goods that are for use under the Geelong Treaty.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
DEFENCE AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE) BILL 2025
I am pleased to present the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This Bill enhances government transparency and accountability in relation to decisions and policies concerning the defence of Australia.
The Government is committed to transparency and accountability. In a Westminster-style democracy such as ours, the Parliament plays a crucial role in delivering this by scrutinising and debating the decisions of the executive government and the implementation of those decisions by departments and agencies.
This scrutiny is important in ensuring sound decision-making, the efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed Parliament and, by extension, public.
The Senate estimates process has provided useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence-particularly major capability projects-over the years, and it will continue to do so following the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence or the PJCD.
But in the challenging and complex strategic circumstances that we face, it is necessary to ensure the Parliament can also examine these projects and Australia's defence strategies in greater detail and in a classified setting, with the appropriate safeguards in place.
This Bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing the PJCD.
The establishment of the PJCD implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into international armed conflict decision making.
The PJCD is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
The PJCD will be able to receive and consider classified information in carrying out its oversight functions, ensuring it has the information needed to conduct effective scrutiny of Defence and its portfolio agencies, strengthening government decision making on defence and strategic policy.
Importantly, the Bill establishes appropriate safeguards that balance the Government's commitment to greater public accountability and transparency for Defence, and the necessary protection of information provided to the PJCD to ensure Australia's national security, and that of our international partners, is protected.
In terms of the PJCD's functions, the committee will have oversight of the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and certain Defence portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial.
The Bill sets out the functions of the PJCD, including:
The PJCD can receive referrals on matters from Ministers and either House of Parliament, and may also undertake own-initiative inquiries relevant to its oversight functions.
In recognition of the significance of establishing a Royal Commission, the PJCD will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing, on an ongoing basis, the Australian Government's response to the findings of any Royal Commission inquiries relating to Defence.
To ensure the independent regulators in the Defence portfolio are able to fulfil their statutory functions, the PJCD will also consider the operations, resources, independence and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.
This is modelled on the relationship between the Australian National Audit Office and the statutory Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. Similarly, the PJCD is not able to direct the regulators or intervene in ongoing investigations, and must not compromise their operational independence.
The PJCD's functions will not extend to matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security under the Intelligence Services Act 2001. This includes oversight of the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation, which will continue to report to that committee.
It will supersede and enhance the Defence-related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
The existing arrangements for Defence oversight by the Senate Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, including the examination of legislation and of the Defence budget through the Senate estimates process, will remain unchanged.
Similarly, the establishment of the PJCD does not prohibit other committees, such as the statutory Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, from examining Defence matters as part of its functions.
The PJCD will complement these existing arrangements by providing additional oversight of Defence matters that require consideration in a classified setting.
In terms of the constitution of the committee, as with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint up to 13 members to the PJCD.
This includes no more than seven government, and six non-government members from both Houses of Parliament.
The arrangements for information handling are modelled on those that apply to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Committee proceedings will be conducted in a private and appropriately secure setting, unless the Minister has authorised public hearings, with the exception of the PJCD's consideration of the annual reports of Defence agencies.
The PJCD will be able to request and receive classified information and briefings in order to perform its functions. For certain categories of protected information-for example, specific information about highly sensitive military capabilities, tactics, techniques or procedures-the Minister would need to authorise the production of the information to the committee.
The Minister would also need to authorise any subsequent disclosure by the PJCD of that information, including in reports to the Parliament.
If necessary, to prevent a witness from disclosing operationally sensitive or other protected information, the Minister can issue a certificate to prevent the provision of such evidence or documents.
Given the safeguards in place to support the provision of information to the PJCD, these powers are not intended for routine use. Rather, they are reserved for rare circumstances where disclosure of highly sensitive information could cause significant harm.
This Bill establishes a range of criminal offences to deter members of the PJCD, their staff, committee staff, and any other individuals who receive protected information in connection with the performance of the committee's functions from disclosing or publishing information without specific authorisation from the relevant Minister.
It also includes offences designed to protect witnesses who are requested to provide evidence or documents to the PJCD.
These offences and penalties in the Bill are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, ensuring the PJCD can access the information required to exercise effective oversight of the Defence portfolio, while maintaining the confidentiality and security of that information.
The strong legal safeguards in place are designed to uphold the integrity of the PJCD's work and ensure that all participants are subject to clear obligations and serious consequences for any breach.
This Bill was previously introduced in 2024. While it did not progress at that time, the Government has retained the flexibility in membership arrangements to ensure the PJCD can adapt to the needs of the Parliament, while guaranteeing both government and non-government voices.
This Bill and the establishment of the PJCD represents an important step forward in parliamentary accountability and transparency for Defence.
I commend the Bill.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
I'm tempted to move that it be read out loud, but I move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
REGULATORY REFORM OMNIBUS BILL 2025
Speaker,
I move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Today, I am proud to introduce the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025.
This is another important step in implementing our government's agenda to make our economy more dynamic, resilient and productive.
Better regulation was a key focus of the Economic Reform Roundtable we convened earlier this year and a key focus of our second term economic agenda.
Better regulation that helps Australians get faster and more streamlined access to the essential services they need and deserve.
Better regulation that gets more investment flowing more efficiently and effectively right across our economy.
And better regulation which boosts productivity, to help create more jobs and grow wages for working Australians.
Speaker,
This Bill is about better regulation, cutting compliance costs and cutting red tape.
One of the outcomes from the Roundtable was fast-tracking its introduction.
Today, we are delivering on that commitment.
It's another step in the substantial regulatory agenda we have been pushing forward with pace since the Roundtable.
We've made a lot of progress since those three days around the Cabinet table.
From working through 400 ideas to reduce regulatory burden from 38 Commonwealth regulators—
To tasking the Council of Financial Regulators to de-clutter and improve regulation in the financial sector, with a priority focus on streamlining and harmonising data collection—
And officially opening our Investor Front Door to make it quicker and easier for investors to back big projects that create jobs and opportunities for Australians.
But we recognise there's still more to do.
That's why we'll also alter statements of expectations for Commonwealth regulators, to emphasise the reduction of red tape and a better balance between outcomes and risk.
As well as conduct deep dives for priority sectors to streamline regulation.
Speaker,
The number of measures and government agencies that will be reformed by this Bill is emblematic of how widely we are looking across government to improve regulation.
There are 60 measures in this legislation alone.
It amends 28 Acts and repeals another two.
And it will directly affect and improve the operations of 13 government agencies.
These changes will make a meaningful improvement to how Australians and businesses work with these agencies.
More than this, it will also improve existing regulations to ensure they are fit-for-purpose and serving the needs of Australians.
Speaker,
This Bill does four key things.
Firstly, it will help Services Australia shift towards a 'tell-us-once' approach to how it delivers services.
That means Australians won't have to put in their details every time they access a different government service they need.
Repeatedly asking for the same information only adds stress and delays access to vital services people rely on and deserve.
As an example, once this Bill is passed, we can make changes so when Australians update their Centrelink bank details, Medicare gets them too.
This will help people claim their unpaid Medicare benefits, which are estimated to total $270 million owed to almost a million Australians.
We know it will take time to make this 'tell-us-once' shift, but this Bill is a critical step forward.
Secondly, this Bill will reduce red tape to improve access to government services.
One meaningful change the Bill makes is doubling the amount of time patients have to access imaging services when they get a referral from a healthcare provider.
At the moment, when life gets in the way and patients can't access an imaging service, they need to go back to a GP to get the same referral again.
We're changing this.
Thirdly, the Bill will help reduce the regulatory burden on Australians and on industry.
One change here will be bringing some legislated document requirements up to date with the digital economy.
For example, marriage celebrants are currently required to look at physical documents before a couple can tie the knot.
This Bill will allow secure, suitable digital options to be introduced.
It will also enable regulators to communicate better and share more information when it comes to offshore gas projects.
And fourth, the Bill will help increase government efficiency and improve productivity.
By giving the Minister for Climate Change and Energy additional flexibility to respond to temporary critical fuel shortages so companies can tap into their fuel stocks if they need to—
By making NBN's mapping data available for public use by other businesses and industry—
And making it easier to buy smarter appliances that use energy when electricity is cheapest, like hot water systems that heat water for your evening shower while the sun's still shining.
Speaker,
I'd like to pay tribute to my colleague and friend Senator Katy Gallagher, Minister for Finance, Women, the Public Service and Government Services.
She has been the driving force behind this Bill and I'm introducing it to the House today on her behalf.
I thank her for all her work in bringing together contributions from across all of government into this legislation.
Speaker,
Regulation should be there to protect Australians and empower them, not weigh them down.
This Bill is about making sure the rules of our economy are working for Australians, not holding them back.
So Australians who need help from Medicare can spend more time in front of a doctor, and less time re-sharing their information.
And so we can boost productivity to help create more jobs and lift living standards for working Australians in all corners of this country.
We understand there is more to do.
But this Bill is another step forward in making sure regulation supports growth, not hinders it.
Regulation that meets the opportunities and challenges of a churning and changing global economy.
Full details of the measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I commend this Bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
I move:
That the Senate notes that the Aged Care Act 2024 reforms introduced on 1 November 2025 will not address the unacceptable delays in accessing aged care services, insufficient home care packages, long wait times for assessments and will continue uncertainty for those accessing care.
The government promised once-in-a-generation reforms to the aged-care system. Instead, we continue to see unacceptable delays in accessing aged-care services, insufficient home-care packages, long wait times for assessments and continuing uncertainty for those who are accessing care.
Labor refuses to prioritise people needing care. Instead, they're prioritising corporate interests and expanding the privatisation of health care. The other week Minister Rae was bragging about the fact that providers' profits were increasing. People who are struggling to get care for their parents, grandparents or themselves don't want to hear about profits going up. Australians want to hear that people are receiving the care that they need when they need it. People also want to believe the minister when he makes these promises. There are insufficient home-care packages available not because of some market or a worker shortage but because Labor doesn't want to spend the money. They put a cap on the number of home-care packages, and now we have a waitlist that's a year long. There is no reason for this waitlist. It's been created by the decisions of the government, and it could be cleared by decisions of government.
The aged-care minister thinks that boosting care for profit is a good thing. Well, let me tell you what older Australians think instead. Linda told us:
my husband's neurodegenerative disease means he can't get out of bed by himself—he can't sit up, can't stand by himself, can't walk, can't dress himself…having a shower, shave and getting dressed is the one thing that helps him keep his dignity—
but—
the Government is now charging us $25,000 out of pocket for that basic necessity.
Linda shouldn't have to worry about the cost of assistance for her husband, but she does. We know that carers are already struggling. These new reforms have only added to this. Carers tell me that they're experiencing increasing worries about cost, facing uncertainty about the changes and struggling to figure out how to support their loved ones' care.
The introduction of co-payments will only add to the care burden. It will force carers to provide more for their parents, partners and loved ones. The alternative is to pay for these services, and we know that not everyone will be able to do so. We also know that this increased burden of care would disproportionately fall on women. Take Kaz, who knows how hard it is on families when older people can't access care. Kaz said:
As a woman in her 40s I've been caring for my 94 year old father who—
has lived—
with me for the last 6 years with advanced dementia. I can no longer work full time despite training as a health professional. The support just isn't there. I have massive carers fatigue And meanwhile these providers are lining their own pockets whilst the end user misses out.
Kaz sees through Labor and knows that they have chosen to prioritise corporate profits over care.
Last year, the Greens were the only ones that voted against the aged-care reform bill, because we objected to the financialisaton of care. We knew that it wouldn't help people that needed help, and that it would leave many more people worse off. It is obvious that many people in this chamber haven't had to worry about the cost of aged care for their parents. They haven't had to wait a year for their grandparents to be assigned a home-care package. They haven't had to make a decision about the number of hours that they work and being able to provide care for their loved ones, but, across the country, Australians have.
This aged-care act is forcing older people to pay more for their care and to miss out on services that they could previously afford. The minister promised people that, if they were already in the system, they'd be no worse off. But we are already hearing from people whose providers are putting up the cost of their care, and they are having to make decisions about whether they pay the rent or they can afford to have a shower every day. It is of no comfort to older people when the minister goes on radio and talks about the profits of aged-care providers. Care should never be for profit—not in aged care, not in disability care and not in child care.
Yet, time and time again, we see governments from both Labor and the coalition privatising care, which means that the interests of shareholders are placed above the needs of the people who need that care. We are a wealthy country. One in three big corporations paid no tax last year. Imagine if those big corporations were forced to pay their fair share so that our parents, our grandparents and our loved ones were not at the whim of an aged-care system being driven for shareholder profits and instead governments invested in the care that older people need.
During the pandemic, the aged-care facilities that managed to do the best job in looking after older people in a challenging time were government owned and run aged-care facilities. In our inquiries, we have heard that government run facilities have stable staff and put people on a career path. Government employers invest in their training and their professional development. They provide consistency of care. Yet we have a Labor government that has turbocharged coalition-era privatisation of aged care so that the focus of care is now profit. One of the aged-care advocacy groups has a post on social media this week telling people that it can show them how they can make $78,000 a year by getting into the aged-care system. They are blatantly out there telling people how they can make money off the care of older people. Privatisation of care services doesn't make sense. Why do we want shareholders to make profits when that money could be going into providing decent care for older people?
Older people are telling us they have worked their entire lives, paid taxes and contributed to our communities, and they thought that when they got to old age, when they needed governments to step in and look after them, they would be there. Well, waiting for over a year to get home care is not providing those people with the care that they need. It took an inquiry in the last sittings of the Senate to even uncover that there's a massive waitlist for the waitlist—100,000 people waiting for packages and another 120,000 people not waiting for packages but waiting for someone to come and assess them to get a package. We had a story on 7.30 this week highlighting again that people cannot get the care that they need. They can't get the assessments that they need. We had a system where clinicians assessed people to determine what care they needed—occupational therapists, healthcare workers. Now we've got a privatised assessment system where people who don't even understand the needs of the people they're assessing are ticking and flicking.
A person gets through that assessment process, having waited for it for months, and then they find out that they have to be assessed again, either because the assessment wasn't done right or because it's been so long since the assessment that their care needs have increased. I don't know about you, but, for most people over 80 that I know, six months is a really long time to wait for care. If you're in your 90s and you're having trouble showering, keeping your house clean and getting to medical appointments, being asked to wait six months to a year means that you're possibly going to die waiting for care. We know that last year 5,000 older people in this country died waiting to get access to care. We should be ashamed of that. We are a wealthy country. How is it that 5,000 older people died waiting to get the care that they need?
Care should never be for profit—not in aged care, not in child care and not in disability care. Along with my colleague Senator Steele-John in the disability portfolio and my colleague Senator Steph Hodgins-May in the childcare portfolio, I, wearing my hat as spokesperson for older people, want to tell the people of Australia that the Greens will continue to fight to make sure that care in this country—aged care, child care and disability care—will not be for profit.
I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That Senator Cox replace Senator Ananda-Rajah on the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy on 13 November 2025 and Senator Ananda-Rajah be appointed a participating member.
Question agreed to.
I rise tonight to speak about an issue that goes to the very heart of Labor's values: protecting workers and ensuring safe workplaces. Across Australia, and particularly in my home state of Tasmania, retail workers are facing an unacceptable rise in violence and aggression. This is not just a workplace issue; it's a community issue and it is one that the Albanese Labor government is determined to address.
The statistics are alarming. In Tasmania, Woolworths reported 375 incidents in 2024. That's 15 per cent more than in 2023 and 65 incidents per 100,000 people, making Tasmania one of the worst states for this type of violence per capita. Even more concerning is the nature of these incidents. Edged weapons, including knives, were presented 30 times in Tasmanian stores last year. Nationally, retailers reported more than 6,100 violent and aggressive incidents. That's a more than 25 per cent increase on 2023. Today across Australia, retailers, including pharmacies and fast food stores, are seeing an average of 450 cases every month. Behind these numbers are real people—workers who deserve respect and, very importantly, deserve to be safe at work. No-one should fear for their life while stacking shelves or serving customers.
The Albanese Labor government has always stood for safer workplaces. We have strengthened workplace health and safety laws, invested in mental health support and worked closely with unions and industry to tackle emerging risks. Our approach is clear: violence and abuse are never part of your job and never acceptable. That's why Labor supports initiatives like workplace protection orders—a practical proven tool to keep workers safe. I congratulate the work that has been done in South Australia and in New South Wales. I'm calling on the Liberal state government in Tasmania to take action on this issue. These orders allow employers to apply for legally enforceable protection on behalf of their staff, reducing harm and easing pressure on police resources. In the ACT, the WPOs have delivered a nearly 100 per cent reduction in reoffending. These laws are actually working—a 100 per cent reduction. Those who offended aren't reoffending. South Australia and Western Australia are moving forward with similar measures, and discussions are underway in other jurisdictions. Labor backs this kind of reform—evidence based, worker focused and effective.
Despite this, in my home state of Tasmania, the state Liberal government is working its hardest to show us what the Liberal government do their best—that is when they neglect Australian workers. That's what they do. Even some of the worst stats in the country—the Tasmanian Liberal government neglects the working class, ignores the hardworking members of unions and rejects. That's what they do. They reject it. They have known for some time. Crime is increasing in Tasmania. The effort of the SDA—I congratulate them. They are there fighting for their workers. They should be safe when they go to work. I commend them for the work that they're doing.
We know that it's in the DNA of Liberals, whether they're in the state parliament or they're in the federal parliament. They hate unions. Too many of them probably never met a worker. They don't go to work sites. They don't prioritise the people to keep this country running. I, for one, have always backed the SDA's campaign No One Deserves a Serve. This campaign has helped shine a light on the abuse and violence retail and fast-food workers face every day. It reminds us all that respect is not optional; it should be a right. I'd also like to thank the national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, as well as our local secretary, Joel Tynan—that's the Tasmanian secretary—for their leadership and the way that they're prepared to work, to protect Australian workers. That union has been at the forefront of discussions with the South Australian government, Western Australian government and the New South Wales government. It's just a shame the Tasmanian Liberal government have a closed door. (Time expired)
First, I must say that I wasn't aware that Senator Polley had managed to collect a stray hair from one of my combs and do a DNA test on me, but there you go.
I want to thank Punjabi popstar Diljit Dosanjh for his AURA tour to Australia. It was a wonderful tour. I saw some footage from the concert in Sydney. I saw the joy of the audience, the singing, the dancing. There were sold-out concerts all across Australia—90,000 attendees. Diljit Dosanjh had also unfortunately been the target of some odious racist internet trolls. I want to compliment the grace with which Diljit Dosanjh responded to those vile racist internet trolls. He handled it with such grace and gave such a great example to young people in India, in Australia and all over the world. He is a great example to young people everywhere, because not only is he a popstar; he is an actor, he's a film producer and he's also a philanthropist.
His Saanjh Foundation empowers young people. In particular, young people from vulnerable backgrounds are subject to bullying and other prejudice. His foundation is supporting the 10 hardest hit villages that felt the impact of the Punjabi floods earlier this year. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Thank you for coming to Australia. Thank you for bringing so much joy to our community. Thank you for providing such a great example to young people everywhere.
In doing this, I would also like to acknowledge the outstanding article which was written by an outstanding Australian by the name of Khushaal Vyas, who was a member of the Multicultural NSW advisory board and a youth rights lawyer in New South Wales. I'd like to quote from his article an outstanding message for all Australians:
I know this behaviour isn't representative of Australia. I also believe we can certainly have healthy conversations about immigration and the level of intake. But we must understand where that discussion crosses a line—especially when the commentary is fed by venturing into hateful stereotypes and xenophobia that is harmful to both the multicultural and economic fabric of this country. We must remain above that.
Thank you very much to Khushaal Vyas for such a strong and powerful message.
I've spoken in this chamber on three occasions during the course of this year about the need to protect religious and ethnic groups in Syria. I gave a speech in March following the appalling human rights abuses occurring in the coastal region where the Alawite community and Christian community were targeted. I gave a speech on 23 July 2025 following the suicide bombing of the Mar Elias Church in Syria. On 4 September 2025, I gave a speech in relation to the appalling situation in Suweida where the Druze community was being targeted. I had the opportunity recently to meet with the Syrian Australian community in Melbourne, and I want to thank all the members of the community who came to that meeting to convey their views. I want to say to you that you've raised the issues that I've heard and that all Australians should listen to. We must do everything we can as members of the international community to prevent this persecution of ethnic and religious minorities and Syria.
In closing, I want to read to you from a speech given by an outstanding young member of the Syrian community at that meeting:
My hope is that as Australia continues to grow as a multicultural nation, we keep finding ways to open doors not just to protect but to empower. Because every new family that arrives here brings new ideas, new energy & new hope.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I hope to be part of a generation that continues to build bridges between cultures, between nations & most importantly between hearts.
What an outstanding message from a young member of the Syrian Australian community which brings a lot of joy to my heart and a lot of hope for the future.
In Perth on Tuesday, there will be an important event, a celebration even. It's called Bhutan Festival 2025, and it will take place in the heart of the Perth central business district. Although I cannot be there in person, I want the Bhutanese community of Western Australia to know that I'm very much with you in spirit as we celebrate Bhutan Festival 2025 and mark the 70th birthday anniversary of His Majesty the fourth King of Bhutan. This is a moment to honour His Majesty's remarkable legacy, a reign defined by wisdom, humility and a vision that placed human happiness and environmental harmony at the centre of national progress. The philosophy of gross national happiness continues to inspire people far beyond Bhutan's borders, reminding us that true prosperity is measured not just by what we build but how we care for one another.
When I visited Bhutan as part of the inaugural Australian parliamentary friendship group, I witnessed firsthand the depth of that vision. From the leadership of the fourth King's son, His Majesty the fifth King, and the Queen of Bhutan to the optimism of Bhutan's young people, our discussions reaffirmed that Australia and Bhutan are more than friends. We are partners grounded in shared values of democracy, education and respect. In Western Australia, those ties are alive and very, very strong. The Bhutanese community has become part of our state's story, enriching our campuses, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods with their generosity, discipline and joy. May this festival strengthen those bonds even further, and may the friendship between Australia and Bhutan continue to grow, guided by the same spirit of harmony we are celebrating now.
In the last few days, the Premier of Western Australia, accompanied by the Labor Treasurer of Western Australia, have found it necessary to come all the way to Canberra from Perth to defend WA's GST deal. Why would they do that? They would only do that if they thought the GST deal was under threat. Roger Cook, the Premier, knows the legacy of this issue perhaps better than many people, particularly when it comes to the history of the support of Western Australian federal Labor MPs for the GST deal. When Roger Cook was the Deputy Premier of Western Australia, he said that his federal Labor colleagues needed to take more notice and to get real about the GST issue.
When Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti come to Canberra to defend the GST deal, they need more than advertising campaigns. They must come prepared with the facts and to defend the deal. On this trip, Roger Cook forgot some of the most important GST details. Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti travelled all the way across the country, and they forgot the most important details when it comes to defending WA's GST deal. We know in Western Australia that our GST relativity fell to just 29c 10 years ago, and the trajectory was that it would go lower. The GST relativity for Western Australia has been lower than 50 cents for 10 of the last 25 years.
Compare that with New South Wales and Victoria, which have never had a GST relativity lower than 83c. In fact, New South Wales has had GST relativity above 90c for the 13 of the last 25 years, and Victoria has had a GST relativity above 90c for 14 of the last 25 years. Queensland's GST relativity has never dipped below 90c and has been above 100c for 19 of the last 25 years.
Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti should not be wasting a million dollars of Western Australians' money on ill-informed advertising campaigns. They should stick to the GST facts because the numbers speak for themselves. Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti came to Canberra this week because they were concerned about the GST deal. If they can't get confidence from federal Labor MPs from Western Australia that the GST deal is safe, then Roger Cook and Rita Saffioti need to stay home and make the argument in Perth and not in Canberra.
Senate adjourned at 16:47