If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised.

by leave—I move:

That the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 be removed from the Senate Notice Paper.

Well, at long last we've finally got the Labor Party here, doing the right thing—doing what this chamber sought to do when we last sat. We sought to give the respect that our veterans' community needed prior to Remembrance Day when Senator Pocock and others moved a motion to discharge this incredibly bad bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025, from the Notice Paper. And do you know what the Labor Party did? They stood up and fought it every step of the way. They knew it was a friendless bill then, but they could not give our veterans' community the respect that they deserve by discharging this bill prior to them gathering on Remembrance Day.

Even as late as last week, Minister Keogh was trying to resurrect this bill. He was trying to move amendments with the shadow minister, Darren Chester, who has done an amazing job standing with our veterans' community, consulting with them and not taking a backwards step when it comes to showing our veterans' community which side of parliament stands with their service for our country—that is, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Minister Keogh has finally realised what the opposition and veterans' community have been saying from day one: that this bill is completely unwanted, unsupported and indefensible—this bill saying somehow you can put a timeframe on recognising service in our ADF, on foreign shores.

The Senate had a chance to end this debacle when we last sat. Yet, as I recall, when we stood up—when Senator Pocock stood up to speak, when Senator Shoebridge stood up to speak and when I stood up to speak—to discharge this bill from the Notice Paper, the Labor Party took every single opportunity it could to stop us from speaking and standing up for our veterans' community. It's great to see Senator Pocock and Senator Shoebridge here to celebrate the Labor Party finally coming to its senses. The question has to be: why today, when we've already put a notice on the Notice Paper to discharge the bill tomorrow? Why not just let the Senate do its work? Senator Chisholm runs in to do the Prime Minister's bidding, to discharge the bill. Where were you last time, Senator Chisholm? I didn't see you standing up to discharge this bill. It's another example of the hubris, the hypocrisy and the arrogance of this government when it comes to standing with our veteran community.

Even as late as last night, when I was at church over in Reid, at St John's, a member of our veterans community came up to me and said: 'We have to discharge this bill. Please, Senator, can you help us?' There is a lot of angst out there in the broader community about the Labor Party's failure to listen. I want to congratulate the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for handing down its report into this bad bill, and the coalition for its strong dissenting report into this bad legislation. I'm glad Minister Keogh spent the weekend reading the coalition's dissenting report and I'm glad he has come to his senses overnight.

Ex-service organisations and even the independent tribunal have repeatedly warned the government that this bill will be harming veterans wellbeing, because it essentially says that the Australian government thinks that there is a time limit on service recognition. We know that whether it is a decade, two decades, four decades, five decades post an incident in the theatre of war, or even in peacekeeping duties, our servicemen and women deserve to be recognised, that research uncovers deeds of valour and courage that need to be recognised. For the children and grandchildren in particular of deceased veterans, the time limit was incredibly hurtful and harmful to their wellbeing, and yet Labor, despite hearing from veterans communities, ploughed on regardless—very typical of its approach—dismissing the very people it claims to support.

Now the government are clinging to this unsalvageable legislation by offering vague promises of more consultation, so it is very heartening today that they are here discharging this very bad bill, and it is incredibly disappointing, and yet typical of their arrogance, that they couldn't do that prior to Remembrance Day. And do you know why? Simply because they didn't want this chamber to do its job. They think that somehow this chamber doesn't have the right to discharge bad legislation. They tried every little technical trick in the book to stop the Senate doing in a timely fashion what we're going to do this morning.

This bill is an affront to every Australian who has had the privilege and the responsibility to wear our uniform. It represents a betrayal of trust, a cynical attempt to remove the rights of veterans and their families to seek justice, recognition and independent review. This bill doesn't solve a problem; it creates one. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, the very body targeted by this legislation, warned unequivocally that the changes proposed under the bill that we're discharging today will abolish and curtail current and significant rights of ADF members, veterans, their families and others to seek independent merit review of Defence decisions.

We don't think the Defence Force, the defence department, is beyond being accountable to the parliament, to the Senate chamber. We think it should be held responsible. We don't think that every decision that Defence makes should be accepted without question, and neither does our community.

You kind of do!

You'll have your chance, Senator Shoebridge. We fully support the motion to remove this bill, and urge the government not to inflict further damage by trying to revive it. We want this bill dead, buried and cremated so that our veterans and their families know that this parliament, this chamber supports their efforts in the theatre of war.

I do want to actually call out and congratulate the shadow minister Darren Chester, who has done a mountain of work with our veterans community. He's been actually working with them and working with the crossbench to seek to highlight how negative this bill has been for our veterans community, and to generate a groundswell of community support to get this bill off the Notice Paper and to make sure it doesn't see the light of day. The national campaign calling on Labor members to reject this bill received overwhelming support with nearly 3,000 Australians signing on within a single week. It's not just the opposition, the Greens or the crossbench that think this bill is bad; everyday Australians also think this bill is negative. Let veterans, ADF personnel and their families be in no doubt—if the government attempts to bring this legislation back, we will fight it every step of the way. We will be supporting the discharge of this bad bill from the Senate Notice Paper, and let's hope it stays in the bin, where it deserves to be.

I thank Senator Chisholm and the government for moving this motion to withdraw this bill. I welcome the minister's commitment to further consultation, but I don't understand the urgency of this bill. This is a bad bill. This bill sought to strip veterans and defence personnel of their rights to appeal a decision to the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. It was done under the guise of supporting veterans and defence personnel, and I think that is a big part of the reason why the Senate has fought so hard against this bill.

There are people that I represent here in the ACT who have a white card and are struggling to find a GP, and yet this is the legislation that this Senate is spending time on when it comes to veterans. We're having a Senate inquiry. We're spending time debating these things when we've had a royal commission. We have veterans urging us to do more to support them and their families, and yet we're debating this bill. In the words of the chair of the tribunal, Mr Stephen Skehill:

… in what parallel universe can Defence even contemplate claiming that the wellbeing of its people is enhanced by stripping them of their present rights to challenge Defence decisions that they believe wrongly deny them a Defence honour or award? The bill works against the wellbeing of defence personnel, notwithstanding that Defence says that is imperative.

No compelling reason was given as to why this bill was necessary. All we were told was that the tribunal had requested changes, but, when we asked the tribunal, they told us—and here is another quote from Mr Skehill:

The committee should not be beguiled by this submission. It does not withstand critical analysis. For reasons that I will explain, the Defence submission is deeply flawed. It contains errors of fact and errors of law, and, perhaps more importantly, it is grossly misleading because of both what it says and, more particularly, what it fails to say.

One of the troubling things about this bill was that there was absolutely no consultation on this bill. I thank my Senate colleagues for sending a very clear message to the government that we expect you to go through a process of consultation before you bring forward legislation.

Across 75 submissions made to the inquiry into this bill, just one submission supported the bill, and that was of course Defence's submission. The minister did pop into an ex-service organisation's roundtable to flag the bill, but that was apparently so cursory that they didn't even think to include it in the minutes of that meeting. It cannot have been a substantive debate. When I asked people who were at the meeting, they couldn't even remember it. When I asked the National President of RSL Australia whether he'd been consulted on the bill, he replied:

No, not specifically to discuss this bill. I've had meetings with the minister to discuss veterans' issues generally. I think the only discussion I've had with the minister in relation to this bill would have been by telephone, because I don't recall physically meeting in relation to this particular bill.

This sort of bill makes out our job difficult, but I would suggest that it makes the government's job even more difficult. I find it truly baffling that this was the priority bill, and the first bill, that the government brought to the Senate for veterans in this term. Instead of stripping people of their rights to review, I would really urge the government to focus on implementing the recommendations of the royal commission into veteran suicides.

How many of Defence's resources have gone into this friendless bill and will continue to go into this friendless bill when you could be implementing the 100-plus recommendations made by the royal commission? Here are just a few that I think should really be a priority for this government. There's recommendation 20, allowing victims of sexual violence in the Australian Defence Force to make a victim impact statement to the service tribunal. Recommendation 25 is on conducting a formal inquiry into military sexual violence in the ADF. There are 12 recommendations relating to sexual violence in the ADF. Implementing these should be a priority. That should have been the first bill that came to this chamber. Or how about recommendation 65—that the ADF is ensuring mental health screening for those who are at heightened risk of suicide. That seems pretty basic to me. These are the things the government and the Senate should be working on. Recommendation 70 is to improve the protocols for responding to a veteran experiencing a suicidal crisis so that it actually aligns with best practice. Recommendation 71 is increasing the rebates paid through DVA so that veterans can actually get health care. Here in the ACT, as I said at the start, veterans are increasingly being turned away or being asked to pay a whopping gap fee.

Let's focus on these, recognise the service of veterans and their families and actually work to support them. We have a recruitment and retainment crisis, and yet we're not looking after the very people who have put their lives on the line—who sacrifice so much, as do their families—as they move around this country to serve the Australian people. There's so much that we could be doing. This bill ain't it. I welcome the government withdrawing this, and I thank the Senate for their support.

The Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 is certainly a friendless bill, and it's an absolute embarrassment that it got to this. This bill should never have seen the light of day. The fact that of the 75 submissions to our Senate inquiry into the bill the only submitter supporting this bill was the Department of Defence tells us everything we need to know about the government's shocking failure to consult with ADF members, veterans and their families.

I was very pleased to hand down the coalition's dissenting report into this bill with Senator McLachlan after running an inquiry, which highlights the monumental flaws. How dare this government propose a time limit on the recognition of acts of bravery and courage and gallantry by ADF members and veterans—a period of 20 years. The words, 'We will remember them, lest we forget,' mean something. Those words honour all who serve or served our nation, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice, so that future generations can live in peace and freedom. The courage and the bravery of our veterans are never lost to time.

It is extraordinary that this bill sought to raise the recognition of acts of heroism and gallantry beyond a limited period of 20 years. This is so deeply offensive. It's also contrary to the expectations of Australians that the men and women who wore our uniform should be honoured for all time. Australians do not place a time limit on gratitude. They do not forget the sacrifice once the decades pass. Our national character is built on a solemn promise to remember always. And this bill breaks that promise in a way which is profoundly disrespectful.

In our dissenting report we made two recommendations: that this bill be withdrawn from the Senate Notice Paper, which is consistent with the coalition's position supporting the motion by Senator David Pocock and others; and we also recommended the Australian government not seek to make any changes to the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal unless such changes are requested or supported by the tribunal and key stakeholders. I want to refer to the media release put out by Mr Keogh, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, late last night, when the government flagged it would be moving this motion, rather than waiting till tomorrow, when it was listed to be removed from the Notice Paper. I cannot believe—and I condemn the minister, because he said, 'It's unfortunate that, following the introduction of the bill, the opposition engaged in an inflammatory misinformation campaign instead of engaging constructively with the government about its concerns or areas for improvement.' This minister has a tin ear for the deep concerns of ADF members and veterans right across this country. If he had bothered to listen to anyone, he would know that this is a dog's breakfast—that this bill cannot be fixed—and that is why there's overwhelming support in the Senate for removal of this bill and hope that it is removed forevermore.

We are also strongly recommending this, as to any changes—and I say this as the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee and the chair of the references committee. The government is now saying it wants to consult further. We're recommending that there should be no changes unless they are requested or supported by the tribunal and key stakeholders.

We've heard in this debate from Senator McKenzie and Senator David Pocock how flawed the bill is, how there was no consultation and that this bill should never have seen the light of day in this parliament. I really do want to address one particular issue in the committee's government majority report, which seeks to mischaracterise the chilling impact the bill would have on the recognition of historic cases of heroism. In the committee's majority report it states:

The Committee notes that the cases of Teddy Sheean VC and Private Richard Norden VC have received significant public attention. The Committee acknowledges that Defence would retain the ability to review applications for historical defence honours and awards. Further to this, the Bill would retain the provision that enables the Minister for Defence Personnel to direct the Tribunal to undertake an inquiry.

This is a complete mischaracterisation of the ability of the minister to conduct inquiries. I want to make this very clear. Both Teddy Sheean VC and Private Richard Norden VC were initially denied the awarding of the Victoria Cross precisely because Defence rejected these nominations. So the attempt to now argue that Defence's internal review mechanisms would have been adequate undermines the very reason that these cases required external scrutiny and review by the tribunal, because we know that, if this bill were ever to be passed by this parliament, cases like Teddy Sheean's and Private Richard Norden's would be excluded from review by the tribunal.

I also want to pick up the committee's assertion in relation to the minister's powers, because the committee said that 'the Minister would continue to have the power to direct the Tribunal to undertake an inquiry'. This contradicts the foundational purpose of the tribunal itself. The tribunal was established as an impartial, expert body, designed to independently assess gallantry and service, not to act at the direction or discretion of the minister of the day. Ministerial inquiries have historically been reserved for broader matters, such as recognition of operations, units or campaign-wide issues. They have not been used to determine individual medallic recognition, principally because such decisions demand independence free from political influence.

So I say: shame on the government for not recognising that it has made a monumental mistake and for not consulting with the defence and veterans community, but also shame on the minister for trying to completely distort what has happened here. To accuse the opposition of misinformation is completely false, and he should hang his head in shame. The only one who's spreading misinformation with comments like that is the minister himself. I, of course, strongly support the removal of this bill from the Senate Notice Paper. It should have happened in the lasting week of the parliament. I regret that the government stymied and stalled to ensure that that didn't happen, and they've now come crawling back into the Senate to basically admit their errors.

I want to briefly reflect not only on the gross lack of consultation but on the evidence of the tribunal chair, Mr Stephen Skehill, because his evidence was compelling. He said:

If it is passed by the federal parliament, the sole beneficiary of the bill will be the Department of Defence, which will no longer be accountable to ADF members and veterans, their families and their supporters for the most significant decisions it takes in relation to the Defence honours and awards sought for ADF service. It appears that Defence regards its present obligation to explain and defend its adverse decisions as an unacceptable imposition. The unequivocal fact is that there is not a single provision in this bill that would generate any benefit for any ADF member or veteran, any of their ADF families or any of their supporters. What's far worse, with only one exception, is that every operative provision in this bill would work to the clear detriment of every ADF member and veteran, their families and their supporters, because their present rights to seek merit review of adverse Defence decisions would be either totally abolished or very significantly curtailed.

This is a deeply offensive and profoundly disrespectful proposal which diminishes the extraordinary sacrifice that every man and woman makes when they put on the uniform. It's a very poor reflection on the government that this bill ever made its way into the House of Representatives. As a result, the government and the minister have much hard work ahead to restore the trust and faith of ADF members, veterans and their families.

I rise to say thank God—to thank the deity of your choice—that the government has finally worked out that the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025 was a bill with zero friends. Let's think about the history of this bill. A bunch of Defence brass, all sitting there, polishing their shoulders, are kind of a bit pissed that members of the veterans community and serving members of the ADF actually have an independent pathway to challenge their decisions. The Defence hierarchy loathes the very idea that its decisions can have any independent oversight or any independent scrutiny anywhere. This Defence honours tribunal has been sitting there for over a decade, overturning decisions of the Defence hierarchy, and has been a place that veterans, their families and the community can go to challenge bad decisions by Defence. It happens with some procedural fairness. They follow the evidence, and time after time bad decisions by the Defence leadership have been overturned by the tribunal because they've listened to the evidence and they've seen credible arguments put. The gold brass in Defence are getting more and more agitated that there's this one place of independence in the system. So what do they do? They somehow manage to persuade the department that the tribunal should be gutted and that its independence should be stripped. They then bring in this legislation through the minister's office to just quietly try to slip through a bill to tear away the independence of the tribunal, the one place that the Defence hierarchy can actually be held to account in the multibillion-dollar scandal that is the Australian defence department and the ADF. And then, to the Labor Party's eternal shame, they do what they always do when Defence come in and ask for less scrutiny, more power and more cash. They just rubberstamped it without even thinking. To their eternal shame, every single Labor MP in the lower house voted through this bill to strip away veterans' entitlements and their ability to challenge bad decisions of the ADF. And the reason the Labor Party just rolled in to vote for it is because that's just what they do. Every time Defence asks for something, they just rubberstamp it without even turning their brains on.

Well, thank goodness we've got a veterans community that's pretty engaged at the moment. They turned their brains on, they looked at this bill, and they said. 'It's a stinker.' They said this to the government straight away, and it turns out that this is hardly a surprise. The government didn't even talk to the veterans community before they introduced this bill. They pretended it was supported by the tribunal, and then, when we finally heard from the tribunal, the tribunal said they think the bill stinks, too. It totally stinks.

It takes away the rights of families to bring applications to the tribunal to honour and respect their family members who served. It puts in an arbitrary 20-year time limit on which you can bring applications to the tribunal. It puts in an arbitrary six-month time limit in which you can challenge bad decisions by Defence. Guess who they talked to before they brought this bill in? A bunch of largely blokes with brass on their shoulders who thought emoving any independent challenge to their decisions was a great idea. They got their legislation. They got it through the Labor Party, and the Labor Party put their rubber stamp on it. The majority of members in the lower house from the Labor Party put their rubber stamp on it.

Then it comes here. And what's remarkable about this is that it's one of the first times the Senate has said no to another power grab from Defence leadership. I want to give credit to every member of the Senate who is outside of the Labor Party who actually said, 'No; for once we're going to draw a line in the sand and not just give Defence leadership whatever they want every time they ask, no questions asked, dudding the veterans community in the process.' It's a sign of at least some mild resistance to the endless power grab and the arrogance of Defence leadership, who they can just get whatever they want with no critical analysis applied.

What did we hear from the veterans community? Shannon Hennessy, the chief executive officer of the Veteran, Emergency Services and Police Industry Institute of Australia—which is much more often and more neatly called VESPIIA—made clear this at the public hearing that I participated in:

Honours are an emotional thing; I think we can all agree on that. When we start to put that pressure of timelines—what if we do find grandpa's secret box of documents in the cupboard 20 years from now, that time limit's run out and we can't recognise the work that was done? How devastating is that going to be for the family, that they finally found it and now it's gone? We would certainly argue against those time limits.

How on earth was the government bringing a piece of legislation to try and make that happen? The only answer is uncritical rubberstamping of yet another power grab from Defence leadership. Did they not think this through? Well, clearly they didn't.

VESPIIA also said that putting restrictions on who can appeal the decision—preventing grandkids, cousins and historians from being able to bring an application to the tribunal to recognise service—was an incredibly bad decision with far-reaching negative implication. As VESPIIA wrote in their submission:

This approach locks out important contributors. Many historic recognition cases have been uncovered by historians, extended relatives, or advocates, particularly where no immediate family survives. Restricting eligibility risks silencing valid claims and entrenching inequity.

But Defence leadership wanted it, you see? Defence leadership didn't want this ragtag bunch of people who could actually challenge their decisions in an open hearing before a fair minded tribunal. What they loathed most of all was that the tribunal was independent and could second-guess the bad decisions of Defence, and anything they could do to narrow that independence was what they were willing to do. To Labor's eternal shame, again they rubberstamp another power grab from Defence leadership.

Of course, this was the first major piece of new legislation about veterans brought into this parliament. We had a royal commission into veteran suicides, and what we heard—and it's woven through every recommendation in the royal commission—was that veterans need to be heard. They need to be seen, and they need to be respected. You shouldn't do anything about them without them. Talk to them. Listen to their concerns. Develop policy once you speak to veterans. That's really at the core of the royal commission recommendations. But as Ian Lindgren, the immediate past chair and advisor to the board of the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association, said at the hearing:

If we look at the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, some of the key personnel related issues were that we were to stop taking anything but a trauma informed practice to veterans. And yet, if we look at this bill and at the previous bill, which I mentioned a few moments ago, these things have just turned up.

They've turned up and surprised, traumatised, upset and agitated the veterans communities, and for what goal? Just to deliver on another power grab for Defence leadership. That's the only purpose of this bill. This is why the Greens said in our dissenting report that the government should withdraw this bill as a statement of good faith with the veterans community.

I'm not going to take a cheap political shot at the minister for doing that. I'm glad the minister has done it. Of course, it was just recognising the political reality that, if the government didn't do it on their own motion today, every single member of the Senate except for the government, as is my understanding, was going to do it for them tomorrow on a co-authored motion from Senator David Pocock, me on behalf of the Greens, and the coalition. So, yes, I'm glad it's been withdrawn today. That at least brings certainty to the veterans community that this power grab will finally not happen, and it brings it forward 24 hours. But let's just be clear about this. The Senate was going to actually, for once, show some genuine independence and knock this thing on the head tomorrow in a peaceful and nonviolent way anyhow. I'm just glad it came forward 24 hours.

Our veterans won. Our Australian Defence Force members won—people in the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. The government admits defeat on the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill, which has been discharged from the Senate Notice Paper. That's what this motion's about. This all started with a One Nation motion that I moved in the Senate to inquire into the honours and awards system.

We supported the veterans who spoke so strongly and so well at the inquiry. They're a credit to our country not only for their service but for the way they stood up and explained their case. They earned my admiration yet again. They earned my respect yet again. They based their submissions and their witness statements on data. They gave us hard, concrete examples. Then the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal spoke in the inquiry. They spoke clearly, strongly and with strong evidence. Then Defence ignored it, and the government ignored it. You turned a deaf ear to it. I want to thank the veterans again for their service and for standing up. I bet you never thought you'd have to stand up in your own country that you defended, but that's what you've done. Thank you so much for that.

With our political support, the veterans and the current serving members won. The veterans won, and I thank the Senate for that. I thank all the members of the Senate who backed us on this from the start. We are with you, veterans and current ADF members. We will continue to hold the Defence senior brass accountable and to stop the Defence senior brass from killing morale and killing the key to our defence forces that is our mateship. The Defence top brass and the government are killing our defence strength.

Australia's security is One Nation's top priority. This amendment bill has to be discharged to maintain the morale of our gallant armed forces. That means supporting our veterans and currently serving Australian soldiers in all the defence forces. We will continue to support you.

One Nation supports this motion to discharge this horrific bill from the Notice Paper. Veterans have won and currently enlisted Australian Defence Force members have won. I want to make it very clear: One Nation is proud to serve our veterans and Australian Defence Force members. One Nation will continue to put Australia first.

I also want to thank the government for withdrawing this terrible bill, the Defence Amendment (Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal) Bill 2025. We have heard from my Senate colleagues today just how disastrous this bill would have been for our veterans and our veteran community—how impactful it would have been on their mental health and wellbeing, long after they've served our country overseas, trying to get the recognition they deserve.

We've heard a lot this morning about the imposition of the 20-year time limit on reviewable decisions relating to a defence honour, operational service award or foreign award. To me, this has very serious implications for the rights to justice and procedural fairness. It is very problematic and unfair for our veterans, who have given up their lives to serve our country and protect us and our children and grandchildren.

As Steve Pilmore, Vice-President of the Australian Commando Association, pointed out, every case should be treated on its merits regardless of when it occurred. Of course, the most famous cases that we've heard about today, the Victoria Cross recipients Teddy Sheean in World War II and Richard Norden in the Vietnam War, would have been denied this recognition, all because their actions fell outside of the 20-year reviewable time limit this bill was seeking to introduce. I'm really glad the bill has been withdrawn today, because we are seeking to protect the right to procedural fairness for the people who are willing to give up their lives for us.

As Vice-President Steve Pilmore also pointed out, bravery and gallantry do not have use-by dates, and there is a very long list of operations that would have been cut off under this 20-year time limit, including Somalia, in 1993; Timor-Leste; Iraq; the early years of Afghanistan; and Bougainville, between 1997 and 2003. There are also 2½ thousand Vietnam veterans that are still fighting for the recognition they feel they deserve. Regardless of how long ago that happened, they are still carrying the emotional and physical wounds of being conscripted and serving in Vietnam, and they are still fighting for the right to recognition. Under this bill, which has thankfully been withdrawn, they would not be able to have their appeals reviewed.

There is a very real human impact. I want to share the story of a young veteran who served in the Army Reserve but died while serving in the police force in Victoria in the year 2000. Just this year his family learned that he was eligible for an award for serving in the Reserve Army but also dying while out on the beat, serving Victorians. Had they knocked that back, he would have been denied that recognition and his family would have been denied the ability to go to the tribunal and see their young son get the recognition he deserved.

The other problem with this bill's 20-year time limit is the matter of poor record keeping, which was raised by the Department of Defence. They felt that anything beyond 20 years lacked substantial evidence to be able to call into question—that people's memories would start to fade after 20 years. I put it to you that anybody who serves overseas and is part of a significant event would find it very, very difficult to forget what happened that day. The tribunal also noted in the evidence they gave at the hearing that they actually have no problem in finding the evidence that they need to support their determinations.

Sometimes the poor record keeping is not the fault of the veterans or the serving members but in fact the fault of the Department of Defence. I heard a story of one person serving who applied for long-service leave. The dates of when he started—I think you'd remember the day that you first signed up to the Defence Force—didn't align with the records that they had, so he was fighting just to get recognised for his long service to the Defence Force. Under this bill, he would have been denied that right.

We also heard about proposed restrictions on who would be eligible to apply for review at the tribunal. Some veterans really suffer with mental ill health or physical ill health, are off doing more training or are just unable to go through the appeals tribunal themselves, and they have advocates doing that for them. Under this bill, they wouldn't have been able to do that. So I'm really pleased, again, that this bill has been withdrawn from the parliament, because that would have only added stress and anxiety to the appeals process.

The proposed six-month window was also unreasonably short. A lot of veterans weren't even aware that there was an appeals process until many, many years after their medal, award or honour had been denied. Six months is not a long time, especially when you're struggling with your mental health.

I was particularly interested in clause 76 of this defence honours and awards appeals tribunal bill. It said that the removal of an award or honour would be the political decision of the minister under the Crown and that this political decision would not be able to be reviewed at this independent tribunal. Again, I think that's a great failure of this bill to protect the rights of our veterans to seek the justice they deserve.

I'm pleased that the government listened to the concerns of our colleagues over the past few weeks, given the consultations that I heard during the hearing and the fact that 62 out of the 63 submissions were against this legislation. It wasn't, 'We need these amendments.' It was: 'I don't understand why this bill is going through. What is it trying to achieve?' Only four per cent of awards that are given by the Department of Defence are presented to the tribunal, so the workload is manageable, as the tribunal said in their evidence. The workload is absolutely manageable, and they are doing just fine on accessibility to evidence.

So why was this bill going through in the first place? To my colleague Senator Shoebridge's comments before, it's about scrutiny, it's about the power of bureaucracy and it's about transparency. As the RSL stated in its submission, administrative convenience cannot supersede veterans' rights. We must be doing everything we can to lift the morale of the Australian Defence Force. They need to have the utmost confidence in the institutions of defence, knowing that they will be accorded due recognition for their service to our country. Serving members of the ADF and veterans deserve access to an appeals process that is fair and reasonable.

Again, I want to thank the government, I want to thank Senator Pocock for bringing his motion in the last sitting period to have this bill taken off the Notice Paper and I want to thank the veterans and all the service members of the ADF for doing everything they can to protect this country.

Question agreed to.

The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

Question negatived.

It's my fault—I wasn't following what the matter was that was before the house. Can you just advise what the previous vote was on?

The question that I just put to the chamber was that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to. There were no voices for the ayes.

It's my fault for not paying attention. I didn't understand that my colleague's second reading amendment was before the chamber. Could I ask that the question be recommitted? It may be that my colleague might seek leave to speak to it.

Senator Shoebridge, I will put the question again. The question before us is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne be agreed to.

I move:

That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the bill to:

(a) incorporate Schedule 5 in a separate bill; and

(b) add to that bill enacting words, provisions for titles and commencement, and a provision giving effect to the amending schedule.

I gave notice of this motion on 3 November, and it is listed on page 17 of the Notice Paper. I move this motion to split schedule 5 into a new bill, with the intention that we will send it to an inquiry for examination. There has been no scrutiny of schedule 5, which introduces an extremely punitive and highly controversial new power for the police minister to cancel someone's social security payments. And, no, we're not talking about jobseeker; we're talking about paid parental leave and single-parenting payments.

These changes warrant some very serious scrutiny, and I want to read out some of the concerns that have been sent to us by the Law Council of Australia. They say:

We are concerned that this measure would deny individuals subject to an arrest warrant the right to presumption of innocence. An arrest warrant is not a statement of guilt, but merely an order that a person appears in court. That person should not be subjected to punitive action unless they have first been found guilty of an offence.

This is really concerning. This is yet another example of a government treating people receiving social security like criminals. Apparently, it's no longer important for the courts to determine guilt. Now we have the government making that decision by itself and stripping people of life-sustaining money before they have been put before a judge, and this should concern everyone in the community.

The Law Council of Australia's letter also says:

Schedule 5 may create further inequity and unintended consequences within our justice system with significant community impacts. The measure only affects people who are already living with poverty and removal of social security payments will detrimentally impact their livelihood and access to housing. This measure could even make individuals more likely to commit crimes (or further crimes) to support themselves. This, combined with the potential of accused persons accessing benefits at shops or ATMs to provide police with evidence of that person's whereabouts, raises the question of whether it is rationally connected to its stated purpose of achieving community safety.

Not only does it flip the presumption of innocence, but it may actually achieve the opposite of what the government is seeking. It may actually stop police from finding people, and it could force desperate people into committing crime to feed themselves and their families. So, in fact, this could be detrimental to community safety. And that's not me saying this, it's the Law Council of Australia! Why not let us investigate that? Why are we pushing this through the Senate with no scrutiny?

One more quote, and I think this is particularly important. The Law Council says:

The unintended consequences of the Bill will disproportionately impact marginalised groups including First Nations people and people with disability. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee documented at length concerns that police responses to domestic violence in First Nations communities can involve misidentifying First Nations women as perpetrators, rather than victim-survivors. This results in action being mistakenly taken against people who are in the most need of protection. The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability documented similar concerns for people with disability, particularly First Nations women with disability. This underlines the risks of removing social security based on arrest warrants being issued, rather than a process of facts being tested before a court of law where a guilty verdict is reached.

And this is not just the view of the Law Council. This is the view of First Nations women's groups and disability representative organisations across the country, who are asking this Senate not to pass this schedule today but to send it to an inquiry for further examination. Here is what People with Disability Australia had to say in a public statement:

Stopping a person's payment before any court process has occurred risks leaving people without income, housing or essentials, and undermines the presumption of innocence that underpins our justice system.

The Disability Royal Commission demonstrated that people with disability disproportionately experience high rates of contact with the criminal justice system, reflecting the broader criminalisation of disability and the lack of appropriate social, health and community supports. Commissioners also documented the significant barriers that our communities face when dealing with police, courts, and other parts of the justice system. These findings show that even within a system designed to uphold due process, people with disability are often denied justice when their rights and needs are not properly understood or accommodated.

We are also deeply concerned that communities traditionally over-policed and disadvantaged, including First Nations people with disability, would be at heightened risk under this amendment.

Given such injustices already occur for our communities under judicial oversight, the risks are far greater in an administrative system where decisions can be made quickly, without due process, evidence, legal representation, or advocacy.

This amendment was introduced without public consultation or adequate scrutiny. Changes that affect millions of Australians should be transparent and informed by those most impacted.

Finally, this one is also very important. This is from the Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT):

Under this legislation, people's benefits could be stripped away simply because they are unaware police have issued a warrant for their arrest, and without any opportunity to access legal help.

The proposed amendments will inevitably have a greater impact on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are grossly overrepresented at every stage of the criminal process. Cutting off people's Centrelink payments will not only impact those individuals, but put their children and families—too many of whom already live below the poverty line—at risk of homelessness and child removals.

Such a controversial proposed legislative change should be the subject of considered consultation with community and legal experts. We call on the Government to withdraw this proposal.

I'm also gravely concerned about how this bill is going to impact children in our community. We in this place have a duty to protect children, and this fundamentally endangers children. The protections for children in this bill are so thin that they practically don't exist. On current reading, the minister's department have to seek advice on whether a decision the minister makes would impact a person's dependants, but they don't actually have to consider that advice before they make a decision. They just need to have asked for the advice, and then, if that advice said that it would be extremely detrimental to a child, they don't necessarily have to do anything about it. I'm sure the government would say that of course they will, but there's nothing in this legislation that actually ensures that they have to. They simply have had to sought advice: 'Yep, sought advice—away we go.' Even if the advice comes back and says, 'There will be detrimental impact on these children,' the department can, should they wish to, still choose to cancel a payment.

The children who would be impacted by this bill are already the children who are in the most vulnerable living circumstances in the country. They are children who are living off poverty-level payments. They are likely to be children living in remote parts of the country. No matter whether someone is pursued for a serious crime, it is not fair, proportionate, reasonable or ethical to put their dependants in harm's way or to leave them without the basic necessities of life. I would urge my colleagues, before voting to speed this bill through with no scrutiny, to spare a thought for the children who will be put in difficult situations.

To the coalition: I note that in Senator Liddle's speech on the second reading of this bill there were very significant concerns raised with schedule 5, and Senator Liddle said:

It is entirely inappropriate that the amendments weren't put to scrutiny in the committee process.

I'm presenting the Senate with an opportunity to actually send this to a Senate committee, to have a look at it and to allow all of these organisations, such as the Law Council of Australia and groups working on the front line with First Nations women across the country, to actually have their say in providing feedback to the Senate ahead of a vote on this schedule. This deserves more scrutiny. I urge my colleagues to split this bill.

I want to end with something that I think is really worth repeating and thinking about, and that is the comments by Commissioner Holmes, in the robodebt royal commission, on the way that we talk about people on welfare in this country. The government may argue that it's a long bow to draw, but I think this kind of legislation actually does show that we're not serious about due process when it comes to people on welfare payments. We're willing to punish them and punish their children if we deem that they are doing the wrong thing, and this is something we need to take seriously. We need to change the way we talk about this as a country, and so I urge the Senate to support this motion to split off schedule 5 and send it to an inquiry.

Shame on Labor. Shame on you all, particularly Minister Plibersek, who is endangering families and who is completely disrespecting Aboriginal legal services and women's legal services. We know you fly the Aboriginal flag and think you're all deadly about it, but what you're doing is outrageous. It's conniving, it's sly and it's merry effing Christmas to anyone out there on welfare who is going to be demonised by—

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Senator Thorpe. I would note—

I didn't swear.

It's implied in that expression. We need to watch language in the chamber. Sorry to interrupt.

That's how people are feeling about this piece of legislation—the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. You snuck a section in without any scrutiny. We have a letter that over a hundred organisations signed—legal services, disability services, Aboriginal services—to say, 'This is not okay.' Then you side with the opposition, who you'd expect it from, to rush this through. I'd be putting my head down in shame, too, Minister. Shame. You have not even thought about this. We know that your government continues to undermine democracy in this country. Accountability and transparency have gone completely out the window. This is not about anything else but the cops' failure to find Dezi. You think, by putting this into a bill, it's going to find Dezi. You will demonise all of those families and children just for one fella that you can't find.

This bill is the latest example of Labor quickly and silently sneaking a whole new schedule into a bill, hidden in a broader government amendment, last-minute before passing it in the House, meaning that many members did not even realise this punitive change had been included. We were all caught by surprise. You didn't think we'd read the fine print. The proposed new schedule 5 was not subject to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I sit on. It has bypassed the human rights committee, and we're meant to scrutinise any relevant legislation. It didn't even come to us.

This is not an accident. Labor is trying to sneak these changes through because the proposed schedule 5 on benefit restriction notices is actually an outrageous extension of police powers into the welfare system, the tax system and the workplace. Cops have no place in those systems. These changes would allow police to advise a responsible minister to cancel a person's concession card and social security payments where an arrest warrant exists against them. This would affect payments such as pensions, JobSeeker, youth allowance, family tax benefit and parental leave pay. This last-minute is unrelated to other provisions in the bill and has been made as a kneejerk reaction to the ongoing search for Dezi Freeman.

It is a reactionary, poorly considered move from the government that will have dangerous consequences. It goes against several international human rights instruments. Shame on you, Labor. Do you care about human rights in this country, or do you just like violating them? It goes against what this country is meant to be about, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, among others. How many human rights do you want to breach? What happened to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty?

This brutal measure means that social security payments can be cancelled on the assumption that someone is guilty of a serious offence before they get their day in court, but what if they're not guilty? Has your government considered what consequences this could have for someone who is innocent? Cancellation of these payments will not just have consequences for the accused; it will hurt their families, children and dependents. Especially in our case, in our communities, one wage can feed a whole family—an extended family. That means we can't afford rent, bills or food. This will lead to homelessness, poverty and child removals, but you love those because you make money from our misery.

We know how this vicious cycle ends. Instead of providing support services to those in need, Labor time and again criminalises people further and introduces harsher and harsher measures. We know who will be most affected by these changes—victims-survivors of domestic violence, children, disabled people and, of course, First Nations people in this country, particularly women. Under these powers, a woman fleeing an abuser could lose the only income keeping her and her kids safe.

The proposed changes do not afford the person under warrant access to legal advice or an appearance in court before the cancellation of the payment. These are actually standard processes with the cancellation of Centrelink payments. Minister Plibersek and the police claim these measures will help catch people, but they have provided no evidence for this—nothing. Cutting off income doesn't make someone easier to find; it makes them more desperate, and desperate people will do desperate things. It may push them to commit crimes to survive. Plibersek and the police put the broader community at risk with these measures. These changes are unacceptable. They're an unacceptable expansion of police powers. Giving police power to interfere in the social welfare system is very, very dangerous. This country is becoming more and more of a police state, and it happens one murky bill at a time.

Honestly, what you fellas are doing, Labor, is worse than what the coalition have done. I don't know if you're trying to be like them or what your go is, but you continue to breach people's human rights in this country and you should all hang your head very, very low. Even your own Ged Kearney called this out. I hear she's very upset. She didn't want this to go ahead. It shows how powerful a backbencher is these days!

Increasing police powers doesn't make our community safer. Police target us, criminalise us and kill us. We cannot let Labor get away with this sneaky, dangerous, brutal move. That is why today I will move an amendment to remove schedule 5 from this bill. A broad alliance of civic society organisations are calling for this Senate to oppose the entire bill unless schedule 5 is removed from it. I stand with them and I call on every senator in this place: if you believe in human rights, then you should stand with them also.

I stand to speak in support of Senator David Pocock's motion to split the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025, and I want to associate myself with the comments made by Senator David Pocock and Senator Thorpe. The government has not given us a genuine explanation for why schedule 5 is warranted and why it is so urgent. If schedule 5 is so urgent that it needed to bypass a Senate inquiry and if schedule 5 is so urgent that it warranted sneaking it into a bill in the House, then let us hear the explanation for that.

As Senator Pocock and Senator Thorpe have said, there are over 100 experts who are urging the government to remove schedule 5. It breaches people's human rights. It is contrary to the rule of law. It is a piece of legislation that would make Donald Trump proud. Who would have thought that, in 2025, a Labor government would introduce legislation that so egregiously tramples on people's human rights and the rule of law? But here we are. Shame on you.

If the case for this schedule is so urgent and important, then stump up to Senate scrutiny, split it from the bill, send it off to inquiry, and make the case for why it is justified to treat people on income support in this way. This is a government that went to two elections now saying that they didn't want to leave anybody behind, and yet they continue to punch down and disregard the rights of people on welfare in this country. We continue to see people's payments suspended unlawfully. We've had multiple instances of unlawful cancellations. In fact, this very bill is attempting to wipe away 30 years of unlawful income apportionment. It doesn't seem to matter what the department or the government does to people on income support. It doesn't matter how unlawful it is; there's always a get-out-of-jail-free card. Yet, if a person on income support misses an appointment or doesn't meet an obligation, a punitive obligation, a mutual obligation, for which there is no evidence that it helps them to get into employment, the government and the department come down on them like a ton of bricks. Yet this same government and this same department won't put up for scrutiny a schedule that is so egregiously in contravention of people's human rights and the rule of law.

It's not just the crossbench saying it. The statement from academic and legal experts says they have a number of concerns with schedule 5: it is a 'violation of the presumption of innocence and due process'; it gives 'ministerial power without procedural safeguards or independent review'; there is a 'lack of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation'; there are 'disproportionate impacts for First Nations peoples, as demonstrated in New Zealand'; it has 'disproportionate impacts for victims of violence'; it has 'incoherent federal-state arrangements without accountability'; it will make 'possible severe harm to dependents'; and 'international evidence demonstrates harm'. Is that why the government didn't want this to go to an inquiry—because there is evidence that already exists that says that this is harmful? The experts go on to say:

Existing mechanisms are adequate and current safeguards are more protective …

In other words, 'You don't need to do this.' It creates an 'unacceptable precedent'.

Is the government seriously saying that 112 academic and legal experts are wrong? Is this, as Senator Thorpe said, a quick fix for a police force that can't find one individual? And millions of Australians on income support pay the price for that. Again, shame on you.

As for the coalition, how can you get up in the House, in this chamber, and talk about concerns about process and support a bill with a schedule that has not been inquired into. This is your opportunity to stand up for fair process, to support Senator Pocock's motion to split the bill and to subject this egregious schedule 5 to the scrutiny it deserves. You can't stand up in this place and say that process needs to be followed and then waive this schedule 5 through.

I never thought I would see the day that a Labor government would pass something so egregious, but here we are again, punching down on refugees, punching down on people on income support and not looking after people who are desperate for secure housing. If you want to reduce crime in this country, lift people out of poverty, make sure that our education systems are properly funded and make sure that people have secure housing, because continuing to punch down on people on income support in the multiple ways you seem to find to do it is not making anyone safer.

Again, thank you, Senator Pocock, for moving this motion. Thank you to everyone on the crossbench who is standing against this appalling schedule 5. To the government and the coalition: if you genuinely think that this will stand up to the scrutiny it deserves then support this motion and have the courage to send schedule 5 to an inquiry to look into it and to see how lawful it actually is.

Once again the government has denied true, genuine consultation on important legislation. It has denied the opportunity for stakeholders and experts to review or provide feedback. The government has deliberately added schedule 5 to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 after the parliamentary committee review process. Once again the government is testing and undermining our basic rule of law. First they tried to cut our freedom of information and keep access to information away from the public and our journalists. Now they're trying to ram through legislation to deny people the fundamental right to the presumption of innocence and procedural fairness.

Schedule 5 would give government officials the power to strip social security benefits from a person subject to an arrest warrant, even though that person hasn't even been convicted of any offence at all. As the Law Council of Australia says:

No one, even those charged with serious offences, should be subject to punitive action by the state unless they have first been found guilty of an offence by an independent, impartial and competent tribunal.

Is the government really okay with stripping away Australians' ability to access justice and taking food away from families in need and away from people that haven't even been convicted?

This reform will create even more inequity and unintended consequences within the justice system, including for First Nations people. We also know that misidentification often happens in cases of domestic violence, and schedule 5 would only make this worse and punish victims for reporting—and add the risk of the government ripping away their social security benefits. Experts expect schedule 5 to not only erode our rule of law and presumption of innocence but also increase homelessness and put family and community safety at risk. Whatever happened to the Labor that stood up for the little guy, for fairness and, frankly, for the basic rule of law?

Schedule 5 should be separated from the rest of the bill and referred to a parliamentary committee for proper public scrutiny. I back Senator Pocock and his motion. The crossbench are doing the right thing for the people of Australia and for the people they represent. It's a shame that the majors aren't doing the same.

I've listened to those contributions. The government will not be supporting this contingent motion from Senator Pocock, and I will run through a little bit about why that is. We do believe it is important to deal with this issue as part of this legislation. I note there were assertions that we had tried to sneak it in or do it post committee inquiry. That isn't the case. The original bill, without schedule 5, had proceeded in the usual way. The government received advice around the need to seek a power like this once that piece of legislation had been considered by a committee.

I note that this was moved a couple of weeks ago. There have been briefings offered. There was a crossbench briefing, and I think Senator Thorpe and the opposition also had a specific briefing on schedule 5. Others would have been provided if others had sought it. There was a genuine willingness to provide as much time or information as we could to explain why we believe this particular power, although very rarely used, I imagine, is required as part of a suite of responses to some of the issues in the social security legislative space.

It's not true.

It's not incorrect. That is correct.

Senator Thorpe, I listened to you in complete silence. Even though I disagree with a lot of what you said, I listened to you. I think it's appropriate that I should be allowed to respond.

In relation to some of the concerns that have been raised around the use of this type of power, I will deal with a couple of issues. This can only be used if an individual has committed a serious violent or sexual offence and is on the run; they should not receive payment from the government in certain circumstances, and there are caveats on even that. So when the assertion is that this would apply to millions of Australians, that is not correct. It would apply to those who have committed a serious violent or sexual offence and are on the run. When they are no longer on the run—that is, when it is known where they are, and they are in touch with the authorities—that entitlement to that payment continues. So it is specifically for a period of time under very, very strict and specific purposes. This idea that it's going to affect millions of Australians, entire populations of families and people who rely on income support, is completely incorrect.

I don't accept at all the assertion from others that this government does anything other than treat people who are on income support respectfully and indeed have increased payments since coming to government in excess of probably any other government in this time. We have increased single parenting payment. We have increased JobSeeker. There has been significant indexation to all of the pensions.

If I could just speak, please. It is going to be a very, very long bill.

It is!

Yes. It will be longer if you keep yelling at me. Commonwealth rent assistance—again, no other government has increased Commonwealth rent assistance in the order that this government has. So I completely reject any assertion from those down at that end of the chamber that this government doesn't treat people on income support respectfully. That is absolutely what we do. It's not only delivered through the income support system; it's through all the other work that we're doing, the work Minister Plibersek is leading in community services and social services, and the work that Senator McCarthy is doing on closing the gap.

This is one limited power to be provided in those very specific circumstances. I understand you all want to ensure that people are worried that it has more broad application, but it doesn't. I think concerns were raised around children and the impact on children, and the way that schedule 5 is drafted means that, yes, they have to take advice from Services Australia on the impact. Under administrative law, they have to consider that advice. So the assertions that they don't have to take that into account are simply incorrect as well. They actually have to not only get the advice but consider that in any decision that they make take about removing access to a payment. Those concerns that were raised, again, that we're going to leave children without income support are simply incorrect as well.

In addition to this, the Minister for Social Services has written to the Commonwealth Ombudsman to advise them that, following a decision to issue a benefit restriction notice, they will be notified and provided with information that informed the decision, including the advice prepared by Services Australia. She has also invited the Ombudsman to report on the use of the measure as part of their public annual report, noting the measure is intended to be used rarely. She has also undertaken to consult with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure. I have the letter here if people are interested in me tabling that letter that has been provided, and I think it was sent last week. I'm happy to table that. Sorry, I haven't shown it to people, so if people want to have a look at it before I table it, that's fine.

They are further commitments from the government about transparency and reporting of the use of benefit restriction notices, which I think should address some of the concerns that people have raised this morning. In order for a benefit restriction notice to be put in place—I'll repeat this again because it is a very specific subset of individuals—there must be an outstanding arrest warrant, and they are a threat to the community. This is not going to have broad, widespread application, because that situation does not occur in any widespread way.

If people are concerned about the use of the power, I think the commitments that the Minister for Social Services has given should address some of those concerns. The minister wrote that the minister will report when that power has been used and provide the information that informed the decision, including the advice from Services Australia. The minister also asked the Ombudsman to consider reporting on the use of the measure as part of their annual report, and consulted with the Ombudsman in the development of guidance and procedures to assist in the administration of the measure. This is a power that is needed. It is a power that would be very rarely used, but we believe, with the processes that will be put in place to manage that use of the power, it is one that is required under our social security legislative system.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Pocock for an instruction to the committee of the whole to divide the bill be agreed to.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (10) on sheet MM100 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (line 8), before "The Secretary", insert "(1)".

(2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (after line 17), at the end of section 99, add:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the debt could be recovered by setting off under section 87A against a payment referred to in paragraph 82(1)(c) (child care service payments).

(3) Schedule 2, page 27 (after line 15), after item 10, insert:

10A At the end of Part 5.2

Add:

1230D Non-recovery of certain amounts

If a record of an amount less than the amount referred to in section 1237AAA is entered into the records of the Human Services Department, the Secretary must waive the Commonwealth's right to raise a debt in respect of the whole or a part of the amount if, were the Commonwealth to exercise that right, the resulting debt would be a debt within the meaning of Part 5.4.

Note 1: The amount referred to in section 1237AAA is indexed on each 1 July (see sections 1191 to 1194). Immediately before 1 July 2026, the amount was $250.

Note 2: See also section 1237AAA (waiver of small debt).

Note 3: A waiver under this section of the Commonwealth's right to raise a debt in respect of an amount does not prevent the Secretary from considering whether any person may have engaged in fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to the amount and taking further appropriate action.

(4) Schedule 2, item 11, page 28 (after line 11), at the end of section 1237AAA, add:

Note 4: See also section 1230D (non-recovery of certain amounts).

(5) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (after line 25), at the end of section 43D, add:

Note 3: See also section 44 (non-recovery of certain amounts).

(6) Schedule 2, page 28 (after line 25), after item 12, insert:

12A At the end of Part 6

Add:

Division 5 — Other matters

44 Non-recovery of certain amounts

If a record of an amount less than the amount referred to in section 1237AAA of the Social Security Act 1991 is entered into the records of the Human Services Department, the Secretary must waive the Commonwealth's right to raise a debt in respect of the whole or a part of the amount if, were the Commonwealth to exercise that right, the resulting debt would be a debt to which this Part applies.

Note 1: The amount referred to in section 1237AAA of the Social Security Act 1991 is indexed on each 1 July (see sections 1191 to 1194 of that Act). Immediately before 1 July 2026, the amount was $250.

Note 2: See also section 43D (waiver of small debt).

Note 3: A waiver under this section of the Commonwealth's right to raise a debt in respect of an amount does not prevent the Secretary from considering whether any person may have engaged in fraud or serious non-compliance in relation to the amount and taking further appropriate action.

44A Secretary may arrange for use of computer programs to make decisions

(1) The Secretary may arrange for the use, under the Secretary's control, of computer programs for any purposes for which an officer may make a decision that is the doing of a thing under section 43D (waiver of small debt) or section 44 (non-recovery of certain amounts).

(2) A decision made by the operation of a computer program under an arrangement made under subsection (1) is taken to be a decision made by the Secretary.

(7) Schedule 2, item 13, page 28 (before line 28), insert:

Debts

(8) Schedule 2, item 13, page 28 (after line 32), at the end of the item, add:

Non-recovery of certain amounts

(3) The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a record that is entered into the records of the Human Services Department after the commencement of this item.

(9) Schedule 2, item 14, page 29 (line 3), after "amount", insert "(other than an amount of child care subsidy or additional child care subsidy)".

(10) Schedule 2, item 14, page 29 (after line 23), at the end of the item, add:

(5) In this item:

additional child care subsidy has the same meaning as in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999.

child care subsidy has the same meaning as in the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999.

These amendments give full effect to our policy intent by providing for the automatic waiving of future small debts below the new threshold of $250 before those amounts are required to be formally raised as debts by Services Australia. They ensure the small debt waiver regime provides for these waivers consistently under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Student Assistance Act 1973. Specifically, the amendments insert a new section 44A into the Student Assistance Act to ensure a computer program may be used for the purposes of administering the small debt waiver and small undetermined debt waiver provisions in the Student Assistance Act. This ensures the waivers can be administered in the same way as equivalent waivers under social security law.

The amendments also ensure that childcare provider debts can continue to be recovered by setting off against a childcare service payment. This is due to the different debt processes involved with those payments, where debts are not usually raised until the annual reconciliation process has taken place. The amendments I just talked about are covered in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I table that, along with the letter from the Minister for Social Services to the Ombudsman that I referred to earlier.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I table a statement from academics and legal experts. The statement says:

We, the undersigned academics and legal experts, call on the Australian Government to immediately remove Schedule 5 from the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025. In doing so, we add our voices to a building coalition of anti-poverty advocates, legal services, human rights experts, disability representative organisations, and senators … who also strongly oppose the amendment.

Schedule 5 was added to the Bill on 28 October 2025 without prior announcement or any public consultation. This Schedule allows state, territory, or federal police to—in relation to individuals with outstanding warrants for serious violent or sexual offences—lodge a request with the Minister for Home Affairs to have that person's social security payments and concessions (under the Social Security Act 1991 … family assistance payments (under the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 ... and parental leave pay (under the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 … cancelled.

The (revised) explanatory memorandum to the Bill states:

The objective of this measure is to ensure people who are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant for a serious offence can no longer be supported through the social security and family payments systems.

This represents a dangerous departure from fundamental legal principles that underpin Australia's social security and criminal justice systems.

I'll just summarise the concerns in relation to schedule 5. They include the violation of the presumption of innocence and due process; ministerial power without procedural safeguards or independent review; lack of parliamentary scrutiny and consultation; disproportionate impacts for First Nations peoples, as demonstrated in New Zealand; disproportionate impacts for victims of violence; incoherent federal-state arrangements without accountability; and possible severe harm to dependants. International evidence demonstrates harm. Existing mechanisms are inadequate, and current safeguards are more protective. It's an unacceptable precedent that this government is setting.

The position of over 100 organisations who have major concerns with schedule 5 are saying:

We, the undersigned academics and legal experts, call on the Australian Government to immediately remove Schedule 5 from the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025.

We support proper parliamentary process. If the Government believes such powers are necessary, Schedule 5 should be removed from this Bill and introduced as separate legislation subject to:

We oppose the establishment of a two-tier justice system that strips welfare recipients of the basic legal safeguards that underpin equality before the law—due process and the presumption of innocence.

My fellow senator will read out who those academic leaders and experts are.

Following on from Senator Thorpe's contribution around the statement from academic and legal experts, I think it's important that we get on the record who it is that's telling the government that we really need to have some additional scrutiny of schedule 5. It's people like Marian Sawyer, emeritus professor from the Australian National University; Adjunct Professor Nicholas Cowdrey AO, KC, adjunct at the law schools of the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales; Adjunct Professor George Newhouse, CEO of the National Justice Project; Associate Professor Hannah McGlade, a member of the UN Permanent Forum for Indigenous Issues; Tracey Booth, acting dean at the Faculty of Law, UTS; Professor Lise Barry, dean at the Macquarie Law School; Professor Tamara Walsh, professor of law and director of the UQ Pro Bono Centre, University of Queensland; and Associate Professor Maria Giannacopoulos, director of the Centre for Criminology, Law and Justice, University of New South Wales. It includes John Scott, professor and head of the School of Justice at QUT; Professor Amy Maguire, director of the Centre for Law and Social Justice at the University of Newcastle; Professor Paul Henman, professor of digital sociology and social policy at the University of Queensland; Kristen Lyons, professor at the School of Social Science, University of Queensland; Professor Juan Tauri, professor of criminology, University of Melbourne; Michael Flood, professor at the Queensland University of Technology; and Gaby Ramia, professor of public policy, University of Sydney.

There's also Dr Alessandro Pelizzon, discipline lead of law at the University of the Sunshine Coast; Professor Heather Douglas, University of Melbourne; Linda Steele, professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney; Alex Steel, professor, Faculty of Law and Justice at the University of New South Wales; Lynda Cheshire, professor of sociology at the University of Queensland; Greg Martin, professor of criminology and sociolegal studies at the University of Sydney; Professor Thalia Anthony, Faculty of Law, UTS; Professor Chris Cunneen, Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research; Ruth Phillips, professor of social policy at the University of Sydney; Professor Lou Crabtree-Hayes, professorial research fellow at the Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University; Lorana Bartels, professor of criminology at the Australian National University and adjunct professor of law at the University of Canberra and the University of Tasmania; Dr Penny Crofts, professor, UTS; Linda Briskman, professor of social work at Western Sydney University; Professor Greg Marston, Director of the Centre for Policy Futures at the University of Queensland; Dr Zoe Staines, senior lecturer in criminology and social policy at the University of Queensland—it's a long list.

It includes Dr Francis Markham, fellow at the ANU Centre for Social Policy Research at the Australian National University; Dr Elise Klein, associate professor of public policy at the Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU; Dr Ben Spies-Butcher, associate professor of economy and society at the School of Communication, Society and Culture at Macquarie University; Dr Christopher Rudge, lecturer and deputy director of Sydney Health Law at the Sydney Law School, University of Sydney; Dr Simone Casey, principal research fellow, Centre for Inclusive Employment at Swinburne University of Technology; Dr Edward Jegasothy, senior lecturer at the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney; Dr Sue Olney, associate professor of political science at the University of Melbourne; Dr Eve Vincent, associate professor of anthropology at Macquarie University; Dr Emma Mitchell, Macquarie University research fellow in sociology at Macquarie University; Gareth Bryant, associate professor at the University of Sydney; Emma Power, associate professor, School of Social Sciences and the Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University; Haylee Davis at the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Research; Estrella Pearce, lecturer in criminology, School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Sydney; Fiona Allison, associate professor, Jumbunna Institute, UTS; Dr Kate Thomas; Dr Mark Riboldi, lecturer at UTS Business School, University of Technology Syndey; Dinesh Wadiwel, associate professor in sociolegal studies and human rights at the University of Sydney; Monique Hurley, lecturer at Melbourne Law School and associate legal director at the Human Rights Law Centre; and Adjunct Associate Professor Terese Henning at TOPCAT.

There's Associate Professor Helen Gibbon at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; Dr Vicki Sentas, associate professor at the Centre for Criminology, Law and Justice at the Faculty of Law and Justice at the University of New South Wales Sydney; Kate Swaffer, activist and researcher at the University of South Australia; Phillip Wadds, associate professor at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; Melissa Johnston, lecturer at the University of Queensland; Natasha Cortis, associate professor, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales; Dr Sean Mulcahy, La Trobe University; Stefanie Plage, research fellow, ARC Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course; Dr Sarah Bennett, associate professor in criminology at the University of Queensland; Dr Emma Antrobus, also a senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Queensland; Rose Stambe, research fellow at Griffith University; Dr Michelle Peterie, senior research fellow at the University of Sydney; Dr Peter Walters, associate professor at the School of Social Science, University of Queensland; Lana Tatour, University of New South Wales; Dr Phuc Nguyen, La Trobe University; Dr Leah Williams, senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; Emile Carreau, lecturer at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; and Dr Sarah Ball, lecturer in public policy at the University of Queensland.

The names also include Dr Georgia Van Toorn from the University of New South Wales; Dr Susan Collings, senior research fellow, Transforming early Education And Child Health Research Centre, Western Sydney University; Associate Professor Helen Gibbon from the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; Scarlet Wilcock, a senior lecturer at the University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice; Dr Janet Hunt, honorary associate professor, Centre for Indigenous Policy Research at the Australian National University; Melissa O'Donnell, academic researcher; Esther Erlings, senior lecturer at Macquarie Law School; Arianna Gatta, research fellow at the School of Economics and the Centre for Policy Futures, University of Queensland; Andreea Lachsz, Quentin Bryce Law Doctoral Scholar at UTS; Anna Copeland, associate professor and director of clinical legal education at Murdoch University; Associate Professor Trish Luker, Faculty of Law, UTS; Francesca Dominello, senior lecturer at Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Sydney; Sarah Moulds, associate professor in law, University of South Australia; Emily Piggott, Centre for Innovative Justice, RMIT University; Piers Gooding, associate professor, La Trobe Law School; Dr Laura Bedford, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of Melbourne; Dr Emily Wolfinger, Western Sydney University; Dr Rebecca Scott Bray, associate professor, University of Sydney; and Andy Kaladelfos, senior lecturer, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law and Justice.

We also have legal and policy experts, and I might leave it to Senator Thorpe to continue that list.

I will continue the list, because this is what this government has completely ignored. I don't know where your advice is coming from, but we have over a hundred legal and human rights experts that tell you that this is not okay. In terms of legal and policy experts, they are Caitlin Reiger, chief executive officer, Human Rights Law Centre; Kate Allingham, CEO of Economic Justice Australia; Kerry Weste, vice president and chair of children's rights, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights; Debbie Kilroy OAM, CEO of Sisters Inside; Cassandra Goldie, chief executive officer of ACOSS; Leo Patterson Ross, CEO of the Tenants Union of NSW; Alison Battisson, director principal of Human Rights for All and Heretic Law; Judy Harrison, co-convenor of the National Regional, Rural, Remote and Very Remote Community Legal Network; Edwina McDonald, chief strategy officer, ACOSS; Therese Edwards, Single Mother Families Australia; Sarah Marland, executive director, Community Legal Centres NSW; Jonathon Hunyor, CEO of the Justice and Equity Centre; Kira Levin, principal solicitor, Homeless Persons' Legal Service, Justice and Equity Centre; Ellen Tilbury, principal solicitor, Justice and Equity Centre; Kate Beaumont, executive officer, Welfare Rights & Advocacy Service WA; Antonio Gonzales, welfare rights advocate, Fremantle CLC; Jonathan Hall Spence, principal solicitor, Justice and Equity Centre; Joanna Collins, CEO of Pilbara Community Legal Service; Louisa Stewart, principal solicitor, South Coast & Country Community Law; Karen Fletcher, executive officer, Flat Out Inc.; Stephanie Price, manager of Social Security Rights Victoria; Damian Stock, CEO of ARC Justice; James Farrell OAM, CEO, Basic Rights Queensland; Bronwyn Ambrogetti, managing solicitor, Hunter Community Legal Centre; Patrick O'Callaghan, Western NSW Community Legal Centre principal solicitor; JC Weliamuna, principal solicitor, Human Rights Law Program, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; Benjamin Graham, principal solicitor, Central Coast Community Legal Centre; and Ashley Newnham, acting chief executive officer, South-East Monash Legal Service. I table the document, and I also seek leave to move the amendments on sheet 3481 standing in my name together.

Leave granted.

You will need to seek leave to table the document.

I did seek leave, but I didn't actually say at the end of the speech, 'I table the document,' which I think is a formality.

So you have sought leave previously? Thank you very much, Senator Thorpe.

I move the amendments in my name on sheet 3481 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit "Schedules 3, 4 and 5", substitute "Schedules 3 and 4".

(2) Schedule 5, page 38 (line 1) to page 52 (line 11), to be opposed.

I have a question for the minister. Minister, when you were talking about schedule 5, you said in your remarks that schedule 5 applies to people who've committed an offence of a particular nature. My question to you is: how do you know they've committed that offence if they haven't been found guilty by a court of law?

In my remarks, I said 'charged with committing a serious offence or sexual offence', and I also referred to the need to have an outstanding arrest warrant and be a threat to public safety.

Thanks for that clarification, Minister. One of the concerns of legal experts—academic experts—is that this amendment was made to the bill in the House following the Senate inquiry into the bill. Also as, Senator Thorpe talked about earlier today, this has also meant that this schedule was not in the bill when it went to the Human Rights Committee. In responding to some of those assertions by the crossbench, in our earlier exchange, you talked about the fact that these amendments were introduced by the government after you'd received advice. Minister, can you inform the Senate who gave that advice and to whom, when that advice was given and the contents of that advice?

I'll check and see whether there are any specific dates I can give, but I was certainly involved in a number of discussions around this matter, and it was post the original bill being put together—essentially going through our government approvals processes. The advice came from a number of different agencies across government. It came over a period of time, and the government obviously went through its own processes of understanding that advice and information that was being provided and then determining the most appropriate way through, which was to seek an amendment to this bill through the insertion of clause 5. I'll see if there's anything more helpful I can give you. It certainly involved the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Social Services and me as a Minister for Government Services. I'll check if any further ministers were involved, and I'll see if I can provide a date or date window from during that time. I'll come back on that. I'm just trying to see if I can give you a scope of time.

Noting that, was any consultation done with people outside of government—any legal experts, any legal advocacy organisations or anyone? Are you able to give us a list of who you consulted in coming to the view that this needed to be done?

I should probably also have said that the Attorney-General's Department would have also been involved, when I mentioned other departments that had been providing ministers with advice. I'm also advised that the Minister for Social Services spoke to EJA and ACOSS prior to the announcement about schedule 5. The minister has also committed to working with those organisations on developing the guidance and procedures for the use of that power.

Minister, there's a difference between 'spoke to' and 'consulted with'. 'Consultation' implies that there's a two-way flow of information and feedback is taken on board. 'Spoken to' implies that you simply told them you were doing it. I certainly stood up at a press conference today where ACOSS expressed huge concerns over schedule 5. It was actually calling on the government to remove schedule 5 from this particular bill and to subject it to scrutiny. In those consultations, were EJA and ACOSS supportive of the insertion of schedule 5?

I wasn't necessarily implying there was any support from those organisations. I'm just giving you some facts about who the Minister for Social Services spoke to. This was a government decision about a power, based on advice from a number of different agencies, that we decided to include as an amendment.

We didn't have a broad consultation process around it outside of government. It was a process that was led across ministers within government, and, as I said, the opportunity for ACOSS and EJA is really in working with the Minister for Social Services on the operational guidance around this. I've already provided the Senate with a letter from the Minister for Social Services about the approach she intends to take with the Ombudsman around transparency and reporting, and I think there is opportunity for those organisations to be involved in that process. I think a lot of the concerns that have been raised this morning, particularly about how widespread this application of this power would be, are unfounded. It is a very specific and very unusual set of circumstances that would lead to this power being applicable to someone on income support.

Minister, in the debate around the motion moved by Senator David Pocock to split the bill, you commented that statements made by the crossbench about the lack of scrutiny were unfounded because there had been briefings given on the bill. You've also just now said that ACOSS and EJA weren't engaged in a consultation but were 'spoken to'. Minister, is it your assertion, and the government's assertion, that giving crossbenchers briefings—which we all know are one-way processes, where the department tells us what the government is going to do—and speaking to ACOSS and EJA is the level of scrutiny to which the bill has been subjected? Is it your assertion that that amounts to scrutiny?

Firstly, I don't recall saying that the concerns around scrutiny were unfounded. I said a lot of the concerns raised by the crossbench around the broad application of this power were unfounded. I said there was the opportunity for briefings, which Senator Thorpe and the opposition did seek. I've been a part of briefings before. I don't see them as a one-way street; I see them as an opportunity for individual senators to essentially cross-examine the department and test some of the policy decisions that have been made. I've sat in a lot of briefings myself; I've sat in them in opposition. I think they are a genuine way for the government to engage and to allow for scrutiny of the decisions that we have taken. Now, if the Greens didn't take that up—I'm not casting a view on that; I'm just saying that was available and it was only taken up by Senator Thorpe and the opposition.

I have at no stage said that there was broad community consultation process around this. The government stands here saying, 'We need this power.' We've been advised by a number of departments on this. We've taken that decision, and we're putting it through as a schedule to this amendment. This is part of the scrutiny of that decision, but I'm not pretending that it was part of a broad consultation process. It wasn't. It's a government decision based on advice that we have from our departments, and we make those decisions regularly.

We are absolutely saying, to those organisations that have an interest in this, that the minister wants to work with them around the guidance and application procedures for this power, alongside the transparency that the relevant minister, who in many cases will be the Minister for Home Affairs, will be providing through to the Ombudsman. I think those are good, appropriate safeguards, and they should address some of the concerns that have been raised here this morning. It's a very, very specific set of individuals that this would apply to. It is not going to apply to millions of Australians, as was said in this chamber this morning. There are safeguards, including on its impact on families and dependants, around how that would operate. The view that it's going to impact children unfairly, I think, is unfounded as well because of the safeguards that have been put into the legislation.

Minister, I guess what I'm struggling with is that the government is telling us that you've had advice from one or more departments that they need this particular power. What I haven't heard is a reasonable excuse for these far-reaching powers. Notwithstanding that the government says they're only going to apply to a select group of individuals, these are far-reaching powers. They bypass the presumption of innocence. They bypass the rule of law. We have 112 or more legal academics and experts telling us that this is concerning. What I'm struggling to understand is why the government has sought to put this into this bill when it was entirely open to the government to lob up another bill with this schedule in it, which could have been sent off to a Senate inquiry. I don't accept the minister's assertion that briefings are a form of scrutiny; they are not. They are information sharing. It is not public, accountable scrutiny of legislation.

Why did the government choose to put these amendments into a bill that was already in the House when they could have bowled up a separate piece of legislation with this schedule in it and sent it off to a Senate inquiry for it to get the legitimate, public scrutiny that it deserves, which would have given legal experts and academics—the Law Council of Australia and others—the opportunity to put on the record their concerns about these powers, and which would have then given the government the opportunity to respond, rather than just telling us, 'Departments have told us they need it'? I'm sorry; this is a department that has unlawfully apportioned income over 30 years, that was responsible for robodebt, that has had to pause numerous cancellations because they've been found to be unlawful, and that is still suspending payments based on a targeted compliance framework that the minister and the department secretary cannot assure anyone is legal, and yet you are asking the Senate to trust you that, because people in the department have told you they need this, it doesn't have to be subject to the normal scrutiny that every other bit of legislation—and in fact, the remainder of this bill—has been.

So my question to you, Minister, is: why did the government not put this in a separate bill that would enable it to be subject to the proper scrutiny of the Senate process? Why did you choose to put it at the last minute in a bill already before the House?

That was the decision the government took. We wanted to ensure that we could have this power available at the earliest opportunity. There was legislation before the parliament that would allow us to move this as a schedule to that legislation, and that was the decision the government took. I accept that you don't agree with it, but it's our decision, and we have been very upfront about it.

Why the urgency, Minister? What is so urgent that this needs to be put into this bill now?

It's a decision of government to have this power available at the earliest opportunity. An issue had been identified, and we are responding to it.

In the last sitting Senator Gallagher spoke of the government's commitment to transparency and proper process when criticising Senator Bragg for abuse of process. Your government pushed through a late amendment to an unrelated bill after three inquiries had reported. Do you think that upholds proper process and transparency?

Once this issue was identified to the government and a decision had been taken, the minister made public that decision and the schedule that has been moved to this bill, which has allowed public scrutiny of it. Senator Thorpe and Senator Allman-Payne have just read into the Hansard a list of people who are concerned about that power, which again would lead me to believe that many people working in this field are aware of it. This happens from time to time in government; you make amendments to bills that are already before the parliament. The government has made a decision that this power is needed. There was legislation before Senate, so it was clearly an opportunity to get this power in place as soon as possible.

Is the 'Department of Let's Get Dezi Freeman and Screw Everyone Else' the department you're talking about, Minister?

There were a number of departments involved with discussions around this. As I listed before, there was Attorney-General's, certainly Services Australia as an agency, the Department of Social Services and also the Department of Home Affairs. I'm not in a position to talk about any individual matters.

There are over 100 experts, who we read out earlier, against schedule 5. Do you have any regard or respect to their advice over your 'Department of Let's Get Dezi Freeman'?

I don't agree with the assertion made by Senator Thorpe in relation to that. The government has made a decision about the need for this power. We have included it in schedule 5. We would like the Senate to deal with it today.

In terms of the many names that were read into the Hansard, of course the government engages widely across many of those experts that I certainly recognised by name. They are valuable and respected partners, and we take their advice, but, at times, it doesn't mean you agree with everything people say. I hope that some of the commitments we have given in relation to transparency and reporting around it, and engagement on shaping the operational guidance will address some of the concerns people have, including the fact that this has a very, very narrow and very specific purpose, and that there are safeguards built into the legislation.

How does the government justify removing presumption of innocence in this instance?

This power would apply to someone who is charged with committing a serious violent or sexual offence, where there is an outstanding arrest warrant and they are a threat to public safety. If that person or individual who might be captured under this arrangement comes into contact with the authorities—that is, there is no longer an outstanding arrest warrant—access to the payment can be resumed. It is a very, very specific set of circumstances that this benefit restriction notice applies in, and it's for a very specific period of time so that the moment an individual becomes known to authorities, and there isn't that outstanding warrant, the entitlement to access that payment can be reactivated.

Do you acknowledge that this schedule essentially means that people on social security are second-class citizens—they do not deserve the full suite of human rights, and the rule of law does not apply to them?

It may be helpful if I go through the types of offences that might be covered by the benefit restriction notice. It draws on the concept of serious violent or sexual offences within the meaning of the Criminal Code, but it captures a Commonwealth, state or territory offence where the offence is punishable by imprisonment for life or by a maximum period of at least seven years and where the offence involves or would involve one of the following: loss of a person's life or serious risk to a person's life; serious personal injury or serious risk of serious personal injury; sexual assault; production, publication, possession, supply or sale of child abuse material; consenting to or procuring the employment of a child or employing a child in connection with child abuse material; or acts done in preparation for or to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a person under the age of 16.

An individual captured by this would have to have been charged with one of the offences that I just read out and have an outstanding arrest warrant for that. Specifically, on the points that Senator Thorpe just made, the supplementary explanatory memorandum deals with that on page 21, where it talks about the engagement of certain rights and the narrow set of circumstances, saying that the limitation 'is proportionate to the objective of ensuring that people who have been charged with serious violent or sexual offences and are subject to an outstanding arrest warrant cannot continue to benefit from social security payments, which might be assisting them in evading the authorities'. That deals with the engagement of human rights and the proportionate response to that. It is detailed in those several paragraphs on page 21.

We know that there's a problem with police targeting Aboriginal people in this country. We have had over 600 deaths in custody. We know that Aboriginal women experiencing violence are seen to be the perpetrators when they call the cops. We know the target on our backs. We know the boots on our necks from the cops every day in this country. It's out there. It's well known. Incarceration rates, deaths in custody—you name it. Minister, what guarantee do you give to Aboriginal women who will be subject to this legislation?

Based on my earlier remarks, this part of the legislation—benefit restriction notices—will apply to a very narrow subset of individuals who have been charged with one of the offences that I just read out into the Hansard. I am sympathetic to the view that Senator Thorpe puts around concerns about police and First Nations Australians, but I do not agree with her that this particular power—benefit restriction notices—applies in any widespread way, nor is it designed to target a particular demographic of the Australian community. It is a very, very narrow and specific set of circumstances and for a very set period of time.

Can I ask then, Minister, which Aboriginal legal services and women's legal services has your government sought advice from to ensure that we are not targeted and not caught up in this dangerous, last-minute addition to this bill.

We work—myself and the Minister for Social Services—very closely with women's legal services and with Aboriginal legal services, so of course there is an ongoing commitment to continue to engage with those organisations, including on anything that those organisations notice in the use of this power. I would also say that we're waiting for the ombudsman to respond to the minister's letter. How they decide to engage and report on this power would also be a safeguard in watching the application of this power and whether it is being used in a particular way.

I should say that it's not a power to be given to the police. It is a power that would ultimately be for a decision-maker of the Minister for Home Affairs—

With advice from the cops.

Obviously, agencies would have to engage, but, ultimately, it's not a power that is available to the police.

I challenge that: it's on advice from the police, who are violent towards Aboriginal people in this country. So it is a very, very dangerous addition to the legislation. Minister, I want you to guarantee that Aboriginal women and Aboriginal people will not be targeted. I want your guarantee that we will not be targeted as part of this late addition. Guarantee it!

I've already said it's not a power that is being put in place to target particular communities. That's not what this is about. It's about a very specific set of circumstances. Yes, there would be advice from police, but there would also be advice from a number of other agencies, including advice from Services Australia about any impact the cancellation of a payment may have on others, including dependants. But, ultimately, it is a ministerial power, so it's the Minister for Home Affairs that has the power. Transparency and reporting, and engagement with all of the organisations you have outlined are important, and the government remains absolutely committed to them.

My final question is: the minister is saying that there are measures that will be taken to ensure children are not affected. Can you guarantee that children will not go hungry, will not become homeless, will not become a ward of the state and be taken from their families? Can you guarantee that children in this country will not be affected?

The approach the government has taken more broadly in this area is to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to support families, including children and dependants, whether it be through the income support system or through other payments or, indeed, through the childcare system. That gives you a sense of the approach that we take to these matters.

As I said in my response to Senator Pocock's motion earlier, before the Minister makes a determination, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs must seek advice from Services Australia to identify any dependants and assess any impact on them, and this advice must be considered as part of the decision-making process. I think Senator Pocock said it doesn't need to be considered. It does. Where appropriate, the minister may recommend special adjustments to ensure continued support for dependants, recognising that each situation will differ. In addition, the measure will not apply to the childcare subsidy or the additional childcare subsidy, as these payments are made directly to service providers, ensuring that dependent children attending child care can continue to be supported to do so. For family payments, arrangements are available for another parent or family member to become the eligible recipient from the date the payment is no longer payable to the person subject to a benefit restriction notice, ensuring again that support for children continues. These safeguards are built into the legislation. When the minister is making a decision, he or she is required to take all relevant considerations into account when considering the likely effect of cancellation on a person's dependants. This includes advice Home Affairs is required to seek from Services Australia.

Minister, I'd like to take you to the concerns of the Law Council of Australia. I understand that they've written to the minister with their concerns, and I've also received a letter from them. If I can take you to the first concern that they've raised around the constitutionality of schedule 5, they said:

Concerns have been raised with us that Schedule 5 may punish a person by depriving them of welfare benefits, by means of an administrative decision rather than a finding of a court, before a finding of criminal guilt is made. It is unclear whether any Constitutional implications of this measure have been considered by government—including potentially in relation to Chapter III of the Constitution, under which punishment of criminal conduct is an exclusively judicial function.

Minister, could you advise the chamber whether the government has received advice on the constitutionality of this bill? Additionally, could I ask you to respond to the Law Council's concern and outline how the bill is constitutionally sound, given it does give the minister a power to punish someone for criminal conduct?

The government has received, as you would expect, legal advice on the approach that we are taking, and that informed our decision-making.

Thank you, Minister. Would you be able to table that, please?

No, we don't table legal advice that government receives as part of our decision-making.

Thank you, Minister. You said you've received legal advice. Can you confirm that that legal advice said that it was constitutional?

I'm not going to confirm the advice that we get as that is cabinet in confidence and legally privileged, but I can say that the government was informed, as you would expect, on legal matters and through advice formally, both in the lead-up to making the decision and around the decision we took as well.

It is extraordinary that a government won't even confirm that something that they are doing that is highly controversial—the Law Council of Australia has written to the minister and has written to senators. You have over 100 organisations across this country saying: 'Don't do this. This is a dangerous precedent.' You've got the government saying, 'Well, it's for these violent offenders who are evading the law.' Yet when you ask the government, 'Is it even constitutional?' their response is: 'Oh, I couldn't possibly say. We have advice.'

That's not my answer.

I'll take that interjection. Effectively, the government is saying, 'We have advice, but we're not going to say because of these conventions.' You have privilege here. You could at least say, 'Yes, it's constitutional.' But it seems like the government is keen to sneak this through and evade any scrutiny. We didn't get a Senate inquiry into this. The government says, 'Well, everyone knew this was happening,' but that's not what I hear from the 100-odd groups who've signed onto that open letter.

The Law Council has put to us:

… a person may be the subject of an arrest warrant for a number of reasons, not all of which mean that person is actively evading police and which more often concern their personal circumstances.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this notion that the bill only applies to those that are actively evading arrest is not correct. What schedule 5 actually says is that it applies to a person if there is a warrant for their arrest and they haven't been arrested. So it is actually broader than what the government is saying, and, as the Law Council says:

… police may be unable to locate a person because they are away from their usual residence, suburb or town—including to attend a family gathering such as a funeral. This is not uncommon with First Nations people, noting that the extent of police efforts to locate a person before resorting to an arrest warrant may vary widely. Alternatively, the person may have inadvertently missed a court date, failed to appear, and had a warrant issued for their arrest. Cutting off a person's income is a disproportionate and punitive response to these situations.

Does the government accept the Law Council's concern that a person may be attending to personal circumstances, may not even be aware that there is a warrant for their arrest, and then have their social security cancelled?

I don't want to be misrepresented by Senator Pocock on the position on the issues he's raised around constitutionality. As you would expect, the government takes legal advice on a whole range of matters. We are confident in the advice that we have received, and it has informed how we have approached drafting this legislative power.

On the point you raise on behalf of the Law Council of Australia, we think the legislation is very clear—that there is, essentially, an outstanding arrest warrant and that a person hasn't been arrested. That does encompass someone who's avoiding being arrested.

The legislation does allow—including as to advice from Services Australia and others, before this power is utilised—for information to be provided to inform the decision-making. In the example you provide, that someone is unaware that there is an arrest warrant, just remember that they have to have been charged with loss of a person's life or serious risk to a person's life, serious personal injury or serious risk of personal injury; sexual assault; production, publication, possession, supply or sale of child-abuse material; consenting to or procuring the employment of a child or employing a child in connection with child-abuse material; or acts done in preparation for or to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a person under the age of 16. So they have to have been charged with that and a warrant issued for their arrest. In the example that you cite there—that someone charged with that is unaware that the police are looking for them—that would be able to be considered by the minister, as part of forming his or her decision about whether or not to cancel the payment. That is very clear and allowable under the legislation.

Minister, when were drafting instructions issued to the OPC for schedule 5 of this bill, please?

I believe it was in November. I will see if there's a further date that we can provide during the course of the afternoon. It would have been in November.

No, this year.

Minister, it passed the House on 29 October, so I'm not sure if that lines up. If we look at the inquiry start date of 4 September and the inquiry end date of 21 October, that didn't include this schedule. Debate in the House was on the 27th and it passed the House on the 29th, so we've got a week there. When was this drafted—between the inquiry and the House passing it? What is the timeline?

Sorry, Senator Pocock; I'm just trying to get a date here. I understand that the minister signed a draft amendment in late October, but I'm seeing if there is anything else. My apologies; I thought it was early November. But late October—I'll see if there's anything else we can provide.

Minister, you've said a number of times that the government isn't trying to avoid scrutiny here. I'd really like the date on which drafting instructions were sent to the OPC. But I'd also like to know why the community affairs committee did not need to be made aware of these amendments during their inquiry if it was in fact before they reported. Maybe you could tell us when the government decided it wanted to pursue the policy outlined in schedule 5.

This question was asked earlier. I am seeking information on that. I don't have the dates in front of me, but I presume that throughout the course of the debate on this bill I will get that. I know there was a discussion across portfolios in October, but I can't give you the specific dates. I'm sure somebody is listening, and we'll see what we can provide.

Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It's true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation's standard.

I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation's opposition to that amendment, and here's why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We'll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There's no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2.

The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny.

One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction.

Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you're bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment.

Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people's representatives in this house?

I've been asked that a number of times through the course of the session and, indeed, we've had a vote on this already. The government is not supporting the removal of schedule 5 from the bill, and I don't agree with the assertions made by Senator Roberts.

Minister, Senator David Pocock asked you about the constitutionality of schedule 5, and I don't think you answered his direct question. You said that you were confident in the legal advice. Are you and the government confident that schedule 5 is constitutional?

I think I dealt with this in answering Senator Pocock's question, because I wanted to be clear that the government has considered issues around constitutionality, that we have taken advice and that we are confident in the advice and the way we have responded with this amendment. It's assisted in drafting this schedule. So I have answered that. In answer to Senator Pocock's earlier question, the Minister for Social Services agreed to the draft text for the schedule 5 amendment on 24 October 2025.

It's a direct question. I feel like the minister is talking around the answer. Is the government confident that schedule 5 is constitutional—yes or no?

I've answered that. We are confident that schedule 5 has been drafted based on the legal advice that we have, which did include the constitutionality of approaching this issue.

This is the most cryptic set of responses that you could imagine—'confident that the legislation has been drafted consistent with the advice that considered the constitutionality of it'. The very clear question is: is schedule 5 constitutional? The question isn't: have you considered advice that considered whether or not it was constitutional or done it in accordance with advice that considered whether or not it was constitutional? The question is: is it constitutional?

I love it when Senator Shoebridge comes to the rescue! I've answered the question, and I have nothing further to add. The government is confident in the way we have approached this task based on legal advice that we received, which includes issues around the constitutionality of our approach.

Did that advice say it is constitutional for the executive to punish individuals by the removal of their benefits in the way envisaged in schedule 5? Did it say that that was a constitutionally valid act for the executive to perform?

In accordance with longstanding practice, the government does not disclose the legal advice we received.

Have you sought advice? I'm not interested in the outcome of the advice at this moment. Have you sought advice as to whether the executive punishing people by removing their benefits, as provided in schedule 5, is constitutional?

We can keep harping on this. I've answered the question; my answer is not going to change. We deal with some of those matters in this supplementary explanatory memorandum.

Have you received advice as to the number of people that it is expected schedule 5 will apply to in its first year of operations and its second year of operations? What are the numbers that are suggested will be covered by schedule 5?

No, we haven't received any numbers. I don't know how you would get that sort of advice or model the kind of advice that would give the government numbers. It's not based on numbers. It's based on a very specific and narrow set of circumstances which would lead to that benefit restriction notice being utilised. This is about ensuring that we have a full range of powers available to us, should they be required, in that very rare circumstances that a benefit restriction notice might be applicable.

Thanks very much, Minister. You say 'very rare circumstances'. Of course, the Law Council's position is that there are a significant number of potential circumstances where schedule 5 can be used—amongst other cases, where an individual has been served with a warrant but is not aware of the nature of it, or where a warrant has been issued and the person is away because of family circumstances and is not at their usual address. Have you considered the multiplicity of circumstances that might be picked up by schedule 5 when you give the Senate the answer that you expect it will be on very rare occasions?

Senator Shoebridge might need to repeat his question. I was trying to take some advice while you were talking, Senator Shoebridge. My understanding is that this is an issue that has been identified recently in terms of advice to the government. That would say to me that it's pretty, pretty rare in that it has only in 2025 been identified as an issue that the government might like to address.

Minister, two things flow from that. What are the circumstances that brought this to the attention of the government in 2025 after the substantive bill had found its way through the bulk of the processes? There are two questions; that's my first question. What are the circumstances that brought this to the attention of the government in 2025?

It was identified as a gap in the powers available to government, and advice was provided by a number of agencies. I'm not in a position to talk about individual matters, but it was based on identification of a gap in or a lack of legislative response to a particular set of circumstances which are covered by the benefit restriction notices—that is, someone in receipt of income support being charged with committing a serious violent or sexual offence, who has an outstanding arrest warrant and is a threat to public safety.

I'm not asking you to describe the circumstances of the individual matter, but is it the case that there was an individual matter that was brought to the attention of the government? If so—you said it is on the advice of a series of agencies—can you identify which agencies brought either that matter or other matters to your attention?

It was certainly based on advice. The identification of the issue was in response to a particular set of circumstances, yes, and that led to advice being sought across—I answered this before, but I have one more department to add—Home Affairs, the Attorney-General's Department, Services Australia as the agency, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Education as well.

Were each of those agencies involved in this one case, or was it that the one case led you to seek advice from those different agencies? I ask this because there is great concern about how this found its way to being attached to the bill without due process. Understanding how it found its way to be attached to the bill without due process is important. Were each of these agencies involved in the one case, or was it after you heard about the one case that you sought the advice of the agencies? Or is there a third option I'm not aware of?

The issue was identified. I can't tell you—once it was identified, there was engagement across government to provide advice in a policy sense. So the particular set of circumstances that led to the problem being identified certainly informed a couple of departments, but I think then there was broader engagement. I can't say that all of those departments were focused on a particular set of circumstances, but we engaged across government to look at the best way and to take advice on the best way to proceed.

It still is unclear how this found its way into parliament. I note that you didn't include ASIO on the list of agencies. Is that because ASIO wasn't consulted, or were they consulted, and it was just an inadvertence?

They sit under the Home Affairs portfolio. If there is further information that I can update the Senate on more broadly across the Home Affairs portfolio, I will do so. In terms of how it has made its way, I think we have been very clear that this is a decision of government. There is an issue that had been identified, we took advice on how to respond to it, and the response was that we should look at a legislative response that allows, in very specific and very targeted circumstances, the use of a benefit restriction notice. That was drafted on instructions from the Minister for Social Services on 24 October, which led to the drafting of these amendments which were then inserted into a bill that was before the parliament. The reason we did that is that we wanted to make this power available at soon as possible once the problem had been identified, and this was the fastest way to do that.

Minister, there's no question that it's acting fast for the Commonwealth government; from drafting instructions on 24 October to being here and having the second day of debate on it on 24 November. In that rush, it appears that there were at least 100 NGOs that weren't heard and weren't considered. I am sure you've heard many of the concerns raised by those NGOs. I will just give you one circumstance that has really struck me and my party, the Greens, as a reason why this should not proceed with haste. I wonder if you have advice on it.

Particularly among the First Nations community, women are often being mischaracterised as the aggressor in instances of family and domestic violence. There are repeated concerns reported about this—women being charged with often serious violent offences, on the basis of retribution or otherwise, in circumstances where defence of themselves and defence of their kids have been mischaracterised as violent acts by themselves. Are you aware of the concerns that have been raised about this?

I've certainly heard them raised here this morning, and I'm aware—of course I'm aware, as the Minister for Women, working closely with the Minister for Social Services in ending violence against women and children and the work that we do there and are deeply committed to—of some of the particular issues facing women in the circumstance that you outlined. All of that, of course, would be available in advice that the minister would have to seek before using a benefit restriction notice to consider whether that was the appropriate course of action. That is what the legislation currently provides for.

In relation to the feedback that we've provided, I would think and I would hope—and I work with many of the organisations that have been listed this morning as having signed that letter—that the commitments that the minister has given, about reporting to the Ombudsman on the use of the power and about working with the Ombudsman about the guidance around that material, including working with NGOs on that, should address some of the concerns that have been raised here this morning. It's in a response to that—but also the approach that the Minister for Social Services takes in her work, which she does every day, in sensitively and caringly dealing with all of the matters that cross her desk.

How is it that the minister, in exercising these powers, is expected to be informed about whether or not a First Nations woman, or any woman, who has been the subject of criminal charges against them in circumstances where they were defending themselves or defending their kids from family and domestic violence, as women often—far too often—do in those circumstances, has sought to protect themselves by hiding their address, hiding their whereabouts or desperately trying to change their look, change their appearance or change their town in order to prevent the violence continuing against them and their family? They're then charged based on some assertion by the police and/or the violent partner. How will the minister inform themselves about the circumstances of that woman and her kids if she's in hiding for her life?

I covered this before you were here, Senator Shoebridge. There are a couple of things in response to that. First, in order for this particular power to apply, not only do you have to be charged with a serious violent or sexual offence—and I've gone through that a couple of times—but there needs to be an outstanding warrant, and you need to be a threat to public safety. If we take that point for a moment, in my working in this space, in women's safety, for a long time, in the situation that you outlined, very rarely would an individual be considered a threat to public safety.

Even if you don't accept that, the second level is that advice has to be sought by Services Australia. I work with Services Australia every day. Whenever I'm not in here and I'm out and about, I visit Services Australia. I was in Services Australia Bunbury the other day. I meet with the teams that deal with families living with violence or escaping violence. The idea that Services Australia in the situation that you cite would not be aware of that and that that would not feed into the advice provided to the minister is not believable. It would. Services Australia have a history of engagement with their customers, and that information would of course be relevant to any decision-maker, including the decision-maker in this regard, about whether or not a benefit restriction notice would be applicable. Any dependents that that individual may have would need to be taken into consideration as well. The idea that the situation you describe here would occur and that that information would not be available to the minister prior to them making a decision would not be correct.

I want to be clear that I reject the suggestion that Services Australia would inevitably be aware of violent circumstances, particularly those that First Nations women face. I know this because I've spoken with First Nations women who are so desperately afraid of the state coming and taking their kids that they are utterly distrustful of telling either state child protection authorities or Services Australia circumstances about their domestic violence. The reason First Nations women in particular won't tell government departments about domestic violence and family violence that happens in their families is because they know that, too often when they do, a white van turns up and takes their kids. They know that. That's the lived reality still for First Nations women, kids and families. So for you to say that you have some blithe acceptance that First Nations women will tell Services Australia about the domestic violence that they're suffering and about the threats to their kids flies in the face of so much that I've heard in direct testimony from First Nations women who say that they would never tell the government about this, because they know what will happen: their kids will be stolen.

As I tell you this, one case comes to my mind of a mum in Tamworth in my home state. She couldn't stay in her housing accommodation flat because of a flea infestation, so she was staying with her kids in the car and only using the flat to go to the bathroom. She made the mistake of telling the department of housing of New South Wales about the flea infestation. They came and did an inspection, saw that she was sleeping with the kids in the car and sent in the Department of Communities and Justice, DCJ, and they took her kids. It took her two years to get them back. That's the reality. You can deny the reality all you like, but it just flies in the face of so much of the experience that I've heard from First Nations women. Do you seriously say that Services Australia will know the lived reality of First Nations women and that First Nations women feel safe telling them about domestic violence? Do you seriously say that?

It's not relevant to this particular bill. It's a broad assessment of Services Australia, but I am proud to be the minister for Services Australia, and I am proud of the work that they do every day. I think that the teams especially that engage with First Nations community do so with cultural respect and cultural awareness. And, yes, you can always improve the way government engages with communities across Australia, but I stand here to defend the work of Services Australia. It's a huge organisation doing difficult work right around the country. And, yes, I accept that, at times, decisions will be wrong or should have been made sooner, given it's an organisation of 30,000 staff. But I think the teams that engage directly with First Nations communities, whether they be remote or in metro areas, are seeking to improve their work every single day. The broader point I'm making is that, regarding the information that Services Australia has, it might not be that people have shared their innermost or all of the issues that are impacting on their life. But, because Services Australia often has so much contact with their customers over a long period of time, that information would be available to the minister.

The idea that there wouldn't be some sensitivity and commonsense approach—because it's a ministerial power; it's not a bureaucratic power—in the exercise of this power is unfair. Yes, I understand you'll be cynical and you won't trust the motives of ministers and all the rest of it, but all of the safeguards that have been put in, including the transparent reporting that the minister has recommended to the ombudsman so that everyone, including all of those that participate in Senate estimates and all of that, will be able to see exactly when and if this power has been used and explore the circumstances of the use of that power, respond to the concerns that have been raised by many of the organisations that you have identified.

As a former manager of Centrelink Indigenous services, I can guarantee you that Aboriginal women do not trust Centrelink services. Whether they are black workers or white workers or whatever workers, they are still part of the colony that hurts us, Aboriginal women. When I was in Centrelink, there were no Aboriginal people that complained about Centrelink services because they didn't trust Centrelink services for the very reason that Senator Shoebridge has outlined in terms of having threats of having your children removed from you or having your payments cut. So I refute your comments about Aboriginal women. You're not the expert just because you're a minister, and you're not the expert when it comes to what Aboriginal women talk to the colony about and what they don't talk to the colony about. The systems that we have to deal with as Aboriginal women in this country are all violent. They're all violent! From going to the hospital and having a baby—violence. Seeking housing—violence. Going for a job—violence. Any service that the colony has established is racist. Minister, you cannot say that your workers in your service know the communities, because that's a lie.

Aboriginal women, through this schedule 5, are at risk the very most. I'd like to ask you, Minister: the bill actually doesn't say that the person needs to be a threat to public safety, so what constitutes a threat?

It is one of the factors that have to be taken into account by the decision-maker.

The decision-maker will decide what constitutes a threat. Can you tell me who that decision-maker is? The cops?

It's a ministerial power.

Sorry, I missed that. You might need to stand up and say it.

I did stand up, and I've said it about five times this morning. It's the minister. It's a ministerial power. It's not a bureaucratic power. It's the Minister for Home Affairs.

Of course, the minister won't conduct their own fact-finding investigation. The minister will be relying upon a brief. So the real question is: Who will be briefing the minister? Where will the information come from?

They will have to draw that advice from across government. It would come obviously from the AFP or from state police but also through Services Australia. I imagine the Minister for Home Affairs would be able to receive advice from other departments, including their own, as required.

So the primary advice briefing will come from the AFP, which will then go before the minister for social security? Is that the pathway, that the primary advice briefing will come from the AFP? It was just unclear to me as to how it gets to the desk of the decision-maker. Can you clarify what ministerial hat they'll be wearing as decision-maker?

The Minister for Home Affairs. It will come from the AFP or a state or territory police force, but it must also be informed by information from Services Australia.

So we have a briefing that's going to cover those issues we discussed. I won't repeat them, but the issues are about vulnerable First Nations women in those circumstances. We have a briefing that's going to come from the cops, the AFP, and go to the home affairs minister. It's going to be informed by, potentially, something that comes from social services, but the primary briefing is a police document going to the home affairs minister in the security space. Is that what's happening?

No, that's not correct. I said it would certainly come from the AFP or state or territory police, but as I said a number of times this morning the Department of Home Affairs must seek advice from Services Australia to identify any dependants and assess any impacts on them, and that advice must be considered as part of the decision-making process. Where appropriate, the minister may recommend special adjustments, depending on the nature of the situation, recognising that each situation will differ.

Minister, if an Aboriginal woman who was at a protest spoke about the genocide that goes on against her people and in Palestine and everywhere else there are genocides being committed around the world, and that Aboriginal woman was on a Centrelink payment and was under investigation by the AFP, can you tell me what would happen to that Aboriginal woman?

In relation to this bill, the individual who may face a benefit restriction notice must have been charged with an offence that I've gone through today: the loss of a person's life; serious risk of a person's life; serious personal injury; serious risk of personal injury; sexual assault; the production, publication, possession and supply or sale of child abuse material—for example, consenting to or procuring the employment of a child or employing a child in connection with child abuse material or acts done in preparation for or to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence against a person under 16. It does not cover any individuals attending a protest.

Does that include a threat to national security?

This would only cover offences where the individual has been charged and is punishable by imprisonment for life or a period or a maximum period of at least seven years and the offence involves or will involves one of the following, which I have read out a number of times: engaging in a terrorist act, which has the life imprisonment part of the Criminal Code, but you would have had to have been charged with that offence. I'm not sure attending a protest and speaking at a protest—unless you have been charged with a serious terrorist offence, this section would not apply.

I note that the Law Council of Australia, whose legal analysis I have a huge amount of respect for, says that the definition of serious, violent or sexual offence in division 395 of the Criminal Code Act is very wide and includes offences across Commonwealth, state and territory law with maximum penalties as low as seven years as well as capturing conduct which would involve serious risk of personal injury. It also includes any risk of sexual assault no matter when committed. Further, they say, 'We are advised that this definition has a broad reach across many Commonwealth, state and territory offences and therefore many accused persons, and there appears to be no canvassing of the range of offences or persons to which the schedule may apply.' The Law Council are right, aren't they?

The government has been clear that this is a problem that has been identified in 2025. This idea that it's a power that would be widely applicable is simply incorrect. I don't accept that. I've been clear about the circumstances where it would apply. They are exceptionally rare.

To be clear about the protective measures in this bill, the protective measures in the bill only require—and I'm reading here from the proposed 38MA(3), 38MA(4) and 38MA(5)—the AFP minister to get advice from the human services secretary, as I read it, if the AFP minister is aware of a person's dependants. Is that how it works—that it's only if the police are aware of dependants that the advice from human services is actually mandatory? If so, it leaves the problem of how the AFP is going to be aware of a woman's dependants.

My advice is that advice must be sought from Services Australia. I'll read the explanatory memorandum, which says:

… a cancellation request is to be made to the AFP Minister, the Minister for Social Services, the Minister administering the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997, the Department of Social Services or Services Australia (being the 'Human Services Department').

I'm not entirely sure that was responsive to the concerns that I raised and the question I asked. Subsection 38MA(3), on benefit restriction notices, says:

(3) Before giving a notice under this section, the AFP Minister must 14 have regard to the following:

(a) the extent to which the person is likely to be a threat or danger to the community while the person is not arrested under the warrant;

(b) the likely effect of the operation of section 38M on the person's dependants, if the AFP Minister is aware of those dependants.

Then, in subsection 38MA(4), it says:

(4) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must:

(a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (3)(b)

That is, as I understand it, only if the police are aware of dependants. It's not automatic that they will seek the advice of the human services secretary; it's only if police happen to be aware of dependants. Whatever your comfort level might be about Services Australia being aware of the circumstances of First Nations women, surely you don't have that same comfort in relation to the police?

My advice is that they must seek the advice of Services Australia, and, if you look at 'Considerations for giving a notice', there is subsection 38MA(4)(a) and (b), as you rightly point out. There is also subsection (5), which says:

(5) The Secretary of the Department administered by the AFP Minister must:

(a) seek the advice of the Human Services Secretary in relation to paragraph (4)(b); and

(b) inform the AFP Minister of that advice.

That would be advice coming from Services Australia on the situation the individual is in and would form part of the consideration by the home affairs minister.

Mine says '(3)(b)' on the amendment sheet I'm reading off. That advice from the human services secretary is only triggered when the police are already aware of the dependants, so it's like pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Your response earlier was that we shouldn't worry that vulnerable First Nations women will be protected because Services Australia will be aware of all of their concerns, the dependence and the history of domestic violence. But, of course, your legislation says that services—

Order! As it is 1.30 pm, the committee will now report to the Senate and move to senators' statements.

Progress reported.

I rise to talk about the life of Alison Davey, the former mayor of Cessnock from 2008 to 2012. Alison Davey was one of those people you meet in your life whom you just have to admire. She served on council in Cessnock—a place where I grew up and spent part of my life—for 29 years, from 1983 to 2012. She was the one who got me into the Nats. She was the person who, in a campaign, got me to become a member of the National Party.

I was a lad growing up, and the Liberal Party had stopped contesting the seat of Cessnock, but the National Party hadn't. I was there, and I ran into Alison. You learn some of life's lessons from very good people, and she was the one that taught me, from her lessons from being in the Lions—she had dedicated herself to the Lions—that, when you talk about people, it must be two of these three things: it must be true, it must be kind and it must be necessary. I have tried to do that. I haven't always succeeded, but I have always tried to do that. She was just a kind-hearted person in everything she did.

Her beloved husband was virtually the king of the Cessnock Goannas rugby league club for so long. He brought up people like Andrew and Matty Johns. There were two loves in his life—Alison and the football club. Her loves were the Lions and him. In everything she did, hers was a life dedicated to service in the truest sense, not just through the Lions but through the council. She stood as a candidate for us in the state election in 2013. That's where I learnt an interesting thing about the perception of people. She was a kind-hearted, wonderful person in everything she did; she wasn't a very saleable politician because she came from the heart and not the cut and thrust of politics. I will miss her. Her funeral is this Wednesday; I'm trying my hardest to get up there to attend. Thank you, Ms Davey. Thank you for council and for everything you've done. We will miss you.

I rise today to acknowledge and honour the life of John Torpey, a respected Vietnam veteran and a much-loved member of the Hawthorn RSL sub-branch in Victoria. I had the privilege of attending the Hawthorn RSL's Remembrance Sunday service, the final ceremony John took part in before, sadly, he passed away that night, 9 November.

Born in 1945, John was called for national service in 1966, which became known as 'winning the lottery', and was assigned to the Royal Australian Artillery as a field artillery surveyor. He trained at Puckapunyal, at the School of Artillery at North Head, and in the 4th Field Regiment at Wacol before deploying to Vietnam in 1967. There, he spent 139 days on operations, serving as a battery surveyor—work that reflected the precision, the reliability and the typical soldier's steadfastness he carried throughout his entire life. He completed his service in 1968, at the rank of gunner.

John's honours included the Australian Active Service Medal, the Vietnam Medal, the Australian Defence Medal and the Anniversary of National Service 1951-1972 Medal. He and his wife Sandra were ever-present—warm, humble and generous with their time, particularly to younger veterans. His commitment extended beyond the RSL, contributing to preserving local history through his published works, A History of Kew RSL and Boroondara's Private Schools 1851-1951. His duty is done, and he now stands down with honour. John's commitment ran deep, and it was felt by all who were so lucky to call him a mate. To Sandra, the family and the RSL community, I extend my heartfelt condolences. Vale, John. Lest we forget.

On 8 November, the people's survey, which was undertaken for the Platform for People Movement Myanmar, was released. It covered 271 townships across Myanmar, and the findings are unequivocal—99 per cent reject the military coup, 98 per cent say the junta's election is illegitimate and 96 per cent refuse to vote. Yet the junta proceeds with a sham election in December, orchestrated by the Union Election Commission, the same body that nullified Myanmar's 2020 democratic mandate. The United States, Canada, the UK and the EU have all sanctioned the Union Election Commission, but Australia hasn't. Why not? The junta is using the UEC to legitimise electoral fraud. It's how the junta cloak their acts as a democratic outcome. Australia has done nothing.

The consequences of what's happening now extend beyond Myanmar. Myanmar based cyberscam syndicates cause an estimated $2 billion to $3 billion in annual losses across our region. Elderly Australians are being targeted through pension fraud, young people are targeted through crypto scams and First Nations communities are targeted through phishing attacks exploiting digital inequality. Australia has not sanctioned a single major operator or financial facilitator in these networks. Whilst the US, UK and EU are actively trying to dismantle Myanmar's cybercrime architecture, we remain conspicuously absent.

We also need clarity on our diplomatic position and diplomatic posture. In 2022 Australia downgraded relations with Myanmar after the coup. With this sham election approaching, will we maintain that stance, or will we risk legitimising the junta by restoring engagement? The Asian Network for Free Elections has assessed this election as illegitimate. The Myanmar people have spoken overwhelmingly. Australia must act. There need to be meaningful sanctions, we need to target the cybercrime networks and we need to reject this sham election. We should make it very clear that there will be no return to business as usual under a military dictatorship.

Over the weekend, there was the extraordinary news that an Australian government is wishing for and planning for the loss of over 60,000 jobs in Australia. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, over in Brazil, without any communication to the coal and gas workers of this country, has signed up to an agreement which says it wants to go towards 'a just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels'. There are 64,000 people who work in the coal and gas industries in this country, and there are hundreds of thousands more who rely on those industries for their livelihoods.

Your Labor government, which professes to support workers, has signed in Brazil a death warrant for the jobs in those industries. They have done so with just 24 other countries. We signed up with Austria, Belgium, Cambodia, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, the Netherlands, Panama, Spain, Slovenia, Vanuatu and Tuvalu. These countries represent less than 10 per cent of the world's GDP. Why have we signed up with such a small number of countries to be out of step with the rest of the world? None of those countries is in the top 15 of our trading partners. Why are we joining with those countries and then letting other countries in our region, our trading partners, take our coal and gas to supply jobs to their countries? Why would we seek to shut down our nation's second and third largest exports?

It's not just the workers here. These exports and these industries support the wealth of all Australians. The government now, as I said, is signing a death warrant for our second and third largest exports, with no plan to replace them with any other thing. The government's plan for net zero is a plan to make all Australians poorer.

Last week I visited the Health Hub at Eaton Fair. It's the home to the Bunbury urgent care clinic and a GP clinic that has recently converted to a fully bulk-billing practice under our incentive to encourage more GPs right across the country to convert to bulk-billing. This is part of Labor's record investment in Medicare. The Eaton urgent care and GP clinic is leading the way in providing accessible, affordable health care in WA's south-west, easing pressure on Bunbury Regional Hospital and giving families and community members the opportunity to access health care for free, as it should be.

I want to thank Dr Craig Hookham, Cahleen Hookham and the team for welcoming me so warmly to the clinic last week and for showing that good, affordable health care in our regions is possible. Dr Craig said to me when I was there that he believes that health care should be free, that it shouldn't be your credit card that determines the health care you get, and I couldn't agree with him more.

Labor have delivered the biggest investment in bulk-billing since we created Medicare. We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive and increased the Medicare rebate. I know the impact on families in Western Australia will be significant under these changes, but I want more GPs to take up our incentive and bulk-bill every patient, so I have begun a campaign in Perth's southern suburbs and the South West—in the electorates of Canning and Forrest—asking residents to tell me if they think their GP should bulk-bill. I will write to those GPs on their behalf and show that there is strong local demand for affordable health care right across WA.

Two weeks ago, I had the great honour of being part of One Nation's first Western Australian branch launch in the Forrest electorate, alongside our fantastic Western Australian state parliamentarians Rod Caddies and Philip Scott. It was fantastic to see such a great turnout in our beautiful South West. We had the opportunity to hear from Australians of all walks of life. It was amazing support in the room, as well as some challenging questions, but one thing was clear: the people of WA are hungry for change. They're hungry for ways to get involved in Australia's fastest-growing party. Opening those branches is how we, as a party, ensure that our supporters are being heard.

So what did we hear? One message that came across loud and clear was that people were feeling let down—let down by the major parties, let down by their local councils and let down by the media. One Nation has heard these concerns. With our success at the last election, we are moving forward and growing to ensure we can stand for those who have been let down time and time again. It's time to put Australians first. It's time to be proud of the Australian way of life that has made this country the greatest on earth. It's time to be ready to confront and fight against the ideas and ideologies that would see it destroyed.

We are going into every electorate in Western Australia, and beyond, to find the brightest and most courageous Australians that are ready to take up the fight for their country. One Nation will continue to work tirelessly, until we have a branch in every electorate and every Australian has a chance to be heard. Make no mistake, One Nation is here to listen.

November 11 marked 50 years since the 1975 Dismissal, an event still debated but, too often, misrepresented. Contrary to Prime Minister Albanese's claim that it was a 'partisan ambush', the historical record tells a very different story.

First, Sir John Kerr was no 'conservative plant'. He was nominated by Labor Prime Minister Mr Gough Whitlam and appointed Governor-General in July 1974. He was Whitlam's choice. He was Whitlam's man, entrusted with the constitutional responsibilities that accompany the office.

Second, the circumstances that led to the Dismissal were not manufactured pretexts, but the product of a genuine constitutional impasse. By late 1975, the Whitlam government did not command a majority in the Senate. A series of controversies, most notoriously the loans affair, had eroded confidence. In that context, opposition leader Malcolm Fraser exercised the Senate's lawful power to defer supply. With the government unable to secure the funds required to operate, the nation faced the real prospect of running out of money. Sir John Kerr, acting on established constitutional principles and confirmed legal advice, concluded that the Prime Minister must either resign or call a general election, but Mr Whitlam refused to do either. Mr Kerr then exercised the sovereign reserve powers vested in his office, powers that exist precisely for such deadlocked circumstances.

Third, the ultimate arbitrators were not politicians, but the Australian people, and their verdict could not have been clearer. At the 1975 election, the coalition won 91 of 127 seats—the largest parliamentary majority in Australian history. It was Australians who overwhelmingly rejected the Whitlam government. The dismissal was controversial, certainly, but it was constitutional. (Time expired)

It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas, and as we stare down the barrel of the silly season, we must remember who really pays the price as we add another item to our cart of online shopping this Christmas. It is our Australian workers in distribution centres, our delivery drivers and our transport workers who are being pushed to the absolute brink by big American companies like Amazon.

Amazon runs on speed, but it shouldn't run on broken bodies and broken livelihoods. When companies like Amazon cut corners and grind workers to the bone, it sets a dangerous standard for every warehouse and delivery driver in this country. If you don't pay your fair share of tax, if you deny workers their right to a toilet break and if you use AI to track every second of their working day, like a robot, then you are not a very jolly company at all.

I commend the SDA and the Transport Workers' Union for calling out this behaviour. I stand with our unions—the SDA, TWU and others—who are standing up to protect Australians from covert attempts to Americanise our workforce. They are protecting Australians from a corporation that has built its profits on relentless pressure, punishing conditions, and a business model that treats humans as though they are expendable. If you want to do business here, you need to abide by Australian laws and Australian regulations and you need to provide fair pay and conditions for Australian workers. Make Amazon Pay is not just a slogan; it is a call to defend the basic principles of fairness, transparency, accountability and democracy.

A word of warning to Amazon: learn from the mistakes of BHP, an Australian company that tried to exploit loopholes to underpay their contract staff; they fought this government's same pay, same job legislation and they lost twice at the Fair Work Commission. If Amazon can't abide by Australian law, they might lose too.

A recent study by Cornell University found that 99.9 per cent of scientists across 90,000 peer reviewed papers found that climate change was being driven by humans. Action on climate change is a moral and societal imperative. Undermining climate action puts lives, nature, the economy and future generations at risk. Disinformation—the deliberate spreading of lies and deceit—weakens public demand for climate action, erodes trust in the scientific evidence, injects false and deceptive information into debates, and delays ambitious climate policies.

The Senate is having an inquiry into climate information integrity and disinformation, and I'm very pleased to announce that one good thing that has come out of COP in the last two weeks is a global initiative: 'Countries seal landmark declaration at COP30'. This marks the first time that information integrity has been prioritised in climate talks. A number of countries have signed joint declarations to provide research funding to combat the scourge of this ocean of disinformation that we're all drowning in. This declaration calls on governments, the private sector, civil society, academia and funders to take concrete action to counter the growing impact of disinformation, misinformation, denialism and deliberate attacks on environmental journalists, defenders, scientists and researchers, an impact that undermines climate action and threatens societal stability. As was said at COP:

This expanded membership—

Another four countries have signed; Australia is yet to sign, but I hope it will—

reflects growing international recognition that threats to information integrity represent one of the defining challenges of our time, weakening the foundations of public debate and undermining societies' capacity to build collective solutions to the climate crisis.

Australia needs to sign this global declaration and get on board with combating disinformation.

This week unions around the world, including the mighty SDA and Transport Workers' Union here in Australia, are standing up together in unity as part of the Make Amazon Pay campaign. I've spoken on this issue multiple times in this chamber, as have my colleagues and as have parliamentarians all around the world, yet Amazon continues to put profits over people—to exploit, to evade and to rip people off. The Make Amazon Pay campaign is not just a slogan; it is a call to action. No international cooperation, no matter how powerful it may be, sits above our laws in Australia.

In my home state of South Australia, workers recently joined a nationwide strike, organised by the TWU, the SDA and the MEAA, outside Amazon's local facility, and their message was clear: South Australian workers deserve more, and our state deserves more. Since I was elected to parliament, I've been proud to advocate for changes to the law to protect gig workers and to defend the principles which underpin our workplace rights and laws—the principles that my grandfather, as a unionist, stood for and that my mother, as a unionist, marched for—and we have delivered those changes. Our closing loopholes laws, which are reforming gig work, labour hire and the treatment of casuals, represent hugely important first steps to address the exploitation of Australian workers, especially within the gig economy—laws which those opposite in this chamber opposed. Along with my colleagues from the SDA and the Transport Workers' Union, I will always stand with the workers in my state and, indeed, across Australia and the globe as they fight to make Amazon pay.

As a society, we are tolerating the intolerable, and it is destroying our once great country. Tolerance is an important virtue, but like any virtue it can be twisted and misused. When we tolerate what is wrong, when we call evil good and good evil, the problems it creates are immense. Tolerance is for people, not for bad ideas. When we tolerate bad ideas out of fear of offending someone, we become complicit in the harm that those ideas can cause.

Look around: there is so much that has become normalised simply because we have tolerated the intolerable. We have tolerated the sexualisation of children, dressing it up as inclusivity or education. We've tolerated a bloated government, where the majority of new jobs are taxpayer funded—that is not prosperity; that is dependency. We've tolerated things like drag for children; woke morning teas for soldiers; lectures on pronouns from people who wouldn't survive a week in the real world; and welcome to country ceremonies, which are a constant reminder that we are divided by race rather than united as Australians. We've tolerated the Chinese military harassing our servicemen, and our own government's inaction in response. We've tolerated mobs marching through our cities and shutting down our business districts, while Australians feel unsafe in their own streets. And we've tolerated a prime minister who promised us a $275 power price cut, which has now become the punchline of a national joke.

How did we get here? How did common sense become controversial? How did courage become so rare? It's time to stop apologising for common sense. It's time to stand up to speak plainly and to take our country back.

It is time. It is time to prioritise energy security and energy abundance and to take real action to drive down power prices, ease the cost-of-living pressures, and protect Australian jobs and our environment. It was 1,283 days ago that the Albanese Labor government was elected, promising life would be cheaper for Australians. They promised lower energy bills and a lower cost of living and they pledged that no Australian would be left behind, but, 1,283 days later, where do we stand?

Energy bills are up by 40 per cent, instead of the $275 cut that Labor promised. Australians are paying $1,300 more for their power. Across the country, Australia is de-industrialising and families are getting poorer. Nearly five years into this net zero experiment, we've lost our plastics industry, our nickel industry and our urea industry. We are losing our metals manufacturing sector, and green hydrogen has completely failed. Worryingly, 90 per cent of emission cuts have come from cutting productive farmland. Australia is the best agricultural producer in the world. We cannot cripple our ability to feed ourselves or our partners under the guise of net zero.

There is a cheaper, better and fairer way. Our plan is cheaper because we will lower energy prices first, use all of our resources and abandon Labor's $9 trillion plan. Our plan is better because we will genuinely protect our local environment through community action such as waterways protection, land restoration and soil carbon. Our plan is fairer because we will reduce emissions in line with comparable nations, not ahead of them. It is time for a cheaper, better, fairer energy plan that actually supports Australia and Australians.

I'm reading this speech on behalf of Zaina Amro, a student who recently completed work experience in my office.

My name is Zaina. For years, I have been a dedicated volunteer of the Bayside City Council. I recently received an award and was asked to appear on the front cover of the local council magazine.

However, shortly after the magazine was published, it was removed from the website, and copies were discontinued. Zionists complained about my Palestinian flag necklace, which I wear daily to represent my heritage.

The council publicly apologised for "distress that may have been caused by the photos."

W hen did cultural expression become such a distressing issue?

I wasn't consulted during the decision-making process, wasn't given a formal apology, and wasn't protected.

My requests were ignored, and the council made it clear that appeasing Zionists was more important than celebrating a dedicated member of the community.

A sixteen-year-old girl's existence should never be denied because of a pendant.

For a council that values inclusivity & diversity, the failure to reflect these ideals is hypocritical. They claim to be "apolitical, impartial and promote social cohesion", yet choosing to erase my Palestinian identity is quite political.

How is being selectively inclusive, silencing and erasing me promoting social cohesion?

I will always stay true to myself and my core beliefs. I will not tolerate cheap words with no action from cowards in power who are complicit in a genocide.

FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last week I sent a survey out to the electorate of Aston and asked them, amongst other things: 'What would be the one issue you would raise in federal parliament? If you had one issue, what would it be?' Courtney told me:

Cost of living has risen by so much since Labor came to power and it will only be worse now that they are back in. They promised cheaper prices and have failed miserably.

Richard said that he wanted to talk about cheaper energy, as this 'supports industry to grow, providing more jobs'. And Odille wanted to raise what so many Australians are feeling, and I will quote her. She said, 'the lies the Albanese government told us about giving us $275 towards our electricity bills'.

These voices are not alone. They're the voices of households right across Australia who are struggling with higher prices, higher power bills and a government that has made such big promises but has delivered so little. While families are tightening their belts, what is this Labor government doing? Last week, we learnt that Australia had spent $7 million for the privilege of losing a bid for COP31. They lost out to Turkiye at the end of the day. 'That's fine; don't worry about it; it's okay,' say Labor, because there's a consolation prize, and what a consolation prize it is. The Member for McMahon, Mr Chris Bowen, Labor's energy minister, now gets to swan around Turkiye as the lead negotiator for the international climate conference, a full-time job paid for by you, the taxpayer. Meanwhile, energy bills under this government have increased 40 per cent. This is the same guy that promised Australians $275 off your energy bills. Now he's taking on another job paid for by you. Only Labor would give us a part-time minister during a full-blown energy— (Time expired)

That is an amazing contribution from a member who, when in government, had 22 energy policies and couldn't deliver one of them—not one of them. They've allowed the dog's tail to wag the Liberals by dropping net zero. They've abandoned it. That's how much they care about the environment and net zero. After weeks and weeks and weeks of bitter infighting, what do we get from those opposite? What we get is that the only things they're interested in are fighting amongst themselves and undermining their leader. That's what their priorities have been. They're not interested in the cost of living for Australian families. They have done nothing whatsoever to contribute to the energy crisis that we've seen in this country except, as I said, to have 22 policies—sorry, I forgot it was 23, because it was nuclear energy, and that's what they wanted to bring in. What did the Australian people say about that? They said, 'No way, Jose!'

It all started when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull, and nothing has changed since then. Even when the Australian people rejected them overwhelmingly at the election, they still haven't come to terms with it. What is even worse—the Leader of the Opposition is the first woman to lead the Liberal Party, and her own people are undermining her every day, not only in parliament but outside the parliament. Shame on you!

Instead of thinking about yourself, why don't you get on board and join the government that each and every day is working for the Australian people, addressing the cost of living, investing in women's health and ensuring that medicine prices are reduced. That's what they're doing. They're restoring trust— (Time expired)

by leave—I inform senators that Senator Darmanin will be the Acting Chief Government Whip, in the absence of Senator Sheldon, from 24 November to 27 November 2025, and I thank her for taking on that role.

by leave—I inform the Senate that Minister McCarthy will be absent from question time today. She is unable to travel as a consequence of the tropical cyclone. In the absence of Minister McCarthy, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators.

by leave—I wish to advise that Senator Cash is still unable to travel and will not be present for the remainder of this week and into next week for estimates. In her absence I'll be acting as the leader.

Please pass on our regards for a speedy recovery.

My question is to Minister Ayres, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, recently ANZ CEO Mr Nuno Matos told the House of Representatives economics committee that 'some still believe net zero by 2050 is possible, but I would say at this point in time it seems difficult to reach with the current dynamics, with the current technologies, with the current public stance in many parts of the world.' He also said that 'net zero by 2050 could be the medicine that kills the patient.' Minister, do you disagree with Mr Matos's assertion that net zero by 2050 may be the medicine that kills the patient?

It's always good to get a question from the Chatswood-Willoughby industrial complex over there! I don't agree with Mr Matos's assertion, nor do I agree with the proposition that has been advanced in such a disorderly way towards what would happen if those opposite ever got onto the Treasury benches again—a disorderly transition. The truth is that the set of imported ideological obsessions that have driven the madness of the internal approach of those opposite is driven by an impulse for drama and social media attention and not an impulse to act in the best interests of Australians.

The problem with that wrecking impulse that is so fundamental to the identity of the Liberal and National parties today is that adopting that approach hurts ordinary Australians. It hurts ordinary Australians. It damages blue-collar jobs. It damages industry—

A point of order on relevance.

Thank you, Senator Collins. I will draw the minister back to the question. Minister Ayres.

As I said, no, I don't agree with the proposition. I'm not sure how more relevant I could be to the question. The problem is that it is so hard to look away from the series of catastrophes that have been happening over there on the political front. The real risk to Australian living standards and to industry is the sort of arc of activity from there to over there that spells sovereign risk and disinvestment. If you want to have a look at what it would look like— (Time expired)

Minister, last week Rio Tinto sacked 180 workers and cut production at its alumina refinery to align with Rio's decarbonisation pathway. The Orica CEO also stated that the industry cannot decarbonise with any commercial technology that exists today. Minister, Gladstone industry is shutting down to align with your government's net zero agenda while telling you this transition is not possible. Why is your government pushing a policy that is leading to workers being sacked and industry shutting down?

Senator McKenzie, you have started a running commentary. You need to be silent.

That is—I want to frame this properly—an utterly dishonest question. If you wanted to attribute the decision that Rio Tinto, who run that facility in central Queensland, made in any way to the energy questions that all of our industry face, that is utterly inappropriate and wrong—and knowingly wrong. They made a decision at that facility—

Honourable senators interjecting—

I don't want to bore you with the details or the facts! They made a decision at that facility to redeploy 100 per cent—

Senator Ruston, on a point of order.

President, I ask you to consider whether the commentary that Senator Ayres is currently using in response to the question is adversely reflecting on an individual in this chamber.

On the point of order, I submit that it is in order to say that a question is dishonest.

On the point of order on the point of order, a question actually is an inanimate object; it's words on a piece of paper that have been put there by a person. So, to suggest that the question itself is somewhat disassociated with the person that's asking it—I'd ask you, once again, to reflect on whether that was an adverse reflection on a person.

Senator Henderson, no. I'm responding to—

President, I'm seeking the call.

No, Senator Henderson. I've asked you to resume your seat.

I just want to speak on a point of order. I'm entitled to speak on a point of order.

Senator Henderson, you're out of order. In response to your point of order, Senator Ruston, referring to the question itself as dishonest does not fall foul of the general custom in this place. However, I think the latter part of Senator Ayres's response was starting to go that way, so I'll remind the senator of the need to be respectful and to be careful about how he frames his response.

They are utterly disassociated from the reality of the decision that has been made, which is to redeploy 100 per cent of the workers involved. The decision is about investing in the future capability of that facility. That's what that is about, and it's utterly appalling to misrepresent it.

Senator Collins, second supplementary?

Minister, what is your message to the 185 refinery workers that have been sacked to align with your government's net zero by 2050 agenda?

My message is to repeat what it is that I've just said. The assurances that I have been given are that those workers—

Senator Canavan!

at that facility are being redeployed from some work to other work. What it is that the company is trying to achieve is to make sure that their waste discharge—

Senator Canavan!

is stored appropriately and that they have a plan for the decades ahead to sustain their waste. It has nothing to do with their emissions and nothing to do with energy, and my message to those workers—

I'm representing the workers; someone's got to.

Senator Canavan, I've asked you on a number of occasions to stop interjecting. You are being disrespectful to me. Do not interject. Senator Canavan, I invite you to make a response at any other time. You have Tuesday night for open-ended adjournment if you want to make a response, not question time. Minister Ayres, please continue.

My message to those workers is: work with your unions, work with the local community, work with the business and work with the federal government, which backs you and future investment in your sector—not with the show that caused so much damage over the last decade. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government laid a strong foundation to build Australia's future. We did this by delivering cost-of-living relief, strengthening Medicare, making it easier to get a home and helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. How is the government building on these foundations to continue to deliver for the Australian people?

Thank you to Senator Whiteaker for the question and for drawing attention to the strong foundation that we laid in our first term. I'm very pleased to report that the government has spent the six months since the election delivering for the Australian people. In the first sitting fortnight of this parliament, we legislated our commitment to cut 20 per cent off student debt for more than 5½ million Australian students and apprentices. The first round of students are already starting to benefit from this cost-of-living measure. In August, we legislated to protect penalty rates and overtime pay, and we've expanded paid parental leave by a further two weeks. We've started rolling out our biggest ever investment into Medicare, with more bulk-billing for more Australians, delivering new incentives so more GP practices can bulk-bill every patient. And we are building on the success of the Medicare urgent care clinics by opening even more of these clinics around the country.

In the first term we slashed the cost of medicines on the PBS, and in the new year Australians will have access to even cheaper medicines because we on this side understand what this means to so many Australians. We understand what the cost of PBS scripts means, so from 1 January 2026 the cost of a PBS script will be cut to the lowest price since 2004, down to just $25 and $7.70 for pensioners and concession card holders. That's because we believe that no Australian should have to forgo the medicine they need because they can't afford it.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

Australians have faced some tough challenges in recent years, particularly regarding cost-of-living pressures. Working together, we've seen the government's responsible economic management help ensure inflation has come down, real wages have grown and unemployment remains low. What is the government doing to help Australians continue to earn more and keep more of what they earn?

(—) (): As Senator Whiteaker reminds us, we have spent the last six months building on the strong economic foundations that the government delivered and built in our first term. We all know what the Liberal Party thinks. We all know that the Liberals believe that low wages are a deliberate design feature of the country's economic agenda. They are for low wages; we are for higher wages. And, when it comes to income tax cuts, who can forget the proud Dutton opposition championing higher taxes at the last election? In contrast, we, the Labor government, are delivering income tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, with more to come. On 1 July we delivered another wage increase for aged-care workers, introduced paid prac for the next generation of nurses, teachers, social workers and midwives and delivered bonuses for tradies. You want higher taxes and lower wages. We want— (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on building on our first-term foundation to build Australia's future. This includes the need to drive down emissions while delivering cheaper, reliable energy. What progress is the government making to build on that progress, and are there any threats that might stand in the way?

We understand the importance of certainty. We understand the importance of certainty—policy certainty—to deliver affordable energy. We understand the importance of energy bill relief, which is why we delivered relief; they opposed it. It's why we are focused on adding supply to the system and, as I said, providing certainty. Support and certainty—that's what we're delivering.

What are they delivering? More division. They haven't learnt the lesson of the last election, and they certainly haven't changed. We've got the shadow minister for energy gaslighting his moderate colleagues like Senator Ruston and Senator Bragg about coal, and we have Senator Hanson with her new best friend and apparent successor, Mr Joyce, reportedly coming up with the Liberals' energy policy over dinner. How embarrassing! You have your energy policy worked out by Senator Hanson and Mr Joyce. This is what the Liberal Party has been reduced to. You're being dictated to by others. You can't— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to the Prime Minister's correspondence to the states and territories where he demanded that they 'reduce growth in hospital activity and costs' to receive additional Commonwealth funding. Minister, which services does the Prime Minister think the states and territories should cut, and which patients should miss out on care?

We are continuing to negotiate in good faith with the states, and I think Australians do want the states and the Commonwealth to work together to improve hospitals and strengthen Medicare. We are on the record as indicating we have made an offer of an additional $20 billion in hospital funding for the states, on top of record funding this year. We want to work with the states to finalise the National Cabinet agreement that they signed up to in December 2023, and we have put a very serious offer on the table. An extra $20 billion over five years would bring the total Commonwealth funding to public hospitals expected over the new five years to a record $215 billion. We'll continue to negotiate in good faith. We will do our part—

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston.

On direct relevance, my question went specifically to a letter that the Prime Minister sent to the states and territories seeking to have them reduce funding in public hospitals. I was wondering if the minister might go to that.

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

The correspondence that you refer to involved precisely the negotiation that I'm describing and precisely the offer of an additional $20 billion that I'm referencing, so it is entirely relevant. What I was going to go on to say is that we will do our part by contributing to increased activity and increased funding. Obviously, the states do have to play their part too, to make sure their health systems are efficient and well run. As I said, we'll continue to negotiate in good faith. We've put a substantial additional contribution on the table, and we look forward to the states continuing to engage with the Commonwealth in good faith.

Senator Ruston, first supplementary?

Minister, last year only 802 new aged-care beds were delivered, despite the need for more than 10,000 every year for the next 10 years. This left thousands of older Australians in hospitals waiting for an aged-care bed. Why is the Prime Minister asking the states to cut hospital budgets instead of ensuring medically fit older Australians can leave hospital?

Thank you to Senator Ruston for the question. You're right, Senator: people should be able to access quality aged care, and we know that, in a situation where aged-care services are insufficient, there is pressure on the public hospital regime. I would remind you, Senator, that you were part of a government whose management of aged care was described in one word by the royal commission as 'neglect'. Now we are working—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

Once again, on relevance, I'm actually talking about the last 12 months, not something that happened five years ago.

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

Senator, you are one of the people in this place who do understand these issues, and you would know that the consequences of the cutting of $2.5 billion from aged care by the government of which you were a part have been long lasting. It is the case that we want to have more aged-care beds. It is the case that governments know that, if you don't have sufficient support for older Australians, it does put pressure on public hospitals— (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Going to your answer to the first question, could I ask: does the Prime Minister stand by his clear and unconditional commitment to fund 42.5 per cent of hospital funding by 2030, and, if not, what will your government's hospital funding contribution be by 2030?

As I said, I think in my first answer, we do want to finalise the agreement that all governments signed up to in December 2023. National Cabinet did agree that increasing the Commonwealth share of public hospital funding would be subject to a reasonable limit on the annual growth in costs—I think the states understand this. That is the best way to ensure we keep our public health system efficient, affordable and strong. We put a very serious offer on the table, and we'll keep working with the states.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister pulled Australia out of the race to host next year's international climate summit. That global meeting would have brought scrutiny on the fact that Australia is the world's second-biggest exporter of climate-wrecking emissions, behind only Russia; that this government has approved over 30 coal and gas mines since coming to office, and five since the most recent election; and that you're now trying to get coal and gas approved within 30 days under environmental laws without their climate impacts on nature being considered. Is the Australian government's addiction to coal and gas the reason why the Prime Minister stopped pushing to host the COP?

No. And it's a pity, Senator Waters, that you don't engage more with the Pacific because—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Well, it is. You clearly don't talk to the Pacific leaders and Pacific ministers, unlike the government, which has engaged directly with the Pacific about this Conference of the Parties. This is actually what amplifying Pacific voices means. You engage with them to resolve a negotiating position that they are backing. Just remember, when you want to lecture us, that we went down this path, both for the bid and in all of the detailed negotiations over this last year, in very close discussion with some of the people you don't bother talking to, which is Pacific leaders and ministers.

I know you're too busy lecturing us to actually talk to some of the people who are affected most by climate change. Our primary motivation in wanting this Conference of the Parties was to elevate Pacific experience and Pacific voices. The discussion with Turkiye and the discussion in Belem that Mr Bowen was involved in, involved engagement of the Prime Minister, my level, Mr Bowen's level and official level to work out, in a circumstance where we were not able to get agreement to our bid, what we could get to ensure that the Pacific's experience, issues and priorities were on the agenda. That is what Australia has achieved. I want to thank our Pacific colleagues for working with us and the respectful, decent way in which they have engaged with us on this issue.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Australia just signed the Belem declaration at COP, which contains the strongest language on phasing out fossil fuels that Australia has ever signed, which, incidentally, is exactly what the Pacific is asking us to do—and that your government isn't doing. When will the government outline its road map to transition away from fossil fuels, including coal and gas exports?

It seems a little inconsistent, if I may say, with the first question, but so be it. The Belem declaration talks about a road map to deliver a fairer transition. It is consistent with our language from the Conference of the Parties in 2023, I think. The Australian position has not changed. We're supporting the global transition, and we remain a reliable trading partner. These are matters that are challenging. These are matters which do involve a global economic transition and an economic transition for this country. We understand that that requires policy. It requires delivery. It requires us to change the nature of the economy in which we are. You don't do it through bumper stickers, and you certainly don't do it by making false accusations.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

It was reported over the weekend that many insiders said Australia was in a strong position to win the COP bid, that Minister Bowen had worked hard to get there and that the Prime Minister had pulled the rug out from under him when he gave in to Turkiye. Why is the Prime Minister undermining his climate minister and Australia's climate potential?

There's so much that is incorrect in those assertions. Can I make this point: if you have followed this, Senator—and you may be aware of this—you'll know that we did have very broad support. You will also know that there is no way to avoid or to break the impasse at a Conference of the Parties and that, under the UNFCCC rules, in the absence of that impasse being broken, the conference would have reverted to Bonn. The COP president would not have been elected until the first day of that conference, which has implications for global climate negotiations and for the Pacific.

These were the real issues that we worked through very carefully with the Pacific, and we're very pleased that we were able to achieve a whole range of propositions, including a pre-COP held in the Pacific with leaders, pledging for the Pacific Resilience Facility and Pacific engagements in leading aspects of the negotiations. We were very pleased that we were able to achieve that with the support of the Pacific.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The International Monetary Fund has endorsed the Albanese Labor government's economic and budget strategy, praising Australia's soft landing, strong foundations and ambitious reform agenda. This is a significant vote of confidence in Australia's economic approach during this period of global uncertainty. Can the minister outline what the IMF said about Australia's performance? How is the government's responsible economic management helping deliver stability, growth and resilience for Australians?

I thank Senator O'Neill for a question on the economy because those on this side of the chamber understand how important a strong economy is for delivering services and improving living standards for all Australians. I take this opportunity to remind those opposite that, when we came to office, we inherited huge deficits, $1 trillion of Liberal debt, high inflation, falling real wages and falling living standards. That is the situation that we inherited.

Senator O'Neill is right to draw our attention to the International Monetary Fund's report on Australia's economy, including on our budget and fiscal strategy. It is a powerful endorsement of the approach that we have taken. Inflation is around a third of its peak. Debt is down. Real wages are growing. Unemployment is low. We've seen the creation of more than 1.2 million jobs.

In the public sector.

That is not correct, and I know you're a bit of a public sector jobs snob. I hear it all the time, so I take that interjection. We know you wanted to sack 41,000 public servants, and we saw how that went down. Also, when you demean jobs in the non-market economy—which is what you're doing—you're demeaning everyone who works in the care economy. All of those who work in aged care work in those jobs. They're no good. All those who work in disability, in early education and care or anywhere the government provides support for a program—those are the jobs that you are demeaning every single time you say that. We hear it, and those workers hear it.

We won't let them forget. Every time you stand up here and pretend you care about aged care, health and disability—they're the workers that you're attacking when you say those jobs aren't good enough. The IMF acknowledges the government's—oh, luckily I get two more cracks. (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

It's such a big story to tell, Minister. New ABS data shows annual real wages have grown for eight consecutive quarters, the longest run in almost a decade. Labour force data also shows that more Australians are in work than ever before. How is the Albanese Labor government ensuring this momentum continues so that workers share in the benefits of our stronger economy?

I thank Senator O'Neill for that question and for acknowledging the working people across our economy, whether it be in market or non-market jobs. New data released by the ABS shows that annual real wages have now grown for eight consecutive quarters. This is now the longest period of consecutive annual real wage growth in almost a decade. The wage price index grew 0.8 per cent in the September quarter to be 3.4 per cent higher through the year. We're delivering more jobs and better-paid jobs, and we support wage increases across the economy, whether, again, you work in the market or non-market economy. We support wage rises. We support good jobs, secure jobs and well-paid jobs. We're absolutely dealing with the feminised inequality that we've seen across our wage system as well, and that's why we've supported those substantial wage increases for those sectors.

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

Australia's economy is stronger and more stable than many advanced nations, with the IMF praising our fiscal strategy and reform agenda. How important is it to maintain this responsible approach so we never return to the days of sliding global ranks and missed opportunities for jobs, for wages and for growth?

I thank Senator O'Neill for the supplementary. When we came to office, real wages were going backwards by 3.5 per cent, and they'd fallen for the five quarters leading up to the 2022 election. We knew that because that was a deliberate design feature of their economic policy. Since we came to government, average annualised nominal wages have been growing at 3.7 per cent, much higher than the 2.2 per cent under our predecessors. Inflation was up 2.1 per cent in the March quarter 2022. We've got inflation back under control. Under those opposite—

Well, have a look at your record, Senator Paterson. Go back and have a little look about what happened in the dying days of the Morrison government. Inflation was roaring. We've got it back under band. We've also seen that business investment fell, and we're seeing business investment come back. Under Labor, inflation is lower. Interest rates have been cut three times. Unemployment is low— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Science, Minister Ayres. Minister, under your watch, CSIRO has now copped the biggest job cuts in its history—more than 800 jobs lost over the past 18 months and another 350 science jobs to be cut in the months ahead. Both the CPSU and the CSIRO Staff Association have slammed your government, claiming these cuts are worse than under any antiscience, climate-denying LNP government. Genuinely, Minister, this is not something that I or anyone I know at CSIRO thought would be possible. Aren't you ashamed of this?

I think it's important to step through, in a careful way, what it is that is being undertaken at the CSIRO. It is 15 years since the CSIRO has undertaken a proper strategic examination of its research priorities to make sure that every science dollar—and this government every year has allocated close to a billion dollars to the CSIRO—is allocated to a program of research which is squarely within the national science priorities of the CSIRO and the government. That is the exercise that the management and the board of the CSIRO have embarked upon. It is absolutely in Australia's national interest that the work of the CSIRO is directed absolutely directly at every one of those national science priorities and not in other areas. That is the work that is going on. I think that you will discover over the coming weeks and months that the areas of emphasis that the CSIRO and the programs of research that they are leaning into are absolutely in the national interest, absolutely in the interest of strengthening the CSIRO and making sure that it is fit for purpose for the decades ahead.

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

Let's talk about the national interest. You publicly confirmed on Friday that CSIRO's Environment Research Unit on climate, nature, water and oceans is set to bear the brunt of these cuts, with 20 per cent of the unit's staff to be axed—one in five jobs to go, Minister. Aren't climate science and the environment national priorities? You're making big claims that you care about the environment and delivering environmental law reform, but you clearly don't give a fig about the environment, do you? You should be ashamed of this.

Well, Senator, thank you for that question. There is a reprioritisation, and I think that what you will find is that, in areas like climate adaptation and in areas of particular focus, like zoonotic disease, landscape pests, pathogen science—all of those questions that go to future resilience, in terms of pandemics, climate adaptation and a range of the areas that are squarely within the national interest and the national science priorities—this is all about strengthening those areas. This is, of course, a difficult process, and these scientists are passionate Australians who are absolutely qualified in their areas of science. And we know that this is very difficult, but it is necessary and important work.

Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary?

Minister, what have you got to say to CSIRO staff, scientists—especially young early-career scientists—who are now going into Christmas not knowing if they will have a job next year? What message are you sending to young Australians who are aspiring to be scientists?

What I say to young Australians at school or studying at university in the sciences is that you should lean in hard and look hard for a career in the sciences, because it is important for our national interest, and that there will be a strong, viable, credible, effective national science institution, working in a coordinated way with our university sector, our private-sector research and our other science institutions, on the issues that matter for Australia's future climate security, our future energy security—

Senator Whish-Wilson, you've asked your question.

our future economic resilience, and managing diseases and imported pests. These are all the priorities that the CSIRO will be focused on, and there's a lot of work to do.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Ayres. Minister, last week the Australian Energy Council released its Delivering Australia's energy transition affordably report, based on a survey of energy sector CEOs. In this survey, one retail energy sector CEO told the Australian Energy Council:

The biggest risk to this whole transition is that the general public haven't really cottoned on to the fact that there's a cost to the transition … Governments have made promises about bill reduction, but it is not coming anytime soon.

A generator CEO told the survey:

The infrastructure required to do the renewable transition is all far more expensive than anyone expected.

Another CEO said:

My feel is that bills will increase for at least the next decade, given the scale of capital being deployed in the industry.

Minister, why are you continuing your net zero plans, given that there are predictions that power bills will increase for at least the next decade, when you promised the opposite?

Well, because it is the cheapest way of modernising Australia's electricity system, and, as we go through the challenging national interest task—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. When Senator Canavan asked that question, you could have heard a pin drop in this place. The minute the minister got to his feet, those on my left thought it was time to interject. It is not. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Minister, please continue.

We saw what the alternative might be; we had a little glimpse into what the alternative might look like, over the miserable decade—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison decade—of indolence and failure on energy policy. We saw what that did for Australians. That wrecking impulse that is so fundamental to your approach in this area of policy hurts ordinary Australians. It costs jobs. It cost jobs when you were in government. The only difference now is that the position that the Liberals and Nationals have adopted is more extreme and more likely to lead to dislocation and disinvestment than in the last decade.

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Senator McKenzie, your constant interjections are incredibly disorderly, and they are rude towards the orders that I am giving. As I said, if you can't listen quietly and in silence, leave the chamber. Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Minister, in its report, the Australian Energy Council itself noted its members are concerned that 'Australia's transition to cleaner energy will come with sustained upward pressure on household and business electricity prices'. The report also noted that 'the large-scale capital investment required to replace and decarbonise has the potential to drive bills higher for years to come'. Minister, when will Australians see a reduction in their energy bills?

It's funny that you mention the Australian Energy Council. The CEO of that organisation said just last week, 'We are now on a trajectory for a highly renewable system supported by gas, battery storage and pumped hydro, and that is generally going to deliver the lowest cost outcome.' She then went on to say, 'Keeping coal open for longer is likely to increase costs rather than decrease costs.' She then went on to say: 'We can't keep coal in the system forever. There are some coal plants that can run for a longer time and are a bit more reliable, but there is a large proportion that do need to exit by 2035, and we can't delay that.' I just wonder how hard you must have had to search through what energy experts say to find something that comes even remotely close to backing your silly argument.

A second supplementary, Senator Canavan?

The minister has not answered the question of when power bills will come down. Minister, in the survey one retail energy sector CEO noted:

… the cost of this transition is really going to affect the people who can afford it the least, so the people that are already struggling to pay their power bills are going to get slammed with more cost …

Another retail CEO said:

So bottom line is, we're going to make a large segment of the population more vulnerable again with electricity.

Minister, why are you promising net zero when it's hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the most?

The plan that has been adopted and implemented by the government is far cheaper than the costly shemozzle that has been authored by you and Mr Joyce and imposed upon those profiles in courage over there. It is cheaper, it is more responsible and it is more reliable. The truth is that that wrecking impulse has driven the set of policies that you represent. When you wreck, Australians pay. They pay in terms of jobs and they pay in terms of their bills. Over the last period, they paid the consequences of the decade of disinvestment that was authored by you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Minister Watt. I thank the minister for his written response to my last question without notice on refugee numbers. From your reply, Minister, the top five countries for our humanitarian program, comprising 14,500 of our 20,000 humanitarian visa intake, or 73 per cent, are Afghanistan, Syria, Myanmar, Iraq and Malaysia. Four of these have Islam as their dominant or state religion. The fifth, Myanmar, is Buddhist, yet the UN Human Rights Council prioritises Rohingya refugees, who are Islamic. It seems deliberate, Minister, that your humanitarian visa program is overwhelmingly favouring Islamic refugees over Christian refugees. Why?

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. I think the last time you asked me a question about this I pointed out that the Australian Labor Party, perhaps unlike other parties in this chamber, proudly stands for a non-discriminatory immigration policy. We don't rule people out on the basis of their faith, on the basis of their race or on the basis of the country that they come from. Listening to the list of countries that you just provided to us—

Just their mode of arrival, hey?

Order!

I would argue that the common feature of each of those countries is not so much their religion but the fact that they are war torn and that they are countries that people are fleeing because of concerns for their safety.

What if they arrive by boat, Murray?

Senator McKim seeks to keep interrupting. It's a—

Minister Watt, I've got Senator Wong on her feet.

Oh!

I'm sorry, Senator Allman-Payne—you don't want me to take a point of order? President, there have been interjections from that particular senator, Senator McKim, through the response to the previous question that was asked by the Greens and now through this. I would ask you to ask him to cease the interjections on this minister.

Thank you, Senator Wong. I have personally called Senator McKim to account on the previous question, and I just called order. I am reluctant, always, to interrupt those that are either asking or answering questions, but, Senator McKim, just cease. Thank you.

As I was saying, our government and the Labor Party stand for a non-discriminatory immigration policy, and we don't discriminate against people on the basis of their faith. As Senator Ayres was mentioning, I think what we're seeing and hearing here from One Nation is foreshadowing where we're going to see the coalition end up on immigration policy in a matter of weeks, because we know that's what happened when it came to net zero policy. It started with One Nation railing against wind farms and railing against net zero, and then it spread to the National Party, and then it spread to the Liberal Party, and then it even spread to the so-called moderates in the Liberal Party, who had to cave in to the conservatives, the Nationals and One Nation on their opposition to net zero. So what we're seeing here, I predict, is what we will see within a matter of weeks as the immigration policy of the Liberal Party. Hello, Senator Duniam. You're in charge now, along with Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr might have to face a situation where he has to explain to those Brisbane multicultural groups why he's followed One Nation when it comes to immigration policy.

Thank you, Minister Watt. Senator Roberts, first—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Roberts, just wait. I'm calming the chamber down. Please continue. First supplementary?

Your letter admits Australia has not issued one humanitarian visa in Nigeria, yet the current United Nations Human Rights Council guidance, since 2016, has promoted protecting Nigerian Christians from Islamists, citing hundreds—now thousands—of deaths. Similar guidance exists for protecting Christians in Islamic Pakistan, in Iran, in Eritrea and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Minister, are you cherrypicking which United Nations Human Rights Council guidance you follow to exclude Christians and favour Islam? (Time expired)

No.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Minister, it is a person's religion—for instance, Christian in an Islamic country—that places them in danger, which is the reason for the United Nations Human Rights Council guidance in that country, for their own safety. Yet your letter says you can't tell me how many of the humanitarian visas issued are for that reason. Isn't that reason in their case file, and wouldn't you have to let the United Nations Human Rights Council know how many refugees we took and why?

No.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Ayres. Minister, the Capacity Investment Scheme is a revenue-underwriting scheme which uses taxpayer funds to prop up solar, wind and storage projects aimed at forcing the government's 82 per cent renewable electricity target by 2030. The Herald Sun reported yesterday that, through the CIS, taxpayers are underwriting the construction of a $120 million large-scale battery in South Australia run by energy company Pacific Blue, who are wholly owned by the Chinese government's State Power Investment Corporation, or the SPIC. Minister, my question is: how is allowing a foreign, authoritarian government to hold influence over Australia's critical energy infrastructure in our national interest at all?

Well, we've set about the lowest cost approach to building a low-cost, reliable electricity system for Australians. That's the program of effort that we are engaged in. It is the lowest cost approach. It is in the interests of industry and blue-collar jobs in the regions in particular. Foreign investors in Australia's energy infrastructure are subject to the normal scrutiny through the foreign-investment framework.

Senator Babet, first supplementary?

Thanks, Minister. The SPIC, the State Power Investment Corporation, is also an active participant in Chinese president Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative, which the US government has labelled an attempt to create economic dependencies and coerce others. Minister, are you happy for Australia to be dependent on and coerced by China?

Senator, the truth is that relying upon the lowest cost option, which is Australian solar and Australian wind in Australia, is absolutely in the interests of our energy security, and I refer you to my previous answer.

Senator Babet, second supplementary?

Minister, Chinese state owned enterprises are required to give China's intelligence services access to their operations. So it's not just about spying; it gives hostile intelligence services capacity to install malware, kill switches and other forms of technology designed to give China control over critical infrastructure during moments of tension. Minister, are you and your government comfortable with this risk?

I'm very confident in our foreign investment framework at managing risks of any kind of foreign investment.

My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. Last week, the Albanese Labor government signed Australia up to an agreement for a 'just, orderly and equitable transition away from fossil fuels'. The agreement states that signatories 'support the call to advance a roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels'. Coal and gas are Australia's second and third largest exports. Fossil fuels earned $153 billion for Australia in the last financial year. Minister, why is the government working with other countries to end our second and third top exports, and did the government model the cost to the Australian people of ending a quarter of our exports? If so, what is that cost?

I thank Senator Chandler for her first question. The truth of the matter, Senator Chandler, is that, in order to get to net zero—a policy that your party used to support—

Legislated.

and legislated for—then that transition is going to require a transition fuel, and that transition fuel in this country is going to be gas. This government makes no apology—no apology whatsoever—for saying that gas is part of the mix to get to net zero. I don't believe that there's anything inconsistent with what we signed last week or with the sensible policies that this government has adopted. We're right—

Minister, thank you.

I have a point of order on relevance. I asked quite specifically about the government modelling of the cost to the Australian people of ending a quarter of our exports. The trade minister has gone nowhere near answering that part of the question.

Senator Chandler, there was quite a preamble to that question, and the minister is being relevant to the question.

Senator Chandler, we don't need any modelling to know that we're going to need gas in the mix to get to net zero.

The agreement is to end gas!

Senator Canavan, here we are adopting a policy that I assume you support, which is the continued use of gas to get to net zero. There is nothing magical about this.

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

Labor's international agreement to end our second and third top exports were signed with just 23 other countries, none of whom are among our top 15 trading partners. Countries that signed the agreement represent under 10 per cent of global economic output. Why would the government sign an agreement which restricts our ability to use energy resources but allows 90 per cent of the world's economy to continue to use fossil fuels to take our jobs and our industries?

I thank Senator Chandler for her first supplementary question. I speak with our trading partners all of the time. In fact, last week I met with the European Union. The first thing they talked to me about, of course, is how we can work together to extract our critical minerals in order to get to that point of net zero by 2050.

Senator Canavan?

President, the question was on an agreement involving 24 countries, which did not include the European Union, and now the minister is talking about discussions with the European Union.

The minister is being relevant to the question.

Unlike when you were in government, Senator Chandler, we try to engage with our trading partners. We try to find out what their issues are, and we try to work with them to resolve the issues. Can I just give you one example of that— (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, second supplementary?

I'm sure it would have been a good example. Has the government consulted with affected workers in the regions and industry, including the tens of thousands of union members, about how to prevent jobs and investments shifting to competitor countries that have not signed this pledge?

I thank Senator Chandler for her second supplementary question. I was with 700 union members on Saturday night at the Adelaide Convention Centre. I was there—

Which union was that?

You ask which union it was, and it happened to be the shop assistants' union, the finest trade union in the country. What those workers wanted to hear about—amongst other things; there were many things they wanted to hear about—was how we go about getting wheat, barley—

Minister Farrell, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston?

President, I was wondering whether you might draw the minister's attention to the question. I was wondering how many members of the SDA are involved in mining.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. We don't need the commentary. I will draw the minister to the other union members that Senator Chandler referred to in her question.

I can tell you there are a few of them up at Roxby Downs, who Minister Ayres and the resources minister met a few weeks ago, who actually provide all the food to the mining workers. Minister Ayres and I— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Watt. This week the Senate has a chance to pass landmark reforms to our nation's environment laws that not only will better protect the environment but also will make our economy more productive. Can the minister outline for the Senate how the government's reforms will improve the environment and protect it for future generations?

Thank you, Senator Cox. I would love to do that. This is the week that the federal parliament needs to finally pass important and much needed reforms to our national environment laws.

Why? What's the rush?

It's interesting, Senator Duniam, that most of the people over there seem to think that it's not necessary to pass these reforms. We might have a little chat about that later. It is now over five years since Professor Graeme Samuel tabled his blueprint for reform of these laws. It's over five years since Professor Samuel told us that our national environmental laws are fundamentally broken and that they are failing the environment, failing business and failing the general community. So this week it's critical that this parliament comes together to pass reforms to these laws that will deliver real gains for the environment—gains like creating the first ever national Environmental Protection Agency to be a tough cop on the beat, the establishment of National Environmental Standards and the inclusion of a net gain principle into the environmental offsets regime.

The government are very clear about our position on these laws. We've introduced a set of reforms that have now passed the House of Representatives, so the choice is now sitting with the coalition and the Greens to decide whether they want to work cooperatively with the government to pass these reforms. Of course, the other option that the coalition and the Greens have is that they sit on the sidelines, throwing rocks, while their political opponents come and work with us instead. I've made very clear that these reforms are going through this week, and it's either going to be with you or it's going to be with you. It's up to you. If you sit on the sidelines, we go with them. If you sit on the sidelines, we'll go with you. Just have a little think about that as the week rolls on. We all know how it worked out for both these characters over the last federal election when they were sitting on the sidelines, throwing rocks and blocking progress. They went backwards, and the Australian people had their say.

Order! Senator Smith! Minister Watt! And Senator Duniam! Senator Cox, first supplementary?

Improving these laws is not only going to be better for environment but will also boost productivity by speeding up approvals for key projects. It will also help address some of the longstanding issues in our society, particularly the supply of more housing and the rollout of more renewable energy projects. How will these reforms deal with these issues, and what will the cost be to the economy if these laws are in fact not passed this week?

We saw in answer the primary question a number of coalition members asking what the rush is, so perhaps they might want to listen to this answer. A key focus of our reforms is removing the duplication in the federal and state approvals and assessments systems for projects, all while maintaining strong environmental standards. I spoke in the previous answer about the benefits for the environment in these reforms, and our laws will also enhance our ability to enter bilateral agreements with a new, streamlined assessment pathway and the greater use of regional planning to identify upfront go zones and no-go zones for development in a particular region. These reforms are designed to speed up the delivery of the homes, renewables and other economic projects that we desperately need. That's because, under the current laws that we're seeking to reform, we've seen project approval times blow out from a median timeframe of 48 weeks at the turn of the century to 118 weeks now. That's why we need to move on these reforms—to get the homes, renewables and other projects we need—and we need to do it this week.

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

The EPBC Act has been around for more than 25 years, and it's been five years since an independent review into the act recommended sweeping changes, most of which have been dealt with in your proposed reforms. The issues with these laws have been well ventilated and are well understood by the community, so why is it so important that these laws are passed by the Senate this week? What are the risks if this is delayed yet again?

Thanks, Senator Cox. Not only has it been five years since we had the Samuel review handed down to the then environment minister Sussan Ley that provided his recommendations but it has been 2½ decades since these laws came into effect, and they haven't been properly updated since. In that time, we've seen our natural environment go backwards—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?

I have a point of order under standing order 73(1), questions applied to a piece of legislation that's in front of a committee.

The minister can talk about the bill because the bill hasn't been introduced yet. Minister, please continue.

Oh, well! We'll just have to talk about these environmental reforms that are going to speed up approvals for businesses and improve protections for the environment. In the last five years since we saw Graeme Samuel's review provided to Sussan Ley we've seen our natural environment go backwards and we've seen really important projects like housing developments, renewables and other projects as well held up by the red tape which exists under the current laws, and we need to change that. Every day we delay—if we push these reforms back by another few months or another couple of years, what will happen is the environment will keep going backwards, and we'll keep seeing those important projects held up. That will be on the heads of every coalition and Greens senator in this place if they fail to work with us to pass the reform— (Time expired)

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

I move:

That the Senate takes note of answers given to all coalition questions.

Wasn't that very, very telling today to see the response to our questions on net zero, to have the minister absolutely panicking about the questions we asked. Evidence that we put to him from the ANZ CEO, Mr Nuno Matos, that was put to the House of Representatives' economics committee—he called that dishonest. That was evidence given by somebody outside of this parliament to this parliament. That evidence was that some still believe that net zero by 2050 is possible, but I would say, at this point in time, it seems to be difficult to reach with the current dynamics, with the current technologies and with the current public stance in many parts of the world. He also said that net zero by 2050 could be the medicine that kills the patient. I don't know if anybody else in the chamber saw the news last week that found asbestos in the wind farms that were coming in from China. Perhaps just in that part he is absolutely right.

Industry just can't do it with the current technology, and it is time, as we saw this morning with the Defence awards tribunal bill, that this government again admits that it is wrong. We heard from the minister that the government's approach is to take the lowest cost approach. Senator Babet asked about the security risks and the sovereignty risks with having State Power Investment Corporation, which is owned by the Chinese Communist Party and governed by the Chinese national security law 2017. This means that all of its employees have to do what the CCP wishes with that business. That is a massive security risk. That goes outside out levels of scrutiny. We've heard of issues of malware and kill switches, yet the Labor government's approach is for the lowest cost which we have seen is absolutely not happening. The families are hurting, small businesses are hurting, and industry is hurting.

I also asked Minister Ayres about the 180 workers at Rio Tinto's alumina refinery that were sacked last week to align with the decarbonisation pathway. This is deindustrialisation. The minister said, 'My message to those workers is: work with your unions.' It is the government's fault that they are losing their jobs, and the government are driving them to grow the business in unions. It's outrageous—absolutely outrageous. He said, 'Work with the business and the federal government that backs you.' Well, that business is no longer going to be there. How can they talk to the business that can no longer survive because of Labor's net zero agenda? Of course, we all know that the federal government is not backing these workers, because they're sticking by this net zero agenda that is killing our industry.

Remember, behind every job that is lost is a family that is suffering. There are children that might not have enough money to buy their shoes to go to school or have their breakfast in the morning. Behind every job that is lost, there's a family that is suffering. What we see with the damaging Labor net zero agenda are higher bills, stagnating emissions and suffering families. That is the farce of all of this. Tomago, Glencore copper smelter—these are the other places that are suffering too. We heard from Orica CEO Mr Sanjeev Gandhi:

Industries like ours, who are hard to decarbonise, we are depending on technologies that are not yet commercial …

This is why, in the next decade, bills are only going to increase. It's because of the scale of the cost of this transition.

That was an interesting contribution. I'm very happy to talk about net zero and about energy. I wanted to pick up a point that was just made in relation to jobs, that some families may not be able to afford to buy shoes for their kids to go to school—something we were very aware of over the 10 years that they were in government. It's interesting that, since they've been in opposition, it's only when it suits them that they actually think about families, the cost of living and how some children may not be able to have the shoes they need for school. They voted against tax cuts. They voted against the Housing Future Fund giving people and families the opportunity to put a secure roof over their heads. When we reduced the cost of medication and wanted to increase funding to Medicare—all of these issues are real issues that impact every single family—they voted against it.

But let's go back and compare what they did when they were in government. As I said earlier today in another contribution, they had 22 energy policies but couldn't land on one. And then, leading into the election before last, they wanted to talk about nuclear energy. The reality is that all of that was rejected by the Australian people. I want to contrast that to the infighting that's going on where you've got the minor member of their coalition, the Nationals, calling all the shots. Now the Liberals have walked away, so they have no credibility at all when it comes to net zero or addressing the urgency of climate change.

As someone who represents the great state of Tasmania, where we have been generating renewable energy for decades upon decades, for a century or more, we know the value that that brings to the economy in Tasmania. We're leading the way. That's where the investment is. That's where the cheaper energy is going to be. They keep coming in and talking about $275 that was committed. Well, this government has actually done more in terms of supporting families with their energy and power bills than any other government. There's a real contrast between what they talk about doing—and then never do—and our government, which is actually investing in renewable energy. The transition now to having batteries at home, to take advantage of solar energy, is fantastic. We know there are more and more families and households and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs. So that is a real contrast to those opposite.

The National Climate Risk Assessment makes it clear that our country has a lot at stake when it comes to acting on climate change, and that, while we can no longer avoid climate impact, every action that we take today will help in the future goal of net zero by 2050 and can help avoid the worst impacts on Australians. We already know that we are seeing, in my home state, the climate changing, and the impact that it is having on our industries: the waters are getting warmer; there's the threat to our berry industry and agriculture. It is shifting and it is changing. And, unlike those who would still like to be back in the Menzies days in the fifties, the reality is that we are about to go into 2026.

The leadership on this issue is always going to come from this side of the chamber, and that's why the Australian community, Australian voters, put their faith in us, because they want to see action, because they live with the change that's happening within our community. They want leadership on this issue; they don't want infighting. Every day we're looking at what else we can do to support Australian families and Australian workers, while those over there are looking at who is going to take Sussan Ley's job. They are infighting. You've got infighting within the Liberals on who is going to be the next leader. Will they leave Sussan there till Christmas?

No, Senator—

Because, as we all know, this is the killing season—

Senator Polley, resume your seat. Senator Polley, we address members of the other chamber by their correct title.

My apologies. The Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, is on a slow vote to defeat, sometime in the new year, because they won't do it now because they know how bad it would look for them to knock off their first ever female leader. Shame on them. (Time expired)

We heard from those opposite boasting about real wages growth in question time today and the change in, the increase in, nominal wages. But what we have seen in Australia over these last three years is one of the largest declines in living standards in the developed world. Since 2022, across the OECD, across advanced economies around the world, living standards have increased by an average of five per cent; in Australia, they've gone backwards by seven per cent. So the OECD has gone ahead five per cent in the past three years; Australia has gone backwards by seven per cent. We have seen the economy, per person—real GDP per capita—go backwards in Australia for nine of the past 12 quarters as well.

If you take a look at the outlook using the RBA's own figures, things do not look positive. Firstly, we've got inflation coming in at 3.2 per cent in the September quarter—up significantly from 2.1 per cent in the June quarter—and that prompted the RBA to keep the cash rate on hold at its last board meeting in November, warning of the continued upside risk to inflation. In fact, most analysts and commentators now expect the RBA to hold rates and possibly the next move in rates to be up. So we are at the end of the interest lowering cycle. The RBA also expects headline inflation to increase to 3.7 per cent next year and to stay high across 2026, whilst it expects wage growth to be only three per cent. So if you've got inflation running at 3.7 per cent and you've got wages growing at three per cent, your real wages are going backwards—that's what the RBA expects to happen next year in 2026.

Of course, living standards aren't just the wages you take home; they also reflect the cost of goods you're purchasing and how much you're having to pay for things like rent, or housing, or mortgage repayments, and how much you're paying in tax. Let's look at each of those in turn.

An average Australian borrower at the moment is paying $1,800 more per month in interest on a mortgage because of the 12 interest rate rises that have happened under this Labor government. As I said before, there is no real prospect of further cuts in interest rates on the horizon, which means that those costs are going to be baked in.

People are paying more in tax. Personal income tax receipts are now the largest share of GDP since the GST was introduced a quarter of a century ago, and the Parliamentary Budget Office expects that income tax receipts will go from 12.7 per cent of GDP—already a record right now—up to 14.3 per cent in the next decade. If you look at the government's own budget forecast in the budget estimates, the entirety of the budget repair job—bearing in mind we have a decade of fiscal deficits—is being done by bracket creep. People are paying more income tax, going into higher tax brackets, which means they are underwriting more of government spending.

What have we got here? We've got government spending too high. We've got no productivity agenda. We've got the burden of red tape growing. We had an economic reform summit in August, which the Treasurer convened. Part of the commitment of that was to look at having less regulation across the Australian economy, but just today a report commissioned by the Australian Institute of Company Directors found that the cost of federal regulatory compliance has gone from $65 billion in 2013 to about $160 billion last year. That's an increase of $100 billion just in federal regulatory compliance—not state or other levels of government; it's federal regulatory compliance alone.

What do we have under this government? We have spending too high. Spending is the highest it has been in four decades, outside of the pandemic, at about 27 per cent of GDP. We have inflation remaining a threat. It was 3.2 per cent in the last quarter, and the Reserve Bank expects it to stay above three per cent next year. We have debt growing, forecast to hit $1 trillion in federal gross government debt this year—another record. We have prices going up. We have interest rates not coming down. We have productivity stagnant. We have living standards flat. We have income tax growing year on year, and we have the burden and complexity of red tape growing and growing. This is a recipe for continued decline in living standards for Australians, which means we will fall further behind other advanced nations, and Australians are less able to raise families and build a future. (Time expired)

Senator Sharma, I do believe we're meant to be taking note of coalition questions asked in question time. Senator O'Neill did ask a cracking question, and Senator Gallagher gave a cracking answer, so I guess I won't call a point of order on you this time. But I'm going to stick to the protocol and talk to the questions asked by the coalition of government senators relating to net zero and energy policy.

It's pretty extraordinary. In a decade of coalition government, they brought 21 or 22 energy policies to this place—it might have even got to 23—and didn't land a single one. Now they're back with another energy policy to step away from net zero, a position which would hurt workers, affect jobs and damage industry. It is absolutely clear to me, as it should be to anyone who was watching question time today, that if the coalition were to lead our country again they would be leading our country back to the Dark Ages.

I wear a stegosaurus dinosaur around my neck today, and that little stegosaurus is in pretty good company, because the dinosaurs still roam freely amongst the coalition—they still roam freely amongst the corridors of this place. The coalition is still debating whether or not climate change is real, and their anti-climate-action crusaders are doing our nation such a deep, deep disservice. Do you know what harms businesses? It's regulatory uncertainty. Do you know what harms business and industry? It's policy chaos. That's exactly what we saw after 10 years of a coalition government.

This is an opposition that simply doesn't get it. This is an opposition that doesn't listen and, presumably, does not read. This is an opposition that ignores the science. They want us to go back to the Dark Ages, and they have dinosaurs roaming amidst their ranks. This is a coalition who would seek to take Australians backwards, but Australians cannot afford to keep paying the price of the coalition's constant climate infighting. The coalition had 23 different energy policies when they were in government and not a single one of them landed.

The chaos, denial and delay that we saw under the coalition government, which continues today among coalition members, have left us with a much bigger challenge to face now than what we would have faced had they acted on the science earlier, had they believed in the science and had they cared enough to deliver an energy policy that would make a meaningful difference on climate change and on our transition and done what industry and business have been calling for, for years and years—the regulatory certainty which guides their investment decisions which enable them to act; policy certainty not policy chaos. One thing is very, very clear: if the opposition were to return to government we would see the disunity and division which defined them for years continue in climate policy and energy policy. It would take our country backwards, it would cost Australians more, and it would hurt business and industry.

The coalition talked about nuclear at the last election. It was another policy that was fundamentally and utterly rejected by the Australian people, because Australians get it. Australians believe the science and Australians know we have incredible natural advantages in renewable energy. Do you know how they know that? They opened their blinds and looked out the window and they saw the sun and the wind. They saw all of these natural resources that we have in abundance in Australia, and they are acting in the suburbs and the regions across Australia. People are lining their roofs with solar panels. One in three households now have rooftop solar. That's four million installations nationwide. More than 120,000 household batteries have been installed since 1 July under our programs. We're seeing record sales of EVs.

Australians get the science. They look out their window and they read, and the minimum they expect of coalition senators and members is that they do the same. The opposition wants to take us back to the Dark Ages. We fundamentally reject that. We are leading with conviction— (Time expired)

Perhaps for a change today we actually learnt something in question time. It doesn't happen very often, but today we learnt that the government has no plan to lower electricity prices for Australians any time soon—and definitely not in the next decade. During question time the government were asked multiple times, 'When will electricity prices come down?' and 'Do you agree with energy CEOs who say they won't come down in the next decade?' and there was absolutely no response. In fact, the government spend more time talking about the opposition, as they were just then, than they do about their own plans. They're actually in government. I thought they were in government. I thought we were asking questions of ministers who could possibly do something, but apparently the only thing they can do is carp about the opposition. I believe that the Australian people are hurting right now and that there are many Australians who are losing their jobs because of our uncompetitive energy prices, and it would be better if the government had a plan to fix those problems rather than simply criticising politicians here in Canberra.

The minister in question time mentioned that the government is pursuing the lowest cost. It's very important to understand what they mean by that because they're very tricky with their words. They're saying it's the lowest cost to get to net zero, to get to an 82 per cent renewable energy target. So right now, when the energy planners are planning our electricity system, they're not planning it to deliver the lowest cost; they're planning it to deliver these arbitrary, artificial targets that the government has set which effectively put a straitjacket around our economy and our ability to be competitive and provide good-paying jobs.

What we have decided to do on this side of politics is to say something that I think is pretty common sense, and that is that we should run our energy system with the primary goal of delivering the lowest energy prices for Australians. That's the fundamental thing we would change. The fundamental thing we would change is to say to the energy planners—and put in our laws and policies in this space—that everything we do should be about delivering the lowest price. That is not the priority of this government. The priority of this government is to hit net zero by 2050, whatever that means for people.

I'm now accused, by the previous speaker, of being a stegosaurus or a dinosaur. I want to put on the record that I've never been against emissions reductions. I've always supported sensible reductions and commonsense plans to reduce our emissions in this country. What I'm against is our country being asked to bear an unfair share of the world's reduction in emissions. For the past 10 years, Australia has been cutting its emissions at a rate double that of developed countries. I'm not talking about China and India; I'm talking about Europe, the US, Korea and Japan. We are going at a rate double that of the rest of those countries. The government's announcement the other week of a 62 per cent cut by 2035 means they are now saying they want to increase that to triple the rate of other developed countries over the next 10 years.

It's not a secret. Their friend Matt Kean, who advised on these targets, said he was presenting targets that were a higher ambition than other advanced countries. Why would Australians be asked to bear a higher cost than other rich countries to reduce emissions? As I say, I support reducing emissions. We have said we would reduce emissions, but we have made, I think, the commonsense decision to say that our reductions targets should be set in line with what other nations are doing, not racing ahead of the rest of the world.

Finally, the previous senator said there's nothing worse for businesses than uncertainty. I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps the worst thing that I hear for Australian businesses right now is our shockingly high energy prices. That's the worst thing. It's almost impossible to run anything that is energy intensive in this country right now because we are paying so much for energy. We are paying so much for energy that we are paying a higher price, and our factories are paying a higher price, than factories in Japan pay. We are the biggest supplier of energy to Japan, and they can deliver an industrial power price for factories that is lower than we can.

Something has gone horribly wrong. We have power prices that are now three times higher than those in Indonesia. Indonesia has already stolen our nickel industry, with 10,000 jobs lost in Western Australia last year because of that. Now they're targeting copper and aluminium, and they're doing that using their own coal, yet we ship our coal to other countries. We may as well ship the jobs off with them at the moment. That's got to stop. That's why we dropped net zero. It's time to put our own country first, protect our jobs and lower living costs for Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Science (Senator Ayres) to questions without notice asked today by Senator Waters and me.

I think it's been very instructive watching the LNP this week. This is a tried and tested playbook that we've seen in here before, with the carbon price and the clean energy package, starting with the Abbott government all the way through to the Morrison government. They are relentlessly attacking climate action; talking about costs; cherrypicking science; highlighting the downsides; and ignoring, for example, the costs of not acting on climate change and the benefits in renewable energy. I want the Senate to be really aware that we're going to have to be on our toes in the next couple of years and be really conscious of the disinformation and the misinformation that's going to be fed to the Australian people not just from the LNP but from the denial machine around them—the Murdoch press, the think tanks, the PR firms, the consultancies and all the apparatus that gets funded by the fossil fuel industry and other vested interests around the world. It's coming our way, it's already here, and we need to be relentless with calling it out.

On that point, I want to call out the government, too. While they're highlighting the agreement they signed in COP, talking about the benefits to being, I suppose, key dignitaries at the next COP meeting, which is going to be in Turkiye, they're not telling us a couple of really important things. Let's deal with that. I also want to talk about the CSIRO, this nation's premier science agency. I can't believe that, in my time here, I've seen a Labor government sign off on more job cuts at our premier science agency than the previous antiscience, climate-denying Liberal Party governments. It really is quite astounding that especially the environmental research unit, which comprises climate change—all the fantastic scientists in Tasmania based down in Hobart, and we absolutely need all the jobs we can get in Tasmania—the water unit, the oceans unit and the nature unit are going to bear the brunt of these job cuts. The reason for that is simple. It's been a more-than-decade-long push to attack and undermine public-good science because these scientists aren't bringing in direct revenue. What we've seen is a de facto privatisation or monetisation of science at the CSIRO now for well over a decade.

I chaired a select committee into the job cuts in 2016. The then minister was Arthur Sinodinos under the Abbott government, trying to get rid of 350 oceans and atmosphere scientists. They said: 'We already know climate change is real. We don't need their information anymore. They're surplus to our country and our national efforts.' Well, how important have their research and their observations been in understanding our weather and the impacts of climate, not especially the costs of climate change? These scientists are absolutely critical for our understanding of the biggest challenges we face as a society and as a country.

And here we go again. Not 10 years later, these same scientists are now facing a job crunch because this government won't properly fund science. I was really surprised to see what I thought was a cavalier attitude from the minister in here today. He clearly doesn't get science and isn't around his brief and how important these jobs are, especially the environmental research unit. Public-good science should be funded by the taxpayer. The kind of work these scientists do is absolutely critical, not just to our understanding of things like climate change and protecting the environment in Australia. Their projects are globally collaborative. The government has plenty of opportunity now to turn this around and properly fund the CSIRO.

I'm very concerned about the job losses in Tasmania. We know that, out of the 350 job cuts, 150 are going to come from the environmental research unit, so that's in public-good science. Many of those scientists are in Tasmania. We've also got a lot of good scientists here in Canberra—in fact, all around the country. And here's my prediction: these 350 job cuts are just going to be the tip of the iceberg. I cannot help but think, looking at the numbers, that there are a lot more job cuts coming down the line. The unions—the CPSU and the CSIRO Staff Association—are absolutely shocked and disgusted that a Labor government would go down this road of cutting jobs to science. And there's a lot more water to come under this bridge yet. How did we get to this situation where funding shortfalls were not being met by the government over the last three or four years while senior executives were taking bonuses? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

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

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025, the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025, the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.

I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for the bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement s read as follows—

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

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN CONTENT) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to introduce an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video-on-demand (streaming) services.

Reasons for Urgency

In the National Cultural Policy, Revive, the Australian Government committed to introduce an Australian screen content requirement on streaming services. During the 2025 election campaign, the Minister for the Arts re-committed to implementing a requirement.

Urgent passage is critical to fulfil the Government's commitment to introduce a local content requirement for streaming services, make sure Australian stories are being made and distributed on the platforms where Australians will watch them. It will also give much needed certainty to the Australian screen production industry and streaming services.

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

STRENGTHENING OVERSIGHT OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BILL 2025

Purpose of the Bill

This Bill will enhance existing parliamentary and statutory oversight mechanisms to ensure oversight of the National Intelligence Community is holistic, consistent and remains commensurate with their significant powers.

The Bill does this by expanding the jurisdictions of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) to all of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, and the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and the Department of Home Affairs.

The Bill would also make amendments to strengthen the relationship between the PJCIS, IGIS and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) and ensure the PJCIS and INSLM have a comprehensive mandate to review counter-terrorism and national security legislation.

Reasons for Urgency

Timely passage of this Bill is required to ensure that uniform oversight arrangements for the National Intelligence Community (NIC) can commence as soon as possible, to reflect the increasingly close collaboration, engagement and information-sharing between NIC agencies. This will ensure that the public can continue to have confidence that Australia's security and intelligence agencies act with accountability and integrity. The IGIS and PJCIS have already been funded to support the proposed expansion to their functions. The Bill has also been reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, which reported on 4 November 2025.

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

VET STUDENT LOANS (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill will retrospectively ensure the access, use, recording and disclosure of students' Tax File Numbers (TFNs) by Vocational Education and Training Student Loans (VSL) approved providers and government officials from 2017 is lawful under the VET Student Loans Act 2016 (the VSL Act).

Reason for urgency

Since the VSL program commenced on 1 January 2017, the program has required approved course providers to handle student TFNs. The Government has identified the need for legislation to ensure handling of TFNs is consistent with current taxation and privacy law requirements. The Bill provides the relevant authority for VSL providers to handle students' TFNs from 2017 to 30 September 2025 when program system updates were implemented which remove the need for providers to handle student TFNs.

Should the Bill not be passed in the 2025 Spring sittings, the Commonwealth along with multiple stakeholders would not be assured that their past handling of students' TFNs was authorised under privacy and taxation laws.

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE2025 SPRING SITTINGS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES No. 1) BILL 2025

Purpose of Bill

This Bill will legislate for a range of matters in the Veterans' Affairs portfolio, primarily related to the effective transition from the current tri-Act arrangements for veteran compensation and rehabilitation to a single Act when most of the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (VETS Act) commence on 1 July 2026. The Bill will also provide for some adjustment in the VETS Act to confirm the intended policy settings.

Reasons for Urgency

The rapid passage of this legislation is required so that legislative instrument making powers in the amended Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 can be exercised prior to the newly constituted Repatriation Commission coming into existence on 1 July 2026.

This will allow for sufficient time to arrange for legislative instruments to be made in preparation of the commencement of most of the provisions of the VETS Act on 1 July 2026.This is to ensure that there is no interruption to any benefits or payments that are made to veterans and their families under an instrument.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons:

(a) Senators Lambie and Sheldon from 24 to 27 November 2025; and

(b) Senator McCarthy for today.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senators Cash and McGrath from 24 to 27 November, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Nampijinpa Price from 24 to 26 November, for parliamentary reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to online safety and privacy, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

We are moving into an unprecedented moment in human history. For generations, the tools we created changed the world around us. How we farm, how we travel, how we communicate, but they didn't touch the fundamental boundaries of our own identity. Today, that boundary is dissolving. We are now on the precipice of a technological shift so profound that it challenges not only how we live, work, and communicate, but who we are.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is beginning to touch almost every aspect of our society. From the way children play and learn, to the security of our elections, to how businesses operate, there is almost no part of modern life that will remain untouched. But in the midst of this sweeping transformation, we must pause and recognise something simple but essential: in a world where anything can be fabricated, authenticity becomes even more precious. And protecting the individual identity of Australians is more important than ever.

Every wrinkle we have, every scar we carry, every sound we make, every facial expression, every gesture—these are not digital assets or interchangeable features. They are the biography of a human life. Our faces, our voices, our likeness: these belong to each of us. We cannot allow them to belong to, be unwillingly commercialised or exploited by whoever has the most powerful software or the least regard for consent.

Until very recently, this wasn't something we had to worry about. No matter how skilled the impersonator or how advanced the visual effects, humans could still tell the difference between imitation and reality. AI has changed that rapidly and dramatically. We are now confronted with images, audio, and video so lifelike that even experts can struggle to tell what is real and what is artificial. Deepfakes that our subconscious remembers and responds to even when the deception is pointed out to our conscious mind. And as the technology improves and costs to access it come down, the barrier to misuse gets lower and the potential for serious harm becomes exponentially higher.

In 2023, technologist and human rights advocate Sam Gregory said, "It doesn't take many seconds of your voice, many images of your face, to fake you, and the realism keeps increasing." We are now living in a world where this capacity is being used to deceive, to humiliate, to exploit, and to profit.

This bill—the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025—is a response to that reality. It is grounded in a simple principle: your face is yours; your voice is yours; your likeness is yours. And when these are taken without your consent, used to mislead or harm you, or turned into a product for someone else's gain, there must be consequences.

The bill provides additional protections and avenues for recourse lacking in our current legislative and regulatory framework.

It strengthens the Online Safety Act 2021 by creating a dedicated complaints system for deepfake material. It gives the eSafety Commissioner new powers to require platforms, hosting services, and individual users to remove non-consensual deepfake content. The bill also introduces civil penalties for when someone posts deepfake material without consent. Where a platform refuses to remove harmful fabricated content, the Commissioner can direct them to act quickly. These measures build on the successful systems already in place for cyberbullying, cyber-abuse, and image-based abuse, but recognise that deepfakes present a new kind of threat that requires a stronger, more tailored response.

The bill also amends the Privacy Act 1988 to establish a new cause of action for the wrongful use or disclosure of deepfake material. This gives individuals a direct right to take action in court when their likeness has been abused. They can seek injunctions, damages, or other appropriate remedies. Crucially, the action does not require proof of financial loss, because the harm caused by deepfakes is often emotional, reputational, or psychological. For someone whose identity has been misused, the violation itself is the injury.

Together, these reforms recognise that AI generated deepfakes can be used to inflict extraordinary harm: impersonation scams that trick family members out of life savings; fabricated videos designed to ruin reputations; fake political footage intended to mislead voters; or, as we are seeing all too often, sexualised deepfakes, predominantly of women and girls used for humiliation, coercion, or abuse.

These harms are not hypothetical. They are happening right now in Australia to people who often have no recourse, no avenue for removal, and no meaningful legal protection. This bill changes that.

It creates a uniform definition of deepfake material. It establishes clear standards for consent, ensuring it must be voluntary, express, and informed. It sets out responsibilities for service providers and introduces enforcement mechanisms that reflect the speed at which content spreads. And it recognises that the dignity, privacy, and autonomy of individuals must be protected not just in the physical world, but in the digital world where so much of our life now exists.

The bill helps to align our domestic law with Australia's international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Importantly, the bill also contains safeguards. It preserves legitimate uses of manipulated or artificial content, by journalists acting under professional standards, by law enforcement and intelligence agencies acting in good faith, and by those engaging in genuine medical or scientific purposes. It ensures that while we protect individuals from harm, we also uphold freedom of expression and the public interest in a balanced and proportionate way.

This is not about banning satire, art, innovation, or political commentary. It is about stopping harm, stopping exploitation, and stopping the misuse of a person's identity against their will. It is about drawing a clear ethical line in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

The singular nature of each of us, the absolute uniqueness of our voice, our face, our presence, is part of what it means to be human. No one should be able to take that from us. No one should be able to hijack who we are, distort it, and deploy it for harm or profit. And no Australian should be forced to navigate that harm alone, without protection or means of redress.

This bill acknowledges a simple but profound truth: in the age of AI, our likeness is part of our identity, and our identity deserves protection.

With this bill, we take an important step toward ensuring that Australians have the rights, the remedies, and the protections they need in a world where the line between real and artificial grows thinner every day.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 245, proposing the introduction of a bill, be taken as formal.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Yes.

There is an objection.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into Australia's aviation sector, be extended to 4 June 2026.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than midday on the first sitting day in 2026:

(a) any correspondence, briefing notes, meeting records or other documents held by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the department) or the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commission (AEIC) relating to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's engagement with the proponents of the Lambruk Solar Project, referred to by Senator Gallagher in the Senate on 3 November 2025;

(b) any complaints, submissions or representations received by the AEIC, the Commissioner, the department or any other Commonwealth agency from members of the public or community organisations concerning the Lambruk Solar Project;

(c) any correspondence or briefing materials exchanged between the AEIC, the Commissioner, the department and any minister or ministerial office regarding the Lambruk Solar Project or associated community concerns; and

(d) if no such documents exist, a statement to that effect.

Question agreed to.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hodgins-May, I move general business notices of motion Nos 254 and 255 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 254

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Thursday, 4 December 2025, the following documents:

(a) all briefing material, background notes and briefing packs prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the Minister for Resources or her office on the topic of the Asia Zero Emissions Community in connection with or in preparation for the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summits;

(b) all briefing material, background notes and briefing packs prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for the Minister for Resources or her office on the topic of the Asia Zero Emissions Community in connection with or in preparation for the recent ASEAN and APEC summits; and

(c) all briefing material, background notes and briefing packs prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for the Minister for Climate Change and Energy or his office on the topic of the Asia Zero Emissions Community in connection with or in preparation for the recent ASEAN and APEC summits.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 255

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than midday on Thursday, 4 December 2025, the following documents:

(a) all briefing material, background notes and briefing packs, prepared by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet for the Minister for Resources or her office on the topic of the Asia Zero Emissions Community, in connection with, or in preparation for the recent Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summits; and

(b) all briefing material, background notes, and briefing packs, prepared by the Prime Minister's Office for the Minister for Resources or her office on the topic of the Asia Zero Emissions Community, in connection with, or in preparation for the recent ASEAN and APEC summits.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 26 November 2025, all written or digital correspondence, documents, briefing notes and meeting notes between Housing Australia and the Minister for Housing in relation to the Chair of Housing Australia since 1 January 2025.

The question is that this motion be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung

No! Wait a moment!

Is this a point of order?

Where's the President? This can't be happening. Get this racist person out of here now!

Senator Thorpe.

Get her out!

Senator Thorpe.

Get her out!

Senator Thorpe! Resume your seat.

Get the President! Who's in charge here?

Senator Thorpe!

Who's in charge?

Resume your seat! This matter has been considered before. Dress is a matter for an individual senator's conscience.

No! This is racist!

Who is it?

The chamber attendants have verified that this is a senator. If Senator Askew is not comfortable in counting that senator then she can notify the matter to me. This matter has been considered before.

No! I'm going to play up. I'll shut down this Senate until she is removed!

Senator Thorpe!

No!

There's no dress code in this Senate.

Senator Faruqi?

Dress code might be a choice of senators, but racism should not be the choice of this Senate! This is a racist senator displaying blatant racism and Islamophobia. Someone should pull her up on that!

Senator Faruqi—

It is you in the chair. You should be pulling her up on that!

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat! Senator Payman, on the same issue I take it.

What else would I be talking about, Deputy President? If this is about the dress code, she is disrespecting a faith. She is disrespecting the Muslim Australians out there. It is absolutely unconstitutional. This needs to be dealt with immediately, before we proceed. It's disgraceful! It is a shame—

Senator Payman, resume your seat. Your position has been made clear. This is a matter for the entire Senate chamber. I have made the previous rulings of this Senate clear. If the Senate wants to change that ruling, that is a matter for the entire chamber, not for me.

Senator Whish-Wilson, if this is on the same matter, I'm not going to entertain it any more.

It's different. Senator Hanson is using a prop in the Senate, and it's a dangerous prop. It is dangerous to this country, so I ask that you rule on her bringing a prop into the Senate. It's not her normal dress code. It is clearly a prop to make a political statement. If I was to wear a Greens t-shirt in here, or a Fremantle Dockers shirt of whatever, I would get shown the door.

Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat. This matter has been ruled on before.

No, it has not!

Senator Thorpe!

This is making our workplace unsafe.

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat!

No, not until you get this racist out!

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. Senator Faruqi, resume your seat.

No; there is a person in here ridiculing my religion. Senator Hanson, if you had any shame, you'd walk out of here! Deputy President, you need to rule on this.

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat!

Get out!

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge and Senator Waters, resume your seats.

No; Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. I will complete this division, and then if a senator wishes to dissent from my ruling, they are entitled to.

We are dissenting now.

You cannot dissent now. We need to complete the division. We will complete the division, and then you may move dissent in the chair.

My point of order, if you can hear me, Deputy President—

There has been a request to cancel the division.

Yes; that's my request.

Does anyone object to cancelling the division? We will cancel the division.

No; it's cancelled.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The doors have been locked. The division will need to be finalised. Would senators please resume their seats. Senator Wong?

Hello, Deputy President. I've been on my feet for a minute.

My understanding and the advice I have is the division needs to be completed. If someone wants to dissent at that point with my ruling, they can. I am going to put the question. The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Bragg, be agreed to. Ayes will pass to the right of the chair, noes to the left. I'll give senators a few moments to assume their seats, as I assume, Senator Wong, you do not wish to be on this side—nor you, Senator Chisholm.

Is this to kick the racist out? What's this vote for?

We are attempting to finish the division. Then you may dissent on the chair's ruling.

We have a right to be in a safe workplace, and that racist is making it unsafe.

Senator Thorpe, sit down. You do not have the call.

(In division) Senator Wong, a division is being counted.

Senator Wong, I think we need to complete the division—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The doors have been locked. We can't.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The doors should not have been unlocked, if they were.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Thorpe, you cannot leave your chair.

Well, I'm not voting on that side, and I'm not voting with that racist, so I'll stand here, thanks.

I would like to request that you review your earlier ruling, because, clearly, what has happened today is not a genuine demonstration of faith. In fact, it is the middle finger to people of faith. It is extremely racist and unsafe, and I would like you to reconsider your earlier ruling—that it is not appropriate in this Senate to draw attention to a religion that this person does not even subscribe to. It is an insult, and it must be against the standing orders. I would like you to review your earlier ruling.

I will absolutely review it. I will also refer it to the President. I'm happy to step out of the chair for the President.

Senator Wong?

I rise to ask that you reflect the ruling of Senator Parry when in the President's chair in relation to a similar stunt by this senator in this place. I would remind those who may not have been here of what the then leader of the government, Senator Brandis, said at the time: 'Senator, I am not going to pretend to ignore the stunt that you have tried to pull today by arriving in the chamber dressed in a burqa when we all know you are not an adherent of the Islamic faith. I would caution and counsel you, with respect, to be very, very careful of the offence you may do to the religious sensibilities of other Australians. We have many Australians in this country who are adherents of the Islamic faith, and the great majority of them are law-abiding Australians—good Australians, Senator Hanson, and it is absolutely consistent with being a decent Australian and being a strict and adherent Muslim.'

Senator Hanson, I would say this to you—and this is me now, not Senator Brandis, with whose remarks I concur, and it was one of the occasions in this chamber where the then opposition backed the government of the day to stand against this sort of stunt. What I would say to you, President, is that Senator Hanson and all of us in this place have a great privilege in coming into this chamber. We represent, in our states, people of every faith and of all backgrounds, and we should do so decently. What we should not do in this place, whatever views we may have on policy, is to be this disrespectful of the chamber and of people of faith, whatever our own beliefs may be. The sort of disrespect that you are engaging in now is not worthy of a member of the Australian Senate, and it should not be allowed to stand.

I ask, President, that you take advice from the Clerk, and I'd refer you to the ruling of Senator Parry when he was the President in relation to precisely the same issue that we are seeing today.

President—

Senator Faruqi, what I intend to do is to hear from Senator Ruston as the opposition spokesperson, and then I am going to indicate to the chamber what Senator Parry ruled.

Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. I've indicated to the chamber what I intend to do. What the chamber does after that is entirely up to the chamber, but I've indicated to the chamber what I intend to do, so please resume your seat.

I think all of us in this place probably need to remember that the respect of this chamber is incumbent on every single one of us. There are ways that you can reflect and express yourself in this chamber without going to the extent that we have seen today. Whilst I respect the very strongly held views of many in this chamber—and many of them differ, and many people have very strong views that are opposed to other people's very strong views—the one thing that we must always do in this place is respect others. I would respectfully suggest to Senator Hanson that this is not the way that you should be addressing this chamber. This is not a respectful way to address other people. Whilst I haven't had in the timeframe the opportunity to reflect on the decision of Senator Parry when he was in the chair or the comments that were made by Senator Brandis when he was the leader of the government in this place, I recall that the foundation of everything that was said by Senator Parry and by Minister Brandis at the time was about respecting this institution and respecting the views of others, not to disrespect them by coming in and performing stunts which have no other purpose than to do that. I think maybe today we should all reflect on respect for each other in this place.

Thank you, Senator Ruston. I am advised that this has occurred in the past, and Senator Parry was the President at the time. He ruled that using a religious icon, religious dress or anything to do with a religion as a prop and not in the proper way that it is expected to be used was disrespectful to the parliament. At that time, he asked Senator Hanson to either remove the item of clothing that she was wearing or risk suspension. I intend to uphold the ruling of Senator Parry and ask Senator Hanson to remove herself from the chamber, remove the clothing and come back dressed appropriately or risk suspension, and she certainly will not be heard if she doesn't remove herself from the chamber. Thank you, senators. I am advised that, because we are on a point—

Senator Hanson, you will not be heard. I've repeated the order that Senator Parry gave, and I understand—

Senator Hanson! I'm going to call on the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

I would ask that we move to the next item of business, President.

I believe we're up to general business 246. Senator Askew?

President, I understand that—

Just a moment. Senator Thorpe, you're not helping the matter, so I would ask you to restrain yourself. Senator Thorpe, I've issued the order.

Senator Hanson, if you don't remove yourself from the chamber—sorry, Senator Askew—I'm going to name you. I'm going to call on Minister Wong, now.

Pursuant to standing order 203, I move:

That Senator Hanson be suspended from the sitting of the Senate until she complies with the President's direction.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to. I believe the ayes have it.

Question agreed to.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I have called that for the ayes. I indicated to the chamber, consistent with Senator Parry's ruling, that I would not recognise Senator Hanson while she remained in the chamber in something that has been deemed a prop. The vote was for the ayes, and I've called that.

There were multiple noes.

Senator Roberts, I have called the vote, so that's the end of the matter. Senator Roberts, please resume your seat; we have moved on. Senator Parry's order is very clear, and I've upheld that. Now Senator Hanson has to remove herself from the chamber.

I wasn't allowed in the Senate chamber when I was suspended. How come she's allowed in here?

Senator Thorpe, the interjections are really unhelpful. I would like to get on with the business of the Senate.

Order, Senator Thorpe!

Senator Shoebridge, I couldn't be any clearer. The Senate has just moved to sanction Senator Hanson.

I'll give you a few seconds, Senator Shoebridge. Make it short and very clear.

We have a senator who has been named, and she cannot remain in here while the Senate proceeds. I would ask you to seek advice on a short suspension of the chamber so that can be achieved.

Thank you. Senator Wong, I will come to you. I would hope that all of us in here can uphold, with respect, the business of the chamber. The Senate has made its view clear. We should not have to move to suspending. I should not have to be entertaining interjections. I want everyone to behave in a respectful way. I'm going to give the call to Senator Wong. The suggestion of a suspension is something I'm really loath to do, Senator Shoebridge. I would hope that senators in here can behave respectfully, and, if you're called, you're called. But—

No, Senator Tyrrell. Sit down.

Senator Tyrrell, you do not have the call.

President, this chamber doesn't operate on people being physically removed. This chamber operates on senators, who are elected by the people, respecting the Constitution of Australia and the standing orders of this chamber, and it says something, Senator Hanson, if you refuse to act in a manner consistent with the standing orders of this chamber. So, for all of your talk about respecting institutions, democracy and the Australian people, it is you who today are disregarding this parliament, our Constitution and the standing orders that flow from that, which the chamber has agreed with. I move:

That the sitting of the Senate be suspended until the ringing of the bells.

Question agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 16:12 to 17:50

Senators, earlier today the Senate voted to suspend Senator Hanson for the remainder of the sitting. The Clerk and I have met with Senator Hanson, and she understands that message from the Senate chamber.

At the request of Senator Henderson, can I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 246, please.

I think I'd already noted that one was withdrawn, but that's fine.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

a. notes that:

  b. requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate on Tuesday, 25 November 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

The question is that motion No. 251, as moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

Senator Dean Smith has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, as shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

The Australian Energy Council's November report states that 'AEC members have become increasingly concerned about the rising pressures on affordability and feel there needs to be a more honest and transparent public narrative about the cost of the transition'.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

Australians deserve honesty and transparency from their government about the true cost of its reckless energy plan, and they are not getting it. The latest red flag is in the Australian Energy Council's report just released on 17 November, which reveals how concerned the energy sector is with Labor's faltering energy transition. The reports says:

AEC members have become increasingly concerned about the rising pressures on affordability and feel there needs to be a more honest and transparent public narrative about the cost of the transition.

Instead of having an honest dialogue with Australians, now part-time energy minister Chris Bowen is keeping them in the dark while driving up their power bills and risking network security and reliability. It's time for Labor to stop the insults and spin and answer one simple question: when will power prices come down under Labor like they promised?

The energy sector attitudes revealed in the Australian Energy Council report are damning. The report notes:

Most CEOs expect energy prices to rise in the coming years …

This is due to sustained upward pressure. These CEOs are sounding the alarm on Minister Bowen's misguided plan, with one stating:

Network cost is only going to go up and go up by increasing levels. And the Australian consumer is not even really wise to that yet because they haven't seen the worst of it.

Just think about that. Energy sector leaders themselves are saying that network costs are going up, going up and going up, and who are the last people in the country to know about that? It's energy consumers—families and businesses. Australian households, businesses and industry deserve a policy that provides affordable energy and seeks to deliver responsible emissions reductions. Labor has failed on both measures while hiding the true cost of its policy from the public. Families are struggling to make ends meet, small businesses are being forced to close their doors, regional Australians are paying the price for poor planning and industry is being pushed offshore.

For Australian households, power bills are up by almost 40 per cent. Where Labor promised a $275 cut to power bills, Australians today are paying around $1,300 more. More than 200,000 families—think about that—across Australia are now on financial hardship plans with their electricity providers. That's an increase of 50 per cent since mid-2022. The Australian Energy Regulator has reported that both the number of customers in debt and the size of the average debt have increased in the last 12 months. Energy leaders have raised concerns over the unintended consequences of leaving vulnerable people behind. One energy leader said:

So bottom line is, we're going to make a large segment of the population more vulnerable again with electricity.

For small business, the story's the same. For small businesses, electricity bills have increased by as much as 80 per cent. COSBOA, the peak industry association for small businesses, reports that one in three small businesses are struggling to pay their electricity and gas bills. It's no surprise that, under the Albanese government, we have witnessed the insolvency of almost 40,000 businesses. Under Labor, Australian industry is being hollowed out. In fact, 1,911 manufacturers have closed their doors since the Albanese government came to power. As one contributor to the AEC report observed:

Australian industry will not survive without access to affordable energy.

For these Australians, prices are soaring, while Australia's emissions are flatlining. Despite $75 billion in extra climate spending—the equivalent of an extra $7,000 per household—national emissions are virtually unchanged under Labor. Recent figures show that, for all this economic pain, emissions have barely moved, falling just 0.7 per cent. Think about that—emissions have fallen just 0.7 per cent under Labor.

This is a reckless government setting targets it cannot meet at a cost Australians can't afford. The coalition's plan is to deliver affordable power and responsible emissions reductions. It's a practical pathway to affordable power and lower emissions. It's not Labor's recipe of soaring prices and targets that cannot be met.

Senator Smith does raise concerns about affordability and transparency in the transition—and fair enough. We should be discussing these things. Let's begin with some honesty and some facts about the transition. Under those opposite, Australia was transitioning to energy poverty. As has been recorded lately and as stated by the Prime Minister, we saw 24 of Australia's 28 coal-fired power plants close while the coalition was in government. That's 24 of 28, not because of Labor and not because of renewables but because ageing plants failed and those opposite had no plan to replace them.

Let's turn to more facts and evidence. The International Energy Agency has reported that countries moving faster to net zero will see lower household bills over time. OECD comparisons show Australian electricity bills sit in the middle of the pack once you adjust for income. Last week we learned that the Climate Council of Australia stated that, without renewables, generation costs will be up to 50 per cent higher than they are today. Transparency, evidence, honesty and a discussion about affordability—that's what this debate is about, but they're inconvenient facts for some. The Climate Council's analysis showed that wholesale renewable power has averaged $72 a megawatt hour, compared to $129 a megawatt hour from coal and gas—almost twice the price. It doesn't matter who you speak to. Australia's top energy bodies—the AER, AEMO, AEMC and CSIRO—all agree that renewables backed by storage are the cheapest and most reliable form of new electricity. I'm talking about new electricity because we need to continue to build supply of generation as those ageing coal fleets retire as they did—24 of 28—under the coalition. That is the hard data. The AEMC warns that delaying renewable energy generation and transmission will put upward pressure on residential costs.

Wholesale prices are already falling. They're down by a third in the last quarter. We want those reductions flowing into retail bills as soon as possible. That is why the Albanese government is delivering a responsible energy plan that creates jobs, provides business certainty and lowers emissions. It's also why we've acted three times to deliver energy bill relief, cap gas prices and invest in cheaper renewables, with every step opposed by those opposite. Our plan is clear: renewables, backed by gas, batteries and hydro, with targets that lower emissions and create jobs.

The transition is accelerating. Renewables supplied half of the national electricity market just last month. Last year alone, five gigawatts of new solar, wind, battery and gas capacity entered the grid. That's the largest amount of new capacity in the grid since 1998. We've approved 111 renewable and related projects, which is enough to power 13 million homes. One in three households now have rooftop solar, with more than four million installations across the country. Since July, Australians have installed 120,000 household batteries, lifting national storage capacity by 50 per cent. EV sales have hit 13 per cent of all new sales this year. And we're making solar fairer with three hours of free daytime power for customers who can shift their energy use. Compare that to those opposite, with a decade in power, 24 coal stations closed and no replacement, no transition plan and no bill relief. While Labor has delivered support for households and small business, the coalition opposed every single one of them. Every bill spike, every breakdown and every moment of grid instability is part of their legacy. Doing nothing now—their current plan—has consequences.

The Clean Energy Council found households could pay $449 more by 2030 if the renewable build-out slows and over $600 more if a major coal generator fails unexpectedly. More than 90 per cent of coal plants will retire over the next decade. The only question left is whether Australia replaces them with the cheapest option or the most expensive option. Tasmania knows where the opportunity lies—with our hydro assets, storage and critical minerals, which means jobs, security and investment for Australia and for our regions.

The Australian Energy Council's latest report says its members want a more honest and transparent narrative about the cost of the transition. Well, let's be honest and transparent. The Energy Council doesn't work for consumers; it works for the companies who profit when the transition slows down. And of course these companies are concerned about the speed of the transition, because every year we delay is another year that they can squeeze profits out of coal and gas. But slowing down the transition doesn't make power cheaper. It destroys our economy. It trashes our planet and locks households into expensive gas in a world that is rapidly moving on. Renewable energy is the future. Get with the program or get out of the way.

Let me bust some myths. Myth—renewables are expensive. Fact—every credible body, such as the CSIRO, AEMO and the Climate Council, says that wind and solar are now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in Australia by a mile. Wind and solar cost a fraction of new coal and gas. The Clean Energy Council's latest analysis shows that renewables are the cheapest path to lower bills, full stop. Myth—dependence on gas keeps energy prices stable. Fact—gas is a major driver of high bills. When global prices jump, Australian households feel it. Unlike gas, renewables don't link our domestic market to volatile international prices. Since Australia began exporting LNG, domestic gas prices have tripled, and power prices have doubled. Myth—the grid can't handle renewables. Fact—the grid can't handle ageing coal plants falling over. Renewables are predictable. The failures of ageing coal and gas are not. AEMO has been crystal clear that the fastest way to a reliable grid is more wind, more solar and more storage.

While we're busting some myths, let's talk about the coalition. Their abandonment of net zero is frankly embarrassing, and it is a betrayal of everyday Australians, who want cheaper bills and a clean energy future. They are trying to outdo Labor in defending fossil fuel corporations and locking us into decades of higher energy costs. Farmers don't want that. Households don't want that. Industry doesn't want that. Australians do not want that. You want transparency and truth. Well, here it is. Renewables are the cheapest, cleanest and most reliable path forward. The only thing standing in the way of that clean energy transition is a political class that is just too timid, too afraid to embrace that renewable energy transition, and an industry hoping like hell that we don't.

The government's continuing excuses for why their net zero agenda is not delivering lower power prices for the Australian people are wearing thin. They're wearing thin with the Australian people because constantly they get lectured that renewables are the cheapest form of power, that the government is investing in the lowest cost and that you'll get a $275 reduction in your power bill. And then your power bill turns up, and they keep going up and up and up. And now we have some of the highest electricity prices in the world despite having some of the best energy resources in the world, and there's no coherent explanation for why this is the case. The only thing now that the government resorts to is to effectively tell the Australian people not to believe your lying eyes. You can see your power bill go up every quarter. You can see our manufacturing industry being shipped offshore day after day, and yet the government continues to gaslight you—which is ironic, because they don't like gas—by saying, 'No, no, no, what we are doing is actually the cheapest way of delivering energy.' It's exactly not what the government's plan is at all.

The government continues now—or those who do support net zero—to be completely dishonest with the Australian people, and that is what this motion calls for. This motion calls for an honest debate about how much this so-called net zero transition will cost the Australian people. I just heard there from the previous speaker that the CSIRO says that renewables are the cheapest. They say not that at all. Their latest report says that in 2024—these are their latest numbers—coal is $111 a megawatt hour and a solar, wind and firm system is $116 a megawatt hour. They're the numbers. Now, in my maths, when I was at school, 111 was less than 116. So coal is the cheapest form of power—and note that I use the verb 'is', the present tense. In the present tense, in the present world, coal is the cheapest form of power, according to the CSIRO.

Now, I don't think we should just leave it to the likes of the CSIRO, because they've got things so wrong so often. So has AEMO. We hear, 'Let's listen to the Australian Energy Market Operator.' They've got it wrong, time and time again. I don't want to listen to the people who've got it wrong all the time; I want to listen to the workers out there who have lost their jobs in the nickel industry, in the plastics industry, in the urea industry—jobs that have all been shipped overseas since we started on this crazy agenda. When are we going to listen to them? I want to listen to the Australian families who can't afford to pay their bills anymore, not just because their electricity bills are going up but also because the cost of electricity flows through to the cost of everything. The Page Research Centre did a report earlier this year which showed that the increased costs of electricity in this country have also added $3,400 to the budgets of Australians through the extra costs of energy in producing groceries and moving yourself around this country. It is crippling our economy—this agenda that is putting the targeting of emissions reduction above all other goals.

I've always supported a reasonable reduction in our emissions, but I don't support it at the cost of destroying our economy—even at the cost, sometimes, of destroying our environment. This net zero agenda is now destroying koala habitats left, right and centre around our country, presumably and seemingly with no concern from those pursuing the agenda. It is just not working for the Australian people.

In terms of what the overall cost is, we know that a group called Net Zero Australia, a consortium of universities—the University of Melbourne, Princeton University and the University of Queensland—did an estimate of how much it's going to cost to get to net zero, and this is from the media release that was released by the University of Melbourne:

The cost of the transition is estimated at around $7-9 trillion invested in domestic energy and industrial infrastructure by 2060, around six times the business-as-usual amount.

Six times! And how much is $7 trillion to $9 trillion? Well, that is more than $250,000 for every Australian. Has there been an honest debate from those pushing net zero? Is it worth every Australian, on average, having to lose resources equivalent to $250,000 per person in this country—six times what it would cost to simply deliver energy like we have before? This is from people who support net zero; they're not against it. All these universities support it, and that's the estimate they put on it.

But we haven't had any economic modelling from the government about their targets and how much they're going to cost the Australian people. Net zero is costing Australians an arm and a leg, and it's about time we had a commonsense debate about it and a more reasonable option for the Australian people.

I rise because, once again, we're in a position where the coalition want to try and lecture Australians about affordability and honesty in the energy transition, as if they have an ounce of credibility left on this topic, as they claim, as they come in here with a straight face and say that there needs to be a much more honest conversation about the cost of transition. Well, let's talk about that honesty, shall we? Let's talk about the transparency of that. Let's talk about who really put Australians in this position, because the truth, on that matter, is very simple.

The biggest costs to our energy system, and the ones that households keep paying for, are from the decade of denial, delay and dysfunction delivered by those opposite. For 10 long years, the coalition ignored experts, ignored industry, ignored the science and ignored absolutely every warning about clinging to ageing coal-fired power stations, while the rest of the world was moving on. The previous speaker, Senator Canavan, loves to have his fantasies about coal. They left Australia dangerously overexposed to those global energy shocks. They left our grid old, fragile and expensive to run; they left us unprepared, and Australians have been paying the price ever since this has been happening. Now, after all the damage that was caused, the coalition have not just walked away from net zero altogether; they've run away from it.

The big, lashing tail of the coalition over there, the Nats, have told the Liberal Party, 'Leave net zero and run in the opposite direction away from that.' They didn't just fail to deliver on a transition; they've now abandoned even pretending to try, which is absolute lunacy. They're the only major political force in the country arguing that Australia should turn its back on the economic opportunities—I see senators from One Nation who'll get up and have a crack in a minute—the cheaper power and the global investment that net zero brings. This is not a plan. It's written on the back of an envelope or a napkin somewhere. That's what they presented to the Australian public. Now the coalition wants to posture as the champions of honesty on power bills. Let me be absolutely crystal clear: every bill spike, every coal breakdown and every bit of energy pain that Australians still feel traces back to their decade of climate infighting—22 policies, I think it was, Senator O'Sullivan.

The Australian Energy Council, representing those companies that run the power system, could not be clearer. They say that the least cost, lowest impact pathway is a grid dominated by renewables and firmed with batteries, gas and pumped hydro. They say that there is broad alignment across industry, contrary to what you hear from that side of the chamber. There is actually broad alignment and that industry want that energy mix that is required to ensure that surety for Australians. They say that Australia's transition is irreversible; there's no turning back—this fantasy that's been built up over there in a little puff of smoke. They say replacing ageing coal with renewable energy is not costless but is still much cheaper in the long run than just investing in more coal. There is no appetite for investment to keep coal-fired power stations. That is the clear message. They say that governments must provide certainty and stability in order to keep energy affordable. That certainty is exactly what the coalition destroyed when they were in power.

There are a couple of points I wanted to make. Senator Dowling gave you all the statistics that you need, but the wholesale electricity prices fell by one third last quarter, and we want to see this flowing through to retail bills soon. The energy experts are united. AEMO says that renewable energy firmed with storage and backed by gas is the lowest cost way to power Australia. The AEMC warns that delaying renewable generation and transmission will put upward pressure on those electricity costs. We need to ensure that renewables push prices down in the future, and policy chaos delivered by those opposite will only push prices up.

One Nation has been clear: the cost of Labor and the Liberals' net zero experiment has been too great for Australian families and for Australian jobs. Now even the peak body for big energy companies, the Australian Energy Council, is admitting this and stating that we need a more honest and transparent public conversation about the real cost of this net zero madness. This should be ringing alarm bells in this place. For years, families, farmers and manufacturers have been told to swallow the rapid renewables rush and trust that cheaper power would magically follow, and it has not. The energy companies' own CEOs now admit that prices are set to keep climbing as billions are poured into renewables, more transition lines and more bureaucracy, but Australians do not see a transition; they see electricity bill shock.

Bills are in the thousands before they even turn on the heater for winter or the aircon for summer. Families are struggling, pensioners are being forgotten and small businesses are being smashed. For a cafe in the Illawarra, it is a choice between keeping the lights on or making a staff cut. For families in the Hunter and many families across Australia, this is a choice between groceries, fuel or their children's sporting fees. Australia's largest aluminium smelter is now asking whether it can keep the doors open beyond 2028, because it cannot lock in affordable energy. This is 1,000 jobs and livelihoods on the line. These are real people. If the company producing such a big share of our aluminium can no longer make the numbers work, the problem isn't Tomago; the problem is net zero. And what One Nation has been saying for years is simple: you cannot run our country on slogans and wishful thinking. Energy policy should begin with three non-negotiables. It needs to keep the lights on, keep the bills down and keep Australian jobs here. And we will give reminding this place that it is long past time this parliament stopped selling fairytales and started telling Australians the truth.

I too rise to speak on this MPI moved by my friend and colleague from Western Australia, Senator Dean Smith. It really does bell the cat when those opposite and their fellow travellers in the Greens stand up and say, over and over and over again, that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power. Meanwhile, every month, when people, individuals and businesses receive their energy bills, they see prices going up and up and up. And now we see from the supposed experts—those that those opposite claim to follow—that these power price increases could go on for at least a decade. But they've been saying that this transition was going to deliver cheaper power for years. Now, we have to wait another decade. How can you trust this government?

Let me give three examples from WA, Senator Smith. You will be very interested in these examples. I've got the evidence here, and I've met with these businesses just in the last week. Firstly, there's a small supermarket in the suburb of Maddington. The owner has got his bills and provided me with them. There's been an increase of 20 per cent off peak and 36 per cent on peak. Think about that. That is going to the grocery prices of every Western Australian who shops in that store and all those stores across WA who have seen the same ratcheting up of power prices. Those are increases in electricity prices of 20 per cent off peak and 36 per cent on the peak in a small supermarket in the suburb of Maddington in Western Australia. That is adding to every Western Australian's cost of living.

Let me give you a second example, this one in regional WA. The power bills of a food processor—not a huge food processor by any stretch of the imagination, but they are a high-energy user—have gone up from just over $2,000 dollars a day to $4,300 per day. That's from just over $2,000 to 4½ dollars per day. Think about what that is doing to the cost of their product. It's extraordinary. And those opposite say, 'But renewables are the cheapest form of power.' Wait a sec—we've had renewables as an increasing part of the grid for at least the last 20 years. Every year for the last 20 years we've had more renewables than the year before. Those opposite and their fellow travellers in the Greens have said it's the cheapest form of power, and yet every year we've seen prices go up. Here we have it: a 36 per cent increase in the peak rate of power.

I'll give you a third, much smaller example of a potato producer in the south-west of Western Australia who I was talking to last week. He runs irrigation off electricity and runs a small coolroom. His power bills have gone up $20,000 over the course of a year. That's $20,000 for a small, family food producer in the south-west of Western Australia. Think about what that is doing. Think about the combined impact of those three businesses I have just talked about. All of them have an increasing exposure to solar and wind—and batteries to a lesser degree—and yet their power prices have gone up by 36 per cent, by $20,000 a year and by well over $2,000 per day in each of those three examples. This is what Labor's ideological drive to net zero is doing to the Australian economy. This is what it is doing to small and medium sized businesses in Western Australia. It's taking a wrecking ball to our productivity. It's taking a wrecking ball to our international competitiveness. This cannot go on. We will not have an economy in this country if Labor keeps the reins for too much longer.

The time for discussion has expired.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McKim, which is also shown at item 12 of today's Order of Business:

The need for the government to rein in property investor tax breaks and to direct APRA to rein in record high investor lending, both of which are driving up house prices and out-competing first home buyers.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the government to rein in property investor tax breaks and to direct APRA to rein in record high investor lending, both of which are driving up house prices and out-competing first home buyers.

One-third of the most unaffordable cities to live in on Earth are in Australia. This is not the medal we want to be winning. The latest global housing affordability index lists five Australian capital cities in its top 15 least affordable—Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth. When first home buyers spend their weekends getting outbid by property investors and when renters line the block for a chance to spend more than half their weekly income to keep a roof over their heads, this Labor government continues to hand out $181 billion in tax breaks for already wealthy property investors.

Over the last year, investor lending has increased by 12.3 per cent, while first home buyer lending has increased by less than one per cent. ABS data shows that $40 billion has been loaned to wealthy property investors in just three months. The system is rigged for investors, not for ordinary buyers, and, as a result, ownership rates for young people are plummeting. The government has the power to address this. It should direct the banking regulator, APRA, to rein in this record high investor lending so that first home buyers actually stand a chance.

APRA has done this before, and it worked. We saw house price growth stabilise in a way that we haven't for the last 30 years. The government should also scrap the $181 billion in tax perks that are given to landlords, which tip the scales massively in favour of wealthy property investors. Adding fuel to the absolute dumpster fire that is the housing crisis is Labor's five per cent deposit scheme. October 2025 saw the fastest increase in housing prices in more than two years. Coincidentally, that's also when Labor's five per cent deposit scheme kicked in.

The banks are loving it, though. Increased house prices and bigger debts means that they will make even more profits off of people's debt and people's pain. They were already on track to make $30 billion in profits this financial year. It is absolutely obscene. By refusing to tackle the root causes of the housing crisis, the tinkering around the edges from this gutless government has only inflated property prices further, locking even more people out of homeownership. Without urgent action, first home buyers don't stand a chance.

The major parties are in lockstep. They've created a system that makes the big banks and the property developers billions at the expense of a whole generation of young people. It shouldn't be easier to buy your fifth home than it is to buy your first, but, right now, that's what the case is. You should be able to buy a home on an average salary, but, right now, you can't.

These are not radical suggestions; they are common sense. The solutions already exist, and they work around the world. It starts with ending the special treatment for ultrawealthy property investors over first home buyers. We could cap and freeze rents and make sure that renters have real rights so that no-one has got to live in a mould ridden home without proper heating or cooling. We could actually build more public and affordable homes with a publicly owned property developer to build them at cost, not for profit. The housing crisis is no accident. It's been created by successive governments outsourcing to the private market, and the Greens will keep fighting to make sure that everyone is able to get and keep a roof over their heads.

I don't think the Australian people are silly. I think the Australian people know that there are gimmicks being offered by this government which will never solve this housing crisis. Of course, the only way to solve the housing crisis is to build more homes. The Australian people know that we have a larger population than we have ever had, and the Australian people have noticed that there is a massive collapse in the number of houses. The government, after having promised to spend $60 billion on housing, has delivered more people but fewer houses. That's right—more people than ever but fewer houses.

It's hard to believe that $60 billion could be lost in Labor bureaucracy, but that's the bill that Australians are having to pay. We see the collapse in completions, from an average of 200,000 houses a year, which is what the government inherited, down to 170,000 houses a year now—30,000 houses a year less. Then we have this magnificent flagship, the Housing Australia Future Fund—10 billion bucks, two years of operation and, so far, maybe a handful of houses. We don't know, because it's a very secretive fund. But we do know, because Senator Gallagher told us at Senate estimates, that the fund has bought 340 homes. In fact, the language that Senator Gallagher used was that they had 'acquired and converted' these properties. This is a fund that is literally buying properties that the Australian people themselves could—to use the good senator's words—acquire on their own, so the Australian people are now competing with the government in the market. Having failed to build the houses, they're now buying the houses.

When you look at the contracts that have been signed by this Housing Australia Future Fund, in some cases they are paying up to $1.3 million per dwelling. That is the cost of their new build. The average cost of a new build is about half a million dollars, so why are they paying $1.3 million? Housing Australia is a very inefficient agency. It is spending millions of dollars on consultants, but what it is also doing is funding big investors. It is underwriting the profits of big investors—the big super funds. All the Labor Party's best mates are getting a huge amount of money out of this scheme. The answer to the $1.3 million question is: Labor's mates. They have to pay all these people. All these crooked people have to be paid with taxpayer funds in order to get these properties built. You wouldn't trust the housing fund to build a dunny. So far: two years, 10 billion bucks, a handful of houses, maybe, most of them having been bought—it's been a disaster.

Then we have the five per cent deposit scheme—the gimmick. Having failed on supply, they now want to inflict onto the Australian people a non-means-tested scheme without place caps, and what we've seen in the first month is the biggest increase in entry-level property prices in years. House prices are too high for first home owners in Australia. For the Labor Party to come into this chamber and say they've solved the housing problem—it's all fixed—with the five per cent deposit scheme is insulting. What they are doing is making it harder for first home owners, with their lumbering 95 per cent mortgages. The reality is that these policies of bureaucracy and gimmicks are only making the Australian dream disappear for younger Australians. It has been an absolute disaster so far.

I understand why people are fired up about housing. I'm a young Australian. My group chats are basically divided between memes, TikToks and friends panic-sending property listings they can't afford, so when the Greens bring forward a matter of urgency on housing I hear the emotion behind it, but we also have to be clear-eyed about what actually fixes the problems. That starts with facts, not just vibes.

Let's start with APRA. This motion talks like investor lending is something the government can just turn off. APRA is independent. It exists so that politicians don't meddle with lending standards and the financial system stays stable. Last week, APRA released its system risk outlook. They assessed the Australian financial system as stable, resilient and well placed to absorb shocks. They noted that lending standards overall remain sound but that some higher risk behaviour is ticking up. APRA has already said that they're monitoring these risks and will begin to tighten lending standards if needed. That's how it should work: not politicians dictating interest rates from the Senate chamber but experts making informed and considered decisions. I know it is tempting to yell 'Stop investors now!' like it's the whole solution to housing affordability, but if we destabilise the system then young people will be the first to pay the price.

I'll now move to the big issue: housing supply. The quickest way to not build the homes people need is to do what the coalition did—nothing. In the 10 years they were in government, they delivered just 373 social and affordable homes. The coalition did nothing, delivered even less and are still fighting tooth and nail to stop us from doing what's right. The Greens have never delivered a thing and spend their time trying to stop any real action. Labor have built 5,000 social and affordable homes, and we have another 25,000 in the pipeline. They're real projects, real sites and real roofs over real people's heads. I wish that we could say that we did this with bipartisan support, but, no: we've had the coalition and the Greens teaming up like the world's oddest couple to block us at every turn.

Last month, the Treasury secretary said that some of the ongoing challenges are due to legislation being held up. Meanwhile, dwelling commencements grew by 9.2 per cent through June 2025. That's a huge turnaround, especially when you remember that they were falling by almost 29 per cent the last time the coalition was in charge. Dwelling investment grew to 4.8 per cent compared to going backwards when this government came to office. New builds are rising, not falling. We're not just building more homes; we're helping young Australians get into them. Our five per cent deposit scheme means that every first home buyer can now get in the door sooner, without spending a decade only eating mee goreng and skipping coffees to scrape together a deposit. Since coming to office, we've already supported 197,000 Australians into homeownership through this program alone. We're delivering the most ambitious housing agenda since the end of World War II. That's $43 billion to help build more homes, give renters a better deal and help more young people into homeownership. The challenges are big—no-one denies that—but we're actually doing the work.

Housing affordability is not just about supply; it's also about the cost of living. We're delivering three rounds of personal income tax cuts—one last year, one next year and another after that. More than a million Australians on lower incomes will be exempt from the Medicare levy or continue to pay a reduced rate. From next year, Australians will get a $1,000 instant tax deduction for work-related expenses, helping 5.7 million people keep more of what they earn. We're also using tax to boost housing supply by introducing new tax breaks that will help build 80,000 new rental properties. That is a real impact, and we're not stopping here. We're increasing super for low-income workers, cracking down on multinational tax avoidance and supporting small businesses. In short, it's a tax system that actually supports young Australians instead of making life harder.

Unlike some in this chamber, we don't pretend there is a single magic bullet. Instead we are pulling every lever available—supply, planning reforms, tax incentives, modular builds, the Housing Australia Future Fund, Help to Buy, the five per cent deposit scheme and more. It's not glamorous, it's not a slogan— (Time expired)

I rise to respond to this motion, which yet again speaks to the stunning economic illiteracy of the Australian Greens. Almost three million Australian households are rented, and 80 per cent or more of those are privately rented. Without private property investment, all of these people have nowhere to live. There are about two million private property investors in Australia. The Greens and Labor have routinely scapegoated these investors as greedy real estate tycoons in a failed attempt to hide their own complicity in our national housing crisis. However, the fact is 75 cent of these investors only own one investment property. Another 19 per cent of them only own two.

Among these investors are Greens who sit in this parliament, including Senator McKim himself. I'm confident Senator McKim doesn't consider himself a greedy property tycoon. Such is the case with almost every Australian property investor. These are everyday Australians who have sacrificed and saved to make an investment for a more secure future. In doing so they are providing homes for Australians who would otherwise not have somewhere to live. They are providing the accommodation that governments can't and shouldn't. In Senator McKim's home state of Tasmania, there are barely 5,000 public dwellings for an estimated 50,000 renters. Across the country, there are about 452,000 public dwellings, well short of the almost three million needed to meet current demand. It's these same investors who are accommodating everyone else. We should not only acknowledge and be grateful for these Australian investors; we should be giving them incentives rather than winding them back as Senator McKim would have us do.

Not every Australian wants to own their own home. Many are perfectly happy to rent for the flexibility and mobility it can provide, even in Labor's housing crisis. Australian investors meet this need. What these investors need are governments which understand that, with every intervention they make in this market, they only create more problems and bump up the price of housing. Of the sectors of the economy in which the government makes interventions, the three most prominent are labour, housing and energy, and never have these three things been more expensive in Australia than they are today.

Investment incentives like capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing are a concession to this reality. That's why One Nation supports them in principle. One Nation has better solutions to get Australians into homes than scapegoating the investors who provide homes. First and foremost, we'll do what most Australians have said they want, while every other party in this place ignores them: we'll end mass migration. We'll bring the numbers down to about 130,000 a year to give Australia a much-needed breather so we can catch up with housing supply.

Even better for housing availability, we'll ban foreign ownership of residential property. We'll give all foreign investors sufficient time to put their properties on the market so it does not unduly impact prices. It's easy to implement: just require any vendor or agent to see proof of Australian citizenship before allowing a sale. This will free up thousands of homes for Australians to buy as investments or as residences. There are other countries which have done this in recent years to address their own housing crises, including Canada and New Zealand. It's time for Australia to take the same steps.

APRA is an independent regulator responsible for the prudential safety of banks and other regulated entities, as well as financial system stability. As the independent regulator, APRA is responsible for setting requirements for these entities, including management of financial and non-financial risks to ensure these financial institutions and the systems overall remain safe and stable. I thought it was important to say that upfront because the motion talks about directing APRA, and it's important to say that they are independent.

When it comes to housing in this country, the stats speak for themselves. Since the Albanese Labor government was elected in 2022, we have built 5,000 social and affordable homes, and there are another 25,000 in the pipeline. Housing is a life-defining challenge for millions of Australians. That's why we have a huge agenda that focuses on building more homes and making it easier for everyday Australians to buy their own home too. In their decade in office, the coalition managed 373 social and affordable homes. There isn't an extra number in there; it is just 373 social and affordable homes. Their mates in the Greens political party have never delivered a thing.

We're building more homes for Australians, and we're doing it despite the best efforts of the coalition and the Greens to block us at every opportunity they get. Every time we've tried to bring something into this chamber to make it easier for Australians to get into their own homes or build more homes, we've seen the coalition team up with the Greens to block it. On this side of the chamber, we recognise that housing is one of the defining challenges in our economy. We've set ambitious targets, and we're backing that effort in with $43 billion in new investment to increase supply and help more first home buyers get into their first home—that's $43 billion. Our efforts are seeing the construction sector pick up, too. I know how important this is for tradies, right across Victoria and the country. We're doing a bunch of things to grow more tradies and get more people on the tools to be able to build the homes that Australians need. Building approvals are growing at 8.4 per cent now, and, let's just remember, they were going backwards by 21.6 per cent when we came to office. That is not a small number; 21.6 per cent is what we were going back by.

We're also helping Australians get into the housing market sooner, with our five per cent deposit scheme, which was expanded to all first home buyers on 1 October. Since coming to office, the Albanese Labor government has supported 197,000 Australians to buy a home with the five per cent deposit scheme. That's pretty life changing for those 197,000 Australians. We're also acting to make sure the tax system is working to help with housing supply, with new tax breaks passed in 2024 to support the construction of around 80,000 new homes to rent.

These are all part of the government's substantial agenda on tax, including boosting the superannuation savings of more than a million low-income workers while making superannuation concessions for people with very large balances fairer and more sustainable. We're delivering on a fairer, simpler and more sustainable tax system to support Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn.

We recognise that we've got a housing crisis in this country that has been generations in the making. From our very first day coming into government, we absolutely have taken that challenge with both hands and worked every day to address the challenge that is before us. We know that there is a long way to go, and housing is still really tough, but we're making good progress. We know that supply and demand are linked. We need to do the things to build more homes, and we need to have the policies to make sure that people can realise their dream of owning their own home too. It is only a Labor government that's going to make that dream a reality for millions of Australians.

I rise to speak to this matter which is clearly an issue of public urgency—the need to rein in tax breaks that are overheating our housing marking and to work to see APRA cut investor lending, as it has historically. The truth is simple in relation to housing in this country—if this government put people first and exercised every possible tool in the toolbox, this housing crisis could be dealt with.

We could assist those many thousands of Australians—so many of them young people—feeling enormous anxiety about their opportunity to ever get into homeownership. Instead, we see a tsunami of investor activity distorting the very purpose of housing in this country. Instead of homes giving people shelter and safety, housing is being treated as a speculative investment vehicle. It has been turned into an asset for wealth accumulation. It's no longer the key first plank of economic security in our country—that is, a roof over your head—and it's getting worse.

Investor loans have reached a record high this year. They now account for more than 40 per cent of total new loans, up from just 25 per cent in 2020. When investor demand outpaces owner-occupier demand like this, you don't just get more buyers; you get a bidding war. First home buyers are losing, and they are feeling it every weekend in every city and too many towns across our country. This surge in investor demand doesn't just push prices up; it locks in expectations of future growth and fuels ever more speculative buying. House prices are now forecast to rise by nine per cent next year, and that's on top of six per cent already this year. This is causing enormous anxiety across our country for young people.

Labor is making things worse. Labor's policies are exacerbating the problem. Their five per cent deposit scheme, designed to be an assistance to first home buyers, is now unleashing a wave of first home buyers and investors competing for the same small group of properties, driving up the price of housing in October alone by more than one per cent. This is not just an economic imbalance; it's a moral one, because housing is a human right. Having a roof over your head is a human right. It's critical to having a safe life and a base from which to work, to build a family and to have a community. First home buyers simply don't stand a chance in a market that's rigged in favour of wealthy, tax-subsidised investors.

We have tools in our toolbox to deal with this—and we must—and APRA is holding some of them. APRA has intervened before. Between 2014 and 2018 it put the handbrake on investor lending growth. In this crisis, that's a tool we need right now. That period saw more loans flow to owner-occupiers, and prices stabilised to the slowest period for house price growth in over 30 years. It worked, and we can do it again. We can stabilise house price growth through actions like the possibilities available to APRA, and this urgency motion calls for exactly that.

We need the Treasurer to direct APRA to reinstate tighter macroprudential controls on investor lending before prices get even further out of control. We cannot simply leave it to market forces when they are manifestly failing. We can't leave it to the banks, who are profiting from a reckless amount of high-risk investor lending, including through trusts and other devices that avoid the lending buffer and feed the bubble.

At the same time, we must address the unfair tax system—the billions in tax breaks flowing to property investors through negative gearing and the capital gains discount. These are enormous distortions in our market. They must be reined in. We must make sure housing returns to being a roof over the head, not a way of accumulating wealth by very wealthy people who, in so many cases, already own multiple homes. If we do not act, we condemn another generation to being renters for life—to being locked out while the wealthy investors keep investing and receiving enormous tax breaks to buy more and more property.

Question negatived.

On behalf of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, I table the 2025 Annual Statement on Developing Northern Australia, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

A strong north means a strong Australia. Together with the Minister for Northern Australia, Madeleine King; and one of the territory's strongest advocates, special envoy and member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, we are working to secure the prosperity and security across this great region. It is a privilege to represent such a dynamic and diverse part of our country, and it's a privilege to be part of this northern Australia team in a government that is continuing to unlock some ambitious and promising opportunities for the north.

From our Future Made in Australia agenda, our investments in green energy to deliver important water infrastructure and the recent landmark critical minerals deals with the US, we are doing the heavy lifting in a range of key areas to ensure that our country continues to grow, we create jobs and prosperity in the north, and we protect our natural environment. But with this is an acknowledgement that there is still more work to do to ensure that we truly grasp these opportunities and deliver lasting, meaningful impacts on our communities. Last year, Minister King launched our government's Northern Australia Action Plan. Today, Minister King delivered the Annual statement on developing northern Australia and also released the annual progress report on the action plan, outlining our government's achievements across six policy priority areas.

This report shows that we are activating the northern economy, driving growth across agriculture, tourism, critical minerals and renewable energy. We are investing in infrastructure to unlock growth, including road, rail, port and digital connectivity projects. Here are just a few of those important projects. We're delivering $7.2 billion to improve safety on the Bruce Highway. Work has officially started on Queensland's beef roads through Central Queensland with $400 million from our government and another $100 million from the state government. There is $1.1 billion going to the Tanami Road Upgrade across WA and the NT. And, of course, work continues on the Outback Way across all three of the northern jurisdictions. This is on top of investment into a number of regional airports in the north, which are such critical lifelines for communities.

Our government has always valued and understood the NBN and the community's expectations for decent, reliable digital connectivity, which is why we've invested in programs like our Regional Connectivity Program and the Regional Roads Australia Mobile Program. We are also boosting safety and building national security through upgrades to defence bases in the north. Across five key defence projects, $1.77 billion is estimated to have been delivered to date—with a further $749 million in the next financial year. We are protecting the north's unique environment and cultural heritage, with First Nations aspirations at the heart of this work.

So much of our incredible beauty and diversity is in our northern landscapes: the Great Barrier Reef, our wet tropics rainforest, Kakadu, Uluru and the Kimberley. These places all have enduring, deep connections to First Nations Australians, and improving the prosperity of First Nations peoples and communities is critical to the success of the northern Australia agenda. I would like to recognise the Northern Australia Indigenous Reference Group, led by Professor Martin Nakata. Along with Minister King and Senator the Hon. Malarndirri McCarthy, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, we are working with the group on practical actions to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the north.

We also announced today the continuation of the investment period of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. The NAIF is our government's main investment vehicle in northern Australia, and its investment period will be extended for another decade—until mid 2036. This comes after a review earlier this year into NAIF's operations, which found overwhelming support for this facility across business, industry, government and the public. The NAIF is proving effective in developing northern Australia. It now has a portfolio of 32 projects forecast to generate more than $33 billion in public benefit. Its supports across sectors extend to tourism and supporting infrastructure.

NAIF supported projects include airport upgrades at regional hubs like Darwin, Alice Springs, Rockhampton, Townsville, Cairns and Mackay. As well as supporting connectivity across northern Australia, these upgrades will also support air travel from the north to other parts of Australia and to our near neighbours in the Pacific, and they will help our government deliver on improved mobility opportunities between the Pacific and Australia under the Pacific-Australia Labour Mobility scheme.

There are 31,000 PALM workers in Australia. More than half of these workers are in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland. These workers make vital economic contributions to regional Australia and enrich the communities that they are a part of. The PALM scheme is also highly valued by Pacific countries and Timor-Leste. They're contributing to Australia's economy and also to their own families and communities back home.

Before I close, I would like to acknowledge some of our northernmost communities are currently feeling the impacts of Cyclone Fina. Cyclone Fina has spent the past few days travelling across the Top End, causing considerable disruption and damage in Darwin and surrounds. The cleanup is underway, and we'll no doubt learn more about the full extent of the damage in the coming days. Many residents and businesses remain without power and water. While northerners are no strangers to cyclones, it continues to be an anxious time. Fina has continued over the north of Western Australia. Our thoughts are currently with the WA communities, and we wish them safety in these next few hours. We recognise the incredible efforts of our emergency personnel and volunteers, who put so much of their lives on the line to protect our communities during these events.

Finally, I'd like to put on the record my thanks to the many stakeholders across the north who work every single day to make our region the very best that it can be. Since my appointment as the Assistant Minister for Northern Australia a few months ago, their openness and willingness to partner with me and our government more broadly as we work to progress the northern agenda has been absolutely incredible. I have been meeting with people, community organisations, businesses and industry leaders right across the north, not just in my hometown in Cairns but, of course, in Townsville, Mount Isa, Mackay, Rockhampton, Darwin and Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, as well as some of our closest neighbours in the Pacific, including PNG and Fiji. These conversations have highlighted both the immense potential and the shared challenges of our vast region. Senators in this place will well know I have a vested interest in this policy area. I call the north home. I have a three-year-old daughter who is growing up in the north. I am part of a connected community on country that is incredibly beautiful and diverse. I'm sure that I speak for others in here in the Senate today who live or are lucky enough to spend time in the north when I say it is a very, very special place. Our regional and rural communities each have a unique identity and sense of community. Our people of the north work hard and often in challenging conditions. Cyclone Fina is a reminder of this. Our government is committed to supporting them now and for many generations to come into the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Green. I'm sure we all wish everyone all the very best during this time.

I also, on behalf of my party, pass on our thoughts and concerns to our friends in the north. I was speaking to my colleagues in the Northern Territory, in Larrakia country, and it's been a pretty tough last few days for them. Of course, we all have an obligation to keep the climate safe for them. I rise to take note of the minister's report and comments, and, on behalf of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning systems and projects in aged care, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation and stakeholder meetings and engagements relating to the environment protection reform bills, relating to OPD 201, 223 and 233.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning systems and projects in aged care, I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of documents relating to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

In respect of documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning stakeholder meetings and engagements relating to the environment protection reform bills, I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

The President has received a letter nominating a senator to be a member of a committee.

by leave—I move:

That Senator David Pocock be appointed as a participating member of the Select Committee on Intergenerational Housing Inequity from the establishment of the committee on 17 March 2026.

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and 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—

1. An effective freedom of information system is critical in fostering public trust in government decision-making through transparency and access to information.

2. It enables citizens to understand more about why and how government decisions are made and, with that knowledge, participate more effectively in Australia's civic and democratic processes.

3. The freedom of information framework also importantly provides for individuals to seek access to their personal information held by Government.

4. The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) was established over 40 years ago, before the common use of electronic documents, digital communications and records in the workplace.

5. The rate and volume of electronic records generated today by public sector agencies would have been unimaginable when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced.

6. For example, the Department of Home Affairs' record holdings are approaching 1 billion records in its primary record-keeping system alone.

7. $86.2m was spent processing freedom of information requests in 2023-24, a 23% increase on the year prior.

8. The administrative impost of processing large and complex requests, or treating vexatious and frivolous requests with the same procedural rigour, can divert resources and risks inhibiting agencies from providing important and essential government services and delivering on reform priorities that would benefit all Australians.

9. The diversion of resources also means more genuine freedom of information requests and requests for access to personal information cannot be as readily prioritised.

10. In 2023-2024 alone, public servants spent more than one million hours processing freedom of information requests.

11. This is in part due to technology enabling large volumes of vexatious, abusive and frivolous requests—tying up resources, costing taxpayers money and delaying genuine requests. There is no reason to believe that this problem will not grow worse over time, particularly given the advancing capabilities of artificial intelligence.

12. The ability for freedom of information requests to be lodged anonymously also risks undermining the integrity of the framework, and in combination with new technology, creates risk vectors that could be exploited by offshore actors seeking government-held information for potentially nefarious purposes.

13. There are also a range of complex procedural and technical rules in the Freedom of Information Act that are undermining the efficiency of the system, without any corresponding benefit to freedom of information applicants, the Australian people or Australia's democracy.

14. This Bill aims to strengthen the freedom of information framework to address identified shortcomings in its operation, while ensuring government continues to provide access to information consistent with the original policy intent of the Act.

15. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the system is fit for purpose in 2025 and beyond—by upholding and promoting the core democratic principles that underpin freedom of information laws while, at the same time, addressing the issues that, in practice, undermine a more effective and balanced FOI framework.

The Bill

16. This Bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to reflect the modern environment. It will improve the freedom of information framework through reducing system inefficiencies, providing clarity of the law, and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information.

17. The Bill implements a number of recommendations of the 2013 Review of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (also known as the 2013 Hawke Review), which concerned, among other things, how to make the system more effective.

18. The Bill also makes consequential amendments to the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 and the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 to support the changes to the Freedom of Information Act.

Schedule 1 Scope and objects

19. Schedule 1 of the Bill makes foundational and definitional changes to ensure the Freedom of Information Act promotes both accountable and effective government, and to clarify the scope of requests for documents of an agency—including through minor amendments to the objects provision and ensuring that information on agency systems that concerns purely personal and non-work-related matters of staff are not captured in the definition of a 'document of an agency'.

Schedule 2 Access requests

20. Schedule 2 of the Bill makes amendments to streamline processes relating to access requests and to address abuse of the freedom of information system by vexatious and anonymous applicants. Amendments in this schedule include provisions that:

Schedule 3 practical refusals

21. The Act currently enables an agency or minister to refuse a request if a 'practical refusal reason' exists, such as where a request does not sufficiently identify the requested documents, or would cause a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.

22. Schedule 3 of the Bill makes amendments relating to the practical refusal mechanisms in the Bill. The provisions clarify the status of Information Commissioner reviews involving practical refusal decisions and implement a recommendation of the Hawke Review by introducing a discretionary 40-hour processing cap for freedom of information requests. This reflects that there needs to be an appropriate balance between an applicant's access rights and taxpayers' resources in providing such access.

Schedule 4 requests and review processes

23. Schedule 4 of the Bill makes amendments to streamline agency and Information Commissioner review and extension of time processes, and clarify the outcome of a freedom of information request decision made out of time. The amendments will:

Schedule 5 Information Commissioner reviews and complaints

24. Schedule 5 of the Bill makes amendments relating to Information Commissioner reviews and complaints to create administrative efficiencies for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. The amendments:

Schedule 6 Application fees

25. The Government has carefully considered options on how to deter frivolous and vexatious requests, while maximising accessibility of the system for genuine applicants.

26. All other Australian jurisdictions, apart from the Australian Capital Territory, have initial application fees for freedom of information requests.

27. This measure will aid in deterring frivolous requests, and ensure agency resources are not unduly diverted from processing genuine requests, particularly requests for personal information which account for the vast majority of overall requests.

28. Schedule 6 of the Bill will enable a fee to be specified in the regulations for freedom of information requests, internal reviews and Information Commissioner reviews.

29. The Government recognises the primacy of Australians having access to their personal information held by government. For this reason, an application fee would not apply to requests by an applicant for access to their own personal information, or an individual acting on behalf, and with the authority of, another individual for access to their personal information. FOI requests for personal information comprised 72 per cent of overall FOI requests in 2023-24. On these figures, up to 3 in 4 freedom of information requests would be exempt from any application fee.

Schedule 7 Exemptions

30. On introducing the Freedom of Information Act in 1981 under the Fraser Government, Senator Durack told the parliament that 'the general right of access' to information 'must, of course, be limited' for the 'protection of essential public interests'.

31. Schedule 7 of the Bill clarifies the operation of important exemptions in the Act consistent with the original policy intent to promote efficient handling of requests, including by:

32. To address a concern raised in the 2023 Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme report, the amendments would also make it absolutely clear that, merely labelling something a Cabinet document is not enough to make it a Cabinet document.

Schedule 8 Official Documents of a Minister

33. There has been a longstanding convention that new ministers should not make decisions on access to information relating to former ministers.

34. Schedule 8 of the Bill responds to a recent Federal Court decision by creating a practical, workable process for outgoing Ministers to facilitate access to information—while ensuring that, consistent with convention, new, incoming governments should not have access to policy and similar advice of the previous, outgoing government.

35. The amendments make provision for the treatment of freedom of information requests and review proceedings in circumstances where a Minister ceases to hold office or moves to a new portfolio.

Conclusion

36. This Bill provides important updates to the Commonwealth's Freedom of Information framework, with a focus on modernisation, reducing system inefficiencies and addressing abuse of processes that impact on people's right to access information.

37. It recognises the importance of a well-functioning system of information access, balanced with an efficient and effective government.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned until 3 December 2025.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

ENVIRONMENT INFORMATION AUSTRALIA BILL 2025

I now introduce the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025.

The 2020 Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, led by Professor Graeme Samuel AC found that Australia's environment data and information is fragmented and disparate, and that there are fundamental information gaps.

Unlocking impediments to data sharing and supply is a key component of Australia's environmental law reforms to enable better, faster decisions by government and business while protecting areas of high environmental value.

The Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 (the EIA Bill) would establish the statutory position of the Head of Environment Information Australia (HEIA), to provide national leadership for improving the availability and accessibility of high quality, national, environmental data and information, and ensuring that there is independent reporting and accountability for the state of the environment and our effectiveness in protecting and restoring it. Access to authoritative sources of high-quality environmental information is crucial for evidence-informed and targeted policy, project, investment and regulatory decision making.

Providing better, more readily available and useable data and reporting on the environment -its condition and the location of our nationally significant plants and animals—would underpin more streamlined and informed environmental decisions that reduce negative impacts, and increase positive impacts, on nature. This will restore transparency and confidence in environmental information and decision making.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (CUSTOMS CHARGES IMPOSITION) BILL 2025

I now introduce the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Customs Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.

The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.

Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (EXCISE CHARGES IMPOSITION) BILL 2025

I move this bill be now read a second time.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Excise Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.

The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.

Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.

I commend the Bill to the House.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (GENERAL CHARGES IMPOSITION) BILL 2025

I now introduce the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (General Charges Imposition) Bill 2025 would provide a framework to impose charges in relation to prescribed matters connected with the administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The specific activities for which charges will be imposed, and the amount of such charges, will be set out in the regulations.

The charges imposed under these bills will be limited to those charges (and amounts of charges) necessary for cost recovery purposes.

Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION (RESTORATION CHARGE IMPOSITION) BILL 2025

I now introduce the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 (the Restoration Charge Imposition Bill) would impose the following charges relevant to actions taken under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):

These charges relate to amendments to the EPBC Act proposed by the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 (the Bill).

Any arrangements will be consulted on prior to their imposition.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION REFORM BILL 2025

The case for reform

Labor is the party of the environment. It's Labor that has delivered every single major environment reform in Australia's history—Landcare, saving the Franklin, protecting the Daintree and Kakadu, building the largest network of Marine Parks in the world and meaningfully addressing the threat of climate change.

And now it's Labor that wants to reform our national environmental laws to ensure that we are protecting nature for generations to come.

The truth is our environment laws are broken.

They're not working for the environment, business, the economy or for the community.

That was the clear assessment delivered by Professor Graeme Samuel when he handed down his independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

A review that was delivered five years ago today to then Minister for the Environment.

And five years later where are we?

With laws that are enabling the decline of our precious natural environment. The iconic creatures and beautiful places that are fundamental to the Australian character.

They are also not facilitating the important projects we need—the housing, renewable energy, critical minerals we need for Australia's economic future.

This government has listened and the message is clear: we need change.

The law is broken. We have to fix it.

That's the challenge for everyone in this place now.

Because supporting this package of Bills will finally deliver the reforms to our environment laws that Australians have long demanded.

Our approach

Five years ago today the Samuel Review was handed down to the then Coalition Government, outlining a blueprint for reform.

A clear set of recommendations to fundamentally reform the way that environment impacts and approvals are managed in this country.

This Bill package remains faithful to our commitment to follow the spirit of the Samuel Review in reforming this legislation.

In crafting these reforms we have looked to three key pillars.

Firstly, stronger environmental protection and restoration—to not just look after our special places, but to restore and regenerate them for future generations.

Secondly, more efficient and robust project assessments and approvals, delivering a system which can better respond to big national priorities like the renewable energy transition, a future made in Australia and the housing that we need.

And finally, greater accountability and transparency in decision-making, so that all Australians can have confidence in these laws, including delivering our election commitment for Australia's National Environment Protection Agency.

Pillar 1: stronger environmental protection and restoration.

The Samuel Review clearly articulated the necessity of better protecting the environment.

It found that "Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat."

There are a number of key new measures in these bills.

Environmental standards

The bill will deliver a new framework for national environmental standards, which would allow clear standards for critical environmental protection measures to be set out in regulations—this was the centrepiece of the Samuel Review.

Standards are aimed at delivering both improved environmental outcomes and better certainty for businesses through setting clear and enforceable expectations.

The Bill establishes the ministerial power to make national environmental standards which will be made in similar ways to other regulations.

Priority standards include those for Matters of National Environmental Standards and Offsets, with other standards including for First Nations Engagement and Data and Information to follow.

Draft priority standards will soon be available for consultation so that there is clarity on the direction of new protections before the passage of this legislation.

To ensure protections are not eroded over time, the standards framework includes a 'no regression' clause, meaning that standards cannot be changed or updated unless the new standard would deliver equivalent or improved environmental outcomes.

Unacceptable impacts

The EPBC Act currently includes a 'clearly unacceptable' category for decisions at the referral stage, however, the term unacceptable is undefined.

This was identified in the Samuel Review which found that "strong protections are needed for those matters most at risk of being lost, including clear rules about unacceptable impacts".

This Bill sets clear, upfront criteria for what constitutes an unacceptable impact to give clarity and certainty to business, while safeguarding our most precious natural assets.

It is designed to set a responsible standard, used in very limited circumstances, to protect those nationally protected matters that cannot ever be replaced.

Protection statements

A new ability to make protection statements will reduce ambiguity around what a decision-maker must consider during the approval of actions in protecting threatened species, providing greater clarity for proponents.

This results in strengthened protections for threatened species as well as more efficient decisions, meaning better environmental outcomes and faster assessments.

Stronger powers and penalties

The Samuel Review recognised that for some bad actors, breaching the law is just the cost of doing business.

This Bill package introduces tougher penalties and new compliance and enforcement powers to deter breaches and respond swiftly to serious environmental harm.

While we know that most proponents follow the law, we need modern, fit-for-purpose tools to respond to the most serious breaches.

The way to avoid these penalties is simple—follow the law, refer for assessment when appropriate and abide by the conditions of your approval.

Because once some things are gone, they are gone for good.

'Net gain'

This Bill ensures that projects must leave the environment better off by introducing the concept of 'net gain' for environmental offsets, a shift from the current rules threshold which is 'no net loss'.

This is also a clear principle from the Samuel Review.

Impacts to protected matters would need to be avoided and minimised, with residual significant impacts offset to leave the environment in a better state, than what was there in the absence of a project.

This will shift the dial towards avoided impacts and restoration and give our native populations the opportunity to regenerate, recover and become more resilient.

To support the shift in the offsets framework and deliver time savings for proponents, a new restoration contribution framework will be introduced. This framework will allow proponents to meet their obligations by either delivering their own offsets, by an upfront payment into a government restoration fund, or both.

The new Restoration Contributions Holder will be able to use the funds to strategically deliver offsets to have greater environmental benefits, including through pooling funds for similar impacts.

This approach is better for the environment and better for business.

Pillar 2: more efficient and robust decision-making

This Bill package recognises that a more efficient regulatory system is also needed to enable better, faster decisions.

We have heard loud and clear that assessments under the EPBC Act are unpredictable, take too long, and that the impacts of long approval timeframes are being felt across the economy.

These reforms address this challenge head-on.

Accreditation

Central to the Samuel Review were recommendations around reducing duplication between state and territory processes and Commonwealth processes.

While the Act currently enables assessments and approvals under the EPBC Act to be undertaken by states and territories under bilateral agreements, these agreements are inflexible, unresponsive and easily broken over time.

The Bill package seeks to improve the operation of bilateral agreements with states and territories, making the framework more responsive to change and more durable in the long term.

The changes will also ensure that state and territory processes accredited under bilateral agreements meet national environmental standards and have ongoing assurance mechanisms to ensure that environmental protection requirements are being met.

Ultimately, we want states and territories to be able to work with us towards less duplicative assessments, and ultimately, approvals while meeting our environmental standards.

Landscape scale approaches

In addition to increasing the efficiency of project-by-project approvals, we are focused on delivering proper landscape-scale approaches to environmental restoration and approvals.

Close cooperation between the Commonwealth, States and Territories is critical to aligning regulatory systems and implementing these important national reforms.

These reforms provide the potential for us to plan together, at a landscape scale, delivering better environmental outcomes and more certainty for proponents.

Bioregional planning provisions will also be improved to unlock better government-led planning and facilitate faster approvals.

By doing the work upfront to map areas of higher and lower biodiversity we can give certainty to industry and the community about where development can occur, while protecting areas of high environmental value.

This means that projects covered by a bioregional plan development zone will simply register to comply with the bioregional plan without needing to seek project level approval under the Act.

Bioregional plans will, at the same time, give clear signals about where development is inappropriate with conservation zones where certain activities can't be undertaken.

Strategic assessments will also be made more flexible and efficient, better enabling state or territory governments or a partner to gain a strategic assessment approval.

Streamlined assessment pathways

The reforms create faster and clearer environmental assessments through a new streamlined pathway for proponents who provide sufficient upfront information and design their proposals in line with the environmental and other requirements of this Bill.

It rationalises three existing pathways and is responsive to a recommendation of the Samuel Review.

The new pathway would reduce assessment and approval timeframes by 20 days, cutting the current 70-day statutory period to 50 days or less.

Analysis has shown that faster approvals through this pathway are estimated to save over half a billion dollars across the economy, and potentially as much as $7 billion.

Rulings

The Bill introduces a new power for ministerial rulings, assisting in the interpretation and clarity of decision making under the Act.

Rulings will clarify how laws, regulations or subordinate instruments apply in specific circumstances and would be made publicly available so that assessments are predictable, and everyone has visibility of how the law will be applied.

National interest pathways

A new national interest approval pathway would also be included in the Act to allow critical projects to proceed in the national interest under strict transparency conditions, even if they do not meet all environmental standards—responding to a recommendation in the Samuel Review.

It is designed to be used rarely, where projects are demonstrably in the national interest and require the Minister to publish a statement of reasons in support of the decision.

The reforms would also make the current national interest exemption a more responsive mechanism, particularly in emergency situations, like where roads need to be made safe following natural disasters.

Reconsiderations changes

This Bill package also addresses out-of-date reconsideration provisions—balancing environmental protection with certainty for industry.

These changes will include imposing a 28 day time limit for third parties to request a reconsideration of controlled action decision, while the action is under assessment, aligned with timelines for other administrative review provisions in the Act and increasing certainty for business.

Pillar 3: greater accountability and transparency in decision making

Finally, these reforms will deliver on the third pillar of the Government's environmental law reform agenda: greater accountability and transparency in environmental decision-making.

EPA

A cornerstone of this third pillar is the establishment of an independent National Environmental Protection Agency, through the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025.

This has been a Labor commitment at the past two elections, endorsed by the Australian people and will be delivered through this Bill.

This is a landmark step in restoring transparency and effectiveness in environmental governance.

I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge Labor Party members, particularly Labor Environment Action Network, who have advocated so strongly for this reform for many years. It will be a true Labor legacy—thank you.

The National EPA will be Australia's first national, independent environmental protection agency.

As a national environmental regulator, the National EPA would not duplicate the role of State and Territory EPAs.

By establishing a National EPA, we are creating a transparent, accountable, and unified regulator to oversee environmental protections.

The development of a National EPA model has been informed by extensive—indeed, years of engagement—with stakeholders.

Under current laws, decision-making on EPBC Act environmental assessments and approvals is the responsibility of the Minister, who is democratically accountable.

This will not change.

The National EPA will also have a wholly independent role as regulator of compliance and enforcement under the EPBC Act.

They will have access to stronger new powers, such as new Environment Protection Orders, and will be tasked with holding serious environmental rule breakers to account for the environmental harm they have caused.

Integrated regulatory functions, spanning compliance, enforcement, assessment, monitoring and auditing, would deliver a more consistent and effective approach for stakeholders and the regulated community.

The National EPA will also provide guidance and education to both businesses and the public, in order to raise awareness and pro-actively support compliance with environmental laws.

The EPA will also have an important role to play in ensuring compliance with the national standards through bilateral agreements, providing advice to the Minister about how accredited arrangements are complying with national standards, with the Minister ultimately responsible for signing off on accreditations.

EIA

Currently, we know that national environmental information is fragmented, inconsistent in quality, and difficult to access and use.

To solve this problem, the Environment Information Australia Bill 2025 would establish the Head of Environment Information Australia.

This is a new statutory position within the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, with a mandate to provide environmental data and information to the National EPA, the Minister, and the public.

The Head of the EIA will be tasked with transparently reporting on trends in the environment, collecting information and producing consistent tracking of the state of Australia's environment.

Better data means better, faster decisions by government and business while protecting areas of high environmental value.

Emissions disclosure

The Environment Protection Reform Bill requires proponents to disclose estimates for Scope 1 and 2 greenhouse gas emissions as part of the information requirements for a controlled action.

This will improve transparency and accountability for new developments under the Act and support the effective operation of the Safeguard mechanism, without duplicating it.

First Nations engagement in decision making

The reforms codify the involvement of First Nations people in environmental governance and decision making through the Indigenous Advisory Committee.

The reforms also create new statutory advisory functions for the Committee in the development of national environmental standards and in species listings and conservation planning.

Charges

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Restoration Charge Imposition) Bill 2025 provides a legislative framework for cost recovery arrangements of restoration contributions to support project approvals, bioregional planning and national interest approvals and exemptions.

These changes support a new robust offsets regime. This contributes to simplified and streamlined environmental assessment processes, reducing uncertainty and delay for proponents.

This Bill is one of four Imposition Bills that would establish a charging framework and provide for potential future appropriate cost recovery arrangements for environment matters under the EPBC Act, subject to the decision of government.

Administrative fixes

Finally, the Environment Protection Reform Bill introduces a range of administrative fixes to address duplicative or inefficient processes in the legislation.

This includes streamlining wildlife trade laws to align with international standards making permits more flexible and processes more efficient and making changes to reduce the need for separate approvals of offshore petroleum projects where regulations meet national standards, reflecting current practice under the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority strategic assessment.

The Bill would also refine the scope of the nuclear trigger to focus on radiological exposure, which will avoid unnecessary referrals for critical minerals projects which are encountering trace elements of radioactive material, while maintaining strict oversight of uranium and nuclear facilities.

Conclusion

This Bill package is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform our environmental laws.

We have been down this path before—under governments of both sides. We cannot afford to wait any longer.

This Bill is the product of work over many years by countless people, all of whom I know are keen to see this done.

It's a bill that clearly responds to the Samuel Review and balances the need for stronger environmental protections with the imperative to ensure Australia's prosperity and deliver the critical projects we need.

It would deliver on the expectations of Australians, for a system that is faster, fairer, and fit for the future.

And now everyone who has the privilege of representing their community or their state or territory has the opportunity to be part of the solution.

We can get this done, to deliver on what the Australian people put us here to do.

That is the priority of the Albanese government—and our door is open to make it happen.

Because every day we delay is a day our environment is degrading further.

And every day we delay is one we could be building the renewable energy and the housing we need for the future.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BILL 2025

I now introduce the National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025.

The National Environmental Protection Agency Bill 2025 would establish a statutory Commonwealth entity known as the National Environmental Protection Agency (National EPA). An independent environmental regulator is central to an Australia which is focussed on environmental protection, and the restoration of public accountability and trust. The National EPA would be Australia's first national, independent environmental protection agency with strong new powers and penalties to better protect and restore Australia's unique environment.

The National EPA Bill accompanies a suite of amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The amendments will deliver stronger protections and restoration for the environment, more efficient and robust project assessments to support our economy, and greater accountability and trust in decision-making.

I commend this Bill to the Chamber.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 24 March 2026.

I present the report of the education and employment legislation committee on the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025, together with accompanying documents.

I move:

That the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2026.

This motion refers the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 to a Senate committee for much-needed inquiry, review and report. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 are the first set of regulations made under the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. Those regulations are indeed very extensive. For example, they deal with the managing, storing and disposing of radioactive waste from the AUKUS submarine project at Osborne and Stirling; they include detailed regulations for the handling of radioactive waste from Australian submarines but also from US and UK submarines; and they also put in place, for the first time, very clear maps delineating where the first two nuclear waste dumps and nuclear-waste-processing facilities have been established under AUKUS.

One of those is in HMAS Stirling, on Garden Island just off Perth, and the regulations include the whole of the island in the declared zone, opening up the entirety of the island to the storage and processing of nuclear waste and AUKUS related activities. Of course, the great bulk of Garden Island is actually, at the moment, open to public access for activities such as fishing and barbecuing. Indeed, it is in many ways one of the most beautiful places off the coast of Perth and Fremantle for the boating and fishing community to enjoy and access. But, under these regulations, the entirety of Garden Island, including the beaches and picnic grounds that pepper, in particular, the northern part of the island, is declared within the zone. Not only that, but the regulations also clearly delineate the Osborne designated zone in the Osborne naval shipyard in South Australia and set out the boundaries where nuclear waste can be stored and processed and where AUKUS activities can happen.

The map for HMAS Stirling covers not only all of the island but the access point for HMAS Stirling, and the map for Osborne is pretty much a huge arc of land and also stretches a significant way out into the water just outside the naval shipyard. What did the government do to alert the communities of Osborne and Perth that they'd made these declarations and maps and excluded so much of the waters surrounding Stirling and so much of the waters surrounding Osborne? What did they do to tell the public about it? Nothing. They published them in some regs where, even on the most accessible public register, you couldn't find the maps. Not only are the maps inaccessible but nobody was told that the regulations had been made; they were just quietly published on the legislative website with no prior notification.

How did the regulations come to be? The regulations came to be because this government decided to have, effectively, a secret inquiry into the proposed regulations. Submissions were sought and obtained from the public, but the government has refused to publish the submissions. They've just totally refused to publish the submissions. Not only have they refused to publish the submissions; they have refused in any way to deal with what we know were very substantial concerns raised by the community about the extent of these regulations. I know this because a number of entities have themselves publicly provided their submissions. A number of those entities are First Nations groups, environment groups, peace groups and antinuclear groups. They've pointed out how the government was proposing in its regulations to override not just laws to store nuclear waste in WA and South Australia, on the sides of Stirling and Osborne; the government was proposing in its initial draft for the regulations to override a raft of other state and territory laws that relate to radiation safety and radiation protection.

Obviously, communities in the Northern Territory which have been fighting nuclear waste dumps don't want to see the NT provisions and protections overridden. Communities in my home state of New South Wales don't want to see the laws protecting them from harmful radiation overridden. Communities in Queensland, Victoria, WA, South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the NT all want their governments to have on the laws tough provisions to protect them from the dangers of radiation. But what do these regulations do? What do the regulations under this AUKUS bill do? In relation to nuclear waste and nuclear materials produced under the AUKUS project, they literally allow every existing state and territory law that regulates harmful radiation and nuclear activities to be just overridden.

I will give you a list of the laws that are overridden to allow the defence department to basically declare anywhere in the country a nuclear waste dump, ignore state and territory laws and dump the waste or do the processing there. The Labor government, with these regulations, has overridden the following state and territory laws on nuclear safety and protection from radiation. They have overridden the Protection from Harmful Radiation Act 1990 in New South Wales, the Radiation Act 2005 in Victoria, the Radiation Safety Act 1999 in Queensland, the Nuclear Activities Regulation Act 1978 in WA, the Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 in WA, the Radiation Safety Act 1975 in WA, the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 in South Australia, the Radiation Protection and Control Act 2021 in South Australia, the Radiation Protection Act 2005 in Tasmania, the Radiation Protection Act 2006 in the ACT and the Northern Territory's Radiation Protection Act 2004. Labor is overriding all of these with, effectively, a secret set of regs that got published on a hard-to-find website with no public notification. All of these state and territory laws protecting their communities from radiation have just been overridden for the purpose of AUKUS nuclear waste and AUKUS nuclear storage. They've all been totally overridden. And did I mention that this government has refused to produce the public submissions that were made in relation to it? This is an extraordinary act of arrogance and hubris from the Albanese government.

So of course the Greens are asking that these regulations be referred for an inquiry—an open, public Senate inquiry—so that the people of Victoria can have a say about whether or not they think it's right that the Radiation Act in Victoria has been overridden to allow AUKUS waste to be dumped anywhere in Victoria and so that the people in my home state of New South Wales can have a say about whether or not the important Protection from Harmful Radiation Act can be overridden to dump nuclear waste in Port Kembla, Newcastle or wherever the Albanese government wants to dump its waste and open another new nuclear facility.

I can tell you right now that the people in Port Kembla, in the Illawarra, are close to an open revolt against this government because of its plans to whack an east coast nuclear submarine base in their country, in Port Kembla. So we now understand that the Albanese government are looking for a second target site and are thinking that maybe they can squeeze it into Newcastle, and that beautiful Awabakal and Worimi land, in Newcastle, is now being sized up and measured for a US nuclear submarine base and US, UK and Australian nuclear waste. I can tell you now that the people of the Hunter don't want the Albanese government suspending the New South Wales Protection from Harmful Radiation Act so that they can have a nuclear waste dump foisted on them, and they want to have a say in that.

But this government—the Labor Party—and the coalition, the war parties in this place, don't want the public to have a say on AUKUS. They don't want the public to have a say on whether or not their community should be saddled with a nuclear waste dump jam packed with Donald Trump's nuclear waste. So they push it through in some secret regs. Well, we're saying: give people around the country a right to a fair hearing, at least on this aspect of AUKUS. Let's have a proper hearing into these so-called nuclear power safety regulations, which are really just nuclear waste facilitation regs. Have a proper say.

What is the government afraid of—that people around the country will actually say what they think about AUKUS and that they'll say they actually think Donald Trump is one of the least trustworthy leaders on the planet? They'll probably point out that he is right now ratting out Ukraine, which the US government encouraged in their resistance—now, when the going gets tough, he's going to just rat out Ukraine—that he is pulling away from European allies, that he is threatening to go to war with and invade NATO allies and that he is a totally untrustworthy security partner. Are you afraid you're going to hear the people of Australia say that and say, 'Why on earth are you entering into a five-decade-long agreement with a totally erratic, increasingly dictatorial and undemocratic regime like the Trump regime?' Are you afraid that they're going to tell you that? Because they probably will, and they'll probably tell you that they think it's absolutely bonkers to spend $375 billion on a handful of nuclear submarines whose main purpose is to draw us into the next US war with China and that they'd rather you didn't do that and that they'd rather you spent $375 billion on schools, hospitals, dealing with the climate crisis and engaging with our neighbours openly.

That's probably why the war parties don't want an inquiry into these regs—because the public, when they get a chance to tell you what they think, will say that they think this AUKUS thing is a bloody big scam where we give billions of dollars to the US and UK and get nothing in return, that they think it's dangerous to go down war paths with Donald Trump, that they don't want to go to war with our major trading partner, that they can't work out why Labor has taken us down that path and that they want the money to be spent not on a handful of submarines, which we probably won't even get, but rather on their absolute material needs right now, including schools, hospitals and public housing. That's probably why this government, the Labor Party, doesn't want an inquiry into these regulations. It's because they're scared of what the public will tell them. The Greens aren't scared of what the public will tell us. Bring it on. Bring on at least this inquiry into AUKUS.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. Is a division required? It being after 6.30 pm, we will defer that to tomorrow.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026:

The state of consumer protections in relation to electricity 'smart meters', with specific reference to:

Three years ago, One Nation told the country:

Australia is firmly on the path towards a dystopian future with households having their access to electricity taken out of their hands and monitored, controlled and restricted by governments.

That's control of your electricity use in the government's hands and in energy company hands, including foreign multinational companies. That is control of your electricity and your access to it—whether you can use it and what you can use it for. This is only possible with the now mandatory rollout of smart meters, which are internet connected electricity meters.

For many years, the rollout of smart meters was promised as purely voluntary. The experience of people who voluntarily got a smart meter was absolutely terrible. Daniel Mercer from the ABC reported in April that the New South Wales energy watchdog had sounded the alarm, saying too many consumers were being hit with poor service and left worse off from the smart meter rollout. He wrote:

The watchdog said there had also been a major increase in the number of complaints related to sudden, unexplained changes to people's electricity tariffs.

There were changes to their tariffs with no consent. He continued:

Such changes often involved customers being switched from flat rate prices, where they paid the same rate for a unit of power no matter when they bought it, to complex and dynamic charges.

Among these were time-of-use tariffs, in which customers paid more for power at peak times, and demand charges, which involved charging someone based on their single biggest half-hour of use across an entire month.

So, if you used a higher level of power for just half an hour, that put you onto a higher rate that was across all your electricity use for the entire month. He went on:

"The smart meter rollout aimed to increase flexibility and customer engagement with the energy market, by allowing customers to manage their energy usage and save money," Ms Young—

the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman—

said.

"But we aren't seeing evidence of this in complaints that come to [the ombudsman], in fact, we are seeing the opposite."

What was the Albanese Labor government's response to all of these problems? Did they try to fix them? No. They doubled down. The Labor government in June made the smart meter rollout mandatory. This federal Labor government made the smart meter rollout mandatory. They said anyone going onto a smart meter couldn't be put onto a punitive tariff. They did say that. This, though, is only temporary relief that will last just two years. After that, it's open season for power company profiteering. The smart meters are a key part of the government's emergency plans.

Think about why they need emergency plans. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is spruiking his household battery scheme. What he isn't telling Australians about is the fine print. To receive the government's subsidy for a household battery, your battery must be 'capable of participating in a virtual power plant'—virtual power plant; this gets more and more crazy. A virtual power plant, or VPP, is simply about being able to drain your battery, which you paid for, to the grid whenever your power company wants. Combined with an always connected smart meter, there's nothing stopping the grid operator from draining a household battery whenever they want in the future—whenever they want—disregarding your need for electricity. By the way, you, the householder, pay for the battery. Home batteries—why are they needed? They're needed to ensure stability—the stability of electricity supply. Solar and wind are inherently asynchronous, making them unstable. Coal, hydro, nuclear and gas are all synchronous; they're stable, reliable, secure.

As the proportion of electricity from solar and wind increases, the grid becomes unstable. This is fact. It has happened overseas; it has happened here. As the grid becomes more unstable, the ability to reach into Australians' homes to take over their batteries will be too tempting for you lot, the government. It will be essential, in order to protect our grid, to reach in and control your battery, drain your battery, which you paid for. It will be essential to protect the grid from their onslaught of solar and wind asynchronous generation. The government won't be able to resist. We already have the data to prove it. Last year, Queensland's state owned power grid throttled almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months. I'll say that again: last year, Queensland's state government owned power grid throttled back almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months, under a scheme called PeakSmart, to try and protect the grid as it buckled under the net zero transition. Under the PeakSmart scheme—that's a good name, isn't it?—users were not even told their air conditioners were being throttled. They were not even told. I have, since the start, been aware of these meters being considered, because the so-called energy transition is really an energy reduction, an energy restriction, an energy control. The objective is control. I've been saying this since 2016. The objective is control—furtive, unexplained control of your access to electricity; furtive, unexplained, unaccountable control of your access to electricity. So much for transparency under you lot in the Albanese Labor government.

That's why One Nation is moving this motion to have an inquiry into the rollout of smart meters and what consumer protections are needed. Right now, there are no consumer protections—none at all—and the public has been misled. Deceitfully, the truth is hidden. Why would they hide it? Because they're out to get you, to screw you. What protections are actually in place to make sure power companies aren't going to gouge Australians through a smart meter? Right now, it looks like nothing. The smart meter rollout was changed from voluntary to mandatory without any notice despite the many problems that had been raised and pointed out. Australians pointed out the many problems to the government: Why? Who benefits? It's certainly not everyday Australians, who this Labor government dishonestly pretends to serve. Instead, it's stealing. One Nation wants this inquiry to answer these questions and many more.

When it comes to Australians battling greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals, One Nation backs Australians every day of the week. We back you, Australians. I encourage the Senate to send the issue of smart meters to an enquiry and to back Australian consumers being protected from greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals in charge of vital parts of our essential infrastructure. Our electricity grid is arguably the most important infrastructure in our country. Will the government oppose this reference for a Senate committee inquiry and continue to hide the truth from Australians? Or will it be open? Will you be open, transparent and honest with the Australian people

There are no further speakers. The question is that the motion put by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division is required. We will defer that division to tomorrow.

Debate adjourned.

The committee is considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 as amended and amendment 2 on sheet 3481 moved by Senator Thorpe. The question is that schedule 5 stand as printed.

Just following the questioning this morning around schedule 5, I want to note that Economic Justice Australia and the Australian Council of Social Services put out a media release which stated:

The highly contested Schedule 5 amendment to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No.2) Bill 2025 (the Bill) has this morning taken up the majority of discussion in Senate.

During questioning about the legitimacy of the amendment, the debate included discussions about whether any organisations were consulted about Schedule 5. Led by Senators Penny Allman-Payne and Lidia Thorpe, Senator Katy Gallagher was asked whether any organisations were consulted. Comments made could have been heard as suggesting consultations did take place.

Both EJA and ACOSS would like to make clear that we were at no point consulted on the Schedule 5 amendment.

EJA and ACOSS confirm that, from the first notification from the Government about the proposed Schedule 5, both organisations have made clear we oppose the Schedule 5 amendment.

Subsequent to learning of the addition of Schedule 5 to the Bill, both organisations have put out strong statements opposing it. Each organisation has urged Parliament to reject Schedule 5.

We continue to urge all parliamentarians to reject Schedule 5 in its entirety.

And then there are a couple of links to their individual statements.

Minister, I just wanted to get some clarity. Earlier today you talked about the fact that you were talking with ACOSS and EJA about the way that they could work with you in relation to this schedule 5. Could you just elaborate a little bit more on what those discussions have actually entailed?

Just to be clear in relation to that, I never once said that those organisations had been consulted. I said they were advised. If people have misinterpreted my comments, I just want to be clear about that. I said they were advised ahead of the government's public announcement, and that remains a fact.

My other comments this morning were that the minister has indicated she is prepared to work with those organisations as guidance around how that part of the bill will work once and if it passes the Senate, so that is really a matter for the minister and those organisations to determine.

I just want to clarify, because this morning my understanding was that there had been discussions about how they could do that. For clarity, at this point, is it just the case that the minister has indicated they will work with them, not that any discussions have happened about how that might occur?

No, I didn't indicate that there had been discussions about that; I said that the minister had indicated to those organisations that she was prepared to work with them, and I'm advised that she has written to them to that effect.

Could you advise on what date the minister wrote to the organisations to that effect?

I don't have the exact date, but I understand it was last week.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3499 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 7 to 12), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 validates things done" in section 1112.

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 13 to 16), omit the paragraph beginning "Division 2 does not validate any income averaging" in section 1112.

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16) to page 14 (line 25), Division 2 to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 16 (line 32), omit paragraph 1117D(12)(a).

(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 18 (line 28), omit subsection 1117E(9).

(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 21 (line 8), omit subsection 1117F(11).

The Greens have real concerns about the retrospective validation of income apportionment. We understand this is not the first time that Minister Plibersek has retrospectively made lawful things that were unlawful. She did something similar when she was previously the minister. We have a concern that the retrospective validation of income apportionment will impact people's rights—in particular, the ability for individuals to challenge convictions arising from this unlawful method—and it represents a bad precedent for future legislation.

In relation to this particular part of the bill, the government has been unable to provide clarity regarding support for individuals who've been subject to a conviction as result of income apportionment. In his submission to the inquiry on this bill, Dr Rudge notes:

Indeed the implications of a person accepting the resolution payment are of great concern. It does not appear clear to me whether the person forfeits their rights to appeal the income apportioned debt or to appeal any criminal conviction that may have arisen in respect of the income apportioned debt. This should be clarified and no such forfeiture should be the consequence of the resolution payment scheme created by this Bill.

My question to the minister is: why is retrospectivity necessary, and would it undermine the resolution scheme—and, if so, how would it do that?

I think I can answer in the way I'm going to respond to this amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. Retrospective validation of income apportionment is a central part of the government's resolution approach and is necessary to manage the legal resourcing and operational risks posed by income apportionment. Retrospective validation recognises that income apportionment, although not consistent with the legislation prior to this bill, was nonetheless a reasonable method for determining the extent to which someone's income affects their entitlements or a social security payment.

In the vast majority of cases, income apportionment only affected debts around the margins. The person did own a debt; the question was just how much. Without retrospective validation, millions of social security decisions, going back decades, will remain incorrect at law. Going back and recalculating millions of debts is not viable. Debts many years old would have to be reopened, which could cause distress and protracted uncertainty for the millions of current and former social security recipients affected. It could cost up to an estimated $9 billion, require thousands of officials working over many years and divert resources from frontline services.

Section 1117C in schedule 1 of the bill expressly preserves individuals' right to bring legal proceedings and pursue legal remedies in respect of any existing cause of action—for example, any common-law remedy, such as compensation, that may be available in relation to the use of income apportionment. Decisions affected by income apportionment can still be reviewed. If a decision affected by income apportionment is reviewed in future, it will be reviewed in line with the method in this bill.

Minister, during the inquiry into this bill, when the person giving evidence from Economic Justice Australia was asked whether they had concerns about retrospectivity, their comment in the inquiry was that it wasn't their preferred approach, but that it wasn't on the table—sorry. Their preferred approach was to waive the debts, noting that many of these debts are very old. So my question is: why has the government gone down the path of making past actions that were unlawful lawful, which is effectively giving the department a free pass for more unlawful activity, which we see repeatedly in the Department of Social Services. Why did the government choose to go down that path, when they could have simply waived outstanding debts?

On the issue of income apportionment, this practice was utilised over many years—I think going back to the 1990s—and it was understood to be a lawful way of interpreting the social security legislation. As it turns out—and, as senators know, that has now become clear—it is incorrect, and that process had been used in an inconsistent way with the legislation.

As I just said, in relation to explaining our opposition to the amendment being moved, I understand retrospective legislation is something that is used very rarely. Nobody, I think, enjoys coming in and doing retrospective legislation. On very rare occasions, there are times when it is the appropriate course of action. In relation to the issues that I've just outlined, in relation to the cost, in relation to the millions of customers that would have to go back and the amount of resources that would be displaced to go and deal with this, if we weren't retrospectively dealing with this matter, I think it would be just unreasonable.

In the vast majority of cases, income apportionment only affected debts around the margins, like I just said. These are the situations where the person was overpaid. The question is just by how much. Most of those debts are not due to fraud. Debts can occur because a person made a mistake when reporting, or due to an unintended oversight, but they are still debts, and I think that needs to be understood.

In the vast majority of those cases, it would be unreasonable to waive that debt in full. For example, there was a $3,900 Newstart allowance debt that arose because a person misrepresented their earnings from multiple employers for 10 months in 2016. When recalculated, that debt decreased by $300, but this is still a significant amount owed to the government. Based on all the information available to us and the resources that would have had to have been deployed if we were to have gone back and investigated all of those cases, and in some cases spending hours only to find out that income apportionment hadn't been used—so there were all of those examples as well—the government decided that this was the most appropriate course of action.

Minister, we currently have a situation where we've got the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, in conjunction with Services Australia, having to regularly indicate that they are, for example, suspending payment cancellations because it turns out that the basis on which that was happening is unlawful. We've got a department that have said in estimates that they can't be certain that the targeted compliance framework, in the way that it's been operationalised—this is their language—is consistent with the legislative requirements, which is another way of saying that it's unlawful. We have had numerous occasions in the past where it seems that Services Australia or the department has miscalculated something or hasn't done it the way it's supposed to.

I note that Dr Rudge, in his evidence to the inquiry into this bill, said that whilst there is this general view that everybody thought that what they were doing was lawful at the time and was therefore fine there were different ways that the department could have apportioned people's income and that this unlawful way was chosen in particular because they took the view that it was more likely to uncover fraud. It was an active decision to do it that way. Minister, can you understand why people on income support are concerned that the government is again passing legislation to retrospectively validate something that was unlawful. I mean, robodebt was the most egregious example, but we have this ongoing issue where unlawful activity takes place and then the government and the department get a free pass. Can you understand why that causes such a level of concern and distrust amongst people on income support?

To be clear, robodebt and income apportionment, although they're often put together, are quite different from each other. I want to make that point clear. In relation to the work that's underway, Minister Plibersek and I are dealing with a lot of issues that have been identified around the legislative framework and how it's put into practice. Where those issues arise, governments have to deal with them.

Income apportionment hasn't happened since December 2020—I think it's December 2020—so this is not a current problem. But we are cleaning it up. We are trying to deal with it and make sure that the legislation aligns with practice. In dealing with that, yes, on income apportionment, we have had to go back 30 years and deal with the fact, which has become clear as of December 2020, that the way it had been done for 30 years was inconsistent with the legislative framework. So we're dealing with it and we're trying to deal with it in the fairest way. We're dealing with it in terms of some of the changes we're putting in place on debt recovery and waiving debts. I agree that the trust of people who receive income support payments is essential, and part of trying to ensure there's trust in the system is dealing with problems when they arise. That's exactly what we're trying to do here today.

I've already said that retrospective legislation is not something that anyone who comes into this chamber is happy to do, but there are times when it is the most appropriate course of action to deal with a problem that has affected millions over 30 years and to deal with it in the most reasonable and careful way. That's what this bill does.

The relevant legal case that essentially gives rise to this—

Progress reported.

In this last sitting week, I thought I would take a moment to reflect on the year that was. It has been an incredible year, particularly for us on this side of the chamber. We saw the population of this country reject the divisive, aggressive and unnecessary policies of the coalition and support a government which was proven, over its first term, to support them. I was particularly proud of the result we had in South Australia, my home state, where we welcomed the amazing Senator Charlotte Walker to our caucus. It was excellent to have her join me and Senator Marielle Smith, with the three of us elected at this most recent election. We also retained all our lower house seats in South Australia and added the excellent Claire Clutterham, the member for Sturt, to our ranks in the other place.

All of our caucus members, not just the amazing ones in South Australia but across the whole country, have hit the ground running. They are bringing a diversity, a richness and a strength to our caucus and to this place in terms of representing the people of Australia. Throughout the election campaign, I had the pleasure of continuing to engage, and, in being re-elected, I now get another six years of continuing to engage, with the good people of the seat of Grey, which is my duty electorate.

Engaging with those communities is so rewarding. Their experience is quite different to the metro areas, and we know, as a country, we have a very strong saturation of people in our metro areas. In South Australia, that's particularly pointed. When we look at the policies we roll out and the way that governments prioritise what they're going to do, it impacts most significantly on those people in the more regional areas, where the population is sparser and where the delivery of services can be so much harder. In these regional areas, seeing the rollout of an urgent care clinic or a Medicare mental health centre or seeing a GP service jumping to sign up to bulk-billing really, really matters to those people. They are a result of the historic investment that our government, the Albanese Labor government, has made into health services—not to mention the reduction in their PBS scripts and all the other great developments that we've seen. We've seen a lot of expansion in our hospitals and a lot of capacity worked on there, which is, like I say, really important in those regional areas.

Then there's also the 20 per cent reduction to student debt. That's enormous. The number of students I've met who've benefited from our approach to the university sector and who've benefited from free TAFE—there are 24,000 students who have benefited from free TAFE in South Australia alone. Students in Port Lincoln that I talk to who have spent their whole lives wanting to be nurses now have the chance. Young people I talk to who want to get into a trade or who want to go and work on submarines out at Osborne now have these opportunities across the board to undertake things that they couldn't previously afford. To see that opportunity play out is so delightful and so encouraging, and it really makes me so proud to be standing here as a member of the Albanese Labor government.

We've seen challenges as well, from the algal bloom to drought. These things have really impacted our communities. I was particularly keen to see the changes we've made in terms of the way we're working hand in hand with the Malinauskas government for a $30 million boost to the Farm Business Resilience Program and the Regional Drought Resilience Planning Program, and a really important additional $1 billion into the Regional Investment Corporation so that we can ensure that farmers can continue to access concessional lending, which is so important to them. Our regional areas really are the heart and soul of our communities. To see how they are benefiting from the Albanese Labor government's policies is excellent. (Time expired)

I'd like to pay my deep respects and congratulations to the 2025graduating class of Goodna Special School. It was my absolute honour to attend their graduation ceremony earlier this month. I'd like to congratulate all the members of the class, the staff, the P&C and all of the families for this momentous occasion. In particular, I would like to congratulate the school captains, Jack Taylor and Maryanne Taikato. Also I'd like to congratulate Ozair Mohiuddin, who received the prestigious Milton Dick Award, named after and donated by my good friend the Speaker in the House of Representatives, which is a recognition of leadership and excellence that speaks volumes about his dedication and character. In closing, I'd like to quote from the speech that school captains Jack and Maryanne gave because I think there's a paragraph we should all take heed of:

Being School Captains has been such an honour. We learned that being a leader isn't about having all the answers. It's about helping others, working as a team, and making sure no one is left behind.

Congratulations to you, Jack and Maryanne, for a great job as a school captains. I'd like to congratulate the whole graduating class of 2025 from Goodna Special School.

We have a wonderful Kenyan community in my home state of Queensland. Kenyans in Queensland has done fabulous work over the course of the last 12 months. They've held cultural festivals, and they've reached out to Kenyan international students and provided assistance and support. Earlier this month, they held their annual gala and awards night dinner. At this dinner, I was very moved to meet a lady called Dr Diana Kenoly. Diana's brother, Felix Kwame Ruma, passed away recently in Queensland. I want to quote from Diana's email to me:

In this time of loss, our family has been deeply supported by the Kenyans in Queensland (KIQ) community, under the leadership of President Antony Kamau. Their guidance, compassion and unwavering support throughout the administrative and coronial processes and through the arrangements following Felix's passing have been invaluable. The family wishes to place on record their sincere appreciation for the remarkable efforts and the spirit of community embodied by the KIQ.

I would like to say something about Diana's brother, Felix, who passed. He established a really special relationship with the Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council. I want to quote some words from Mayor Bruce Simpson of the Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council:

Felix brought a sense of trust that's hard to measure, a rare gift in such a short window of acquaintance. His enthusiasm for uplifting the community, especially through empowering our youth with technology and artificial intelligence, was infectious.

…   …   …

Already, Felix's legacy is creating new possibilities for our young people and elders alike. He resonated with our shared vision by his powerful example of self-determination and community-building.

I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the late Felix Kwame Ruma, and I'd also like to acknowledge the support Kenyans in Queensland gave to Felix's sister, Diana.

I was delighted to attend Lankan Fest 2025 in Melbourne on 16 November. This is a showcase of the best of Sri Lankan culture. It was a wonderful day, and I would like to congratulate the president of the organising committee, Dr Damitha de Mel, and all of his committee, all of the volunteers, all of the performers and everyone who contributed to this great day. To think: now in its 10th year, this day started when a group of people from our wonderful Sri Lankan Australian community got together in someone's lounge room in 2014. The first festival was in 2015, and it has grown and grown. Congratulations to our wonderful Sri Lanka community in Melbourne for this festival. It did rain during the day, but I was told this is a blessing in Sri Lankan culture, just as our wonderful Sri Lankan community is a blessing for Australia.

Across Australia too many people, especially young people and older women, are being pushed into housing stress, couch surfing and homelessness. Housing is a human right. Your age, your income or your postcode should not determine whether or not you get a secure roof over your head. But the housing crisis didn't just happen; it is the result of political choices. For decades governments—Labor and Liberal—have designed a system that delivers billions to big banks and property developers whilst locking out a whole generation from the opportunity for secure housing. We saw this clearly in Victoria with Labor's plan to bulldoze 44 public housing towers and hand over public land to private developers.

The human cost of these choices is simply devastating. Every year, nearly 40,000 children and young people in Australia have nowhere to live. At the same time, women aged over 55 are the fastest-growing cohort of people experiencing homelessness in Australia. In one of the richest countries in the world, this is nothing short of shameful. The Greens fought hard in the last parliament and secured $3 billion in extra funding for public and community housing and an additional $500 million for urgent social housing upgrades. This was significant, but it's simply not enough.

Young people are falling through the cracks, especially those leaving out-of-home care. At 18, many are effectively shown the door and left to fend for themselves. It's no wonder that so many of these young people end up homeless. Single older women are among the most marginalised when it comes to safe, affordable and suitable housing. Lifelong disadvantages, such as the gender pay gap, caring responsibilities and lower paid work, leave them vulnerable. Research shows older women, especially private renters, are disproportionately trapped in housing that is both unaffordable and poor quality.

We must do better. That's why the Home Time campaign is so important. Since launching in 2024, more than 150 services and agencies have joined forces to end youth homelessness and tackle the barriers that stop young people, especially those leaving care, from finding stable housing. They're calling for dedicated, wraparound housing and support so young people can build their lives on solid ground. The Home Stretch initiative, which pushes to extend formal care to 21, is another crucial reform. At the other end of life, Housing for the Aged Action Group provides critical support to older people through activism, services and advocacy. I've met with representatives from this group, and their message is clear: young people and older women deserve stability, not a cliff edge.

It is heartbreaking and infuriating to watch younger Australians and older Australians being pushed into homelessness when we have the resources to keep them safe. To Home Time, Home Stretch, Housing for the Aged Action Group and all of those fighting for the right to housing: we thank you. Your work is vital, and the Greens will keep fighting alongside you.

I rise to make a contribution about workplace relations, particularly with regard to Black Friday. This Friday marks the start of the Black Friday weekend, and, according to recent reports from the ABC, around six million Australians are expected to take part in a weekend of major markdowns and bulk purchasing incentives. Many will turn to online shopping to avoid the chaos at shopping centres. The online shopping realm presents as a desirable retail experience for many Australian consumers, who will manage to check off Christmas lists and even grocery shop from the comfort of their home this festive season. I do encourage them to think, though, about their local small businesses and to see what they can do to support business in their own area.

The online retailer that has perhaps been most successful in promoting the convenience and cheap prices that consumers covet is Amazon. As a goliath of the e-retail space, Amazon owns a substantial share of the online retail market in Australia. This isn't, in my view, something to celebrate. Instead, as we head into this festive season, we must pause and recognise the workers whose labour underpins every click, every parcel and every promise of convenience. Those workers are the ones who make this retail frenzy possible.

While Black Friday is certainly an exciting event for many Australians, it's far less festive for Amazon distribution workers, who will face immense pressure in an already stressful, antiworker environment. The environment of Amazon rids employees of their human and workers rights. Amazon has intrusive surveillance practices. Amazon forces employees to work and live like the very machines that surround them.

This week, the Transport Workers' Union and the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association are campaigning to protect Australian jobs and businesses that fall victim to the exploitative and deplorable actions of Amazon. Today I am proud to stand in this chamber and support the SDA and the TWU and their push, as part of a global movement, to Make Amazon Pay.

I note that, in 2025, Amazon is continuing its globally disgraceful record of union busting, denying collective bargaining and pursuing corporate arrogance. In Quebec, Amazon made its stance clear. Rather than negotiate a fair union arrangement for fair wages and fair working conditions for ordinary Canadians, it instead chose to close seven warehouses, punishing more than 3,500 workers simply for standing together in solidarity. That will not wash in Australia.

In Australia, though, Amazon has employed similar tactics. They've routinely attempted to silence workers who raise concerns about their health and safety, they've disregarded issues raised by union members and, very, very significantly, they have refused to engage with workers seeking representation. In doing so, in enacting these responses to workers' requests and conditions, Amazon is systematically denying its workers a voice.

Equally alarming is Amazon's willingness to overstep legal and ethical boundaries in pursuit of intrusive and excessive surveillance practices—behaviour that governments are now taking notice of. In France, the national data regulator fined Amazon $57.4 million for an excessively intrusive monitoring system that tracked employees' scanner inactivity and productivity rates.

So how can we trust Amazon? How can we even believe that they'll uphold obligations that they've agreed to when they continuously mistreat their workers and overstep legal boundaries? We cannot allow Amazon's track record of exploitation to go unchecked, particularly when it benefits from lucrative public contracts. That's why the Albanese Labor government's recent move to require agencies to assess the ethical conduct of bidding firms is a crucial step in the right direction. This reform sends a clear message: if you want to access public money, you have to meet the public's expectations—a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

People are not machines. They cannot be mechanised, and they should not be intrusively observed and turned into machines. That is a dehumanising practice. Amazon needs to review its practices and fix its disgraceful record. This parliament will no longer be witness to the deplorable flaunting of legal obligations and imaginary ethical standards. The days of profits first and accountability later are over. I congratulate the SDA and the TWU on their campaign. (Time expired)

I rise this evening to recognise a remarkable Western Australian, Ms Vyonne Geneve, and to congratulate her on her retirement as president of the Art Deco and Modernist Society of Western Australia, a role she has a fulfilled with unmatched dedication and scholarship. This year marks a truly rare conversion of milestones: the grand century of Art Deco and Ms Geneve's own entry into her 10th decade, celebrating her 91st birthday on 3 June. It is a fitting moment for her to pass the baton, for few have done more to champion and safeguard Western Australia's proud art deco and modernist heritage.

Western Australia's art deco story is unique. The post-depression recovery and the gold mining boom of the 1930s left Perth and regional Western Australia a rich architectural legacy, yet the demolition blitz of the 1960s and subsequent decades wiped out much of St Georges Terrace, including cinemas and beloved buildings that defined our city. It was in this climate that, in 1987, Vyonne Geneve stepped forward. Her research, advocacy and resolve led to the formation of the society and helped galvanise public awareness and Western Australia's architectural heritage. Under her leadership, the society became a founding member of the International Coalition of Art Deco Societies, hosted the 1991 World Congress on Art Deco, helped shape Western Australia's first heritage legislation and worked with the National Trust to create the most extensive inventory of art deco structures in the state. The society has saved iconic buildings, from the Raffles, Cottesloe and Swanbourne hotels, and today it leads the fight to preserve the Windsor Theatre in Nedlands. Ms Geneve's outstanding scholarship includes the acclaimed Picture Palaces of the Golden West, a definitive record of WA's golden age of cinema.

Her retirement follows a triumphant autumn program, including discovery walks and an exhibition, drawing over 3½ thousand visitors. Although she is stepping down as president, Ms Geneve will serve as presidentemeritus, contributing to the much-loved Dear Decophile newsletter. Tonight, I would like to thank my good friend Vyonne for a lifetime of stewardship and scholarship to Western Australia's built and cultural heritage.

I'm going to read out the transcript of an interview between President Adeang of Nauru and Joanna Olsson of the Nauru Government Information Office. This interview was posted to Facebook on 17 February 2025 and has been translated by an independent translator. My thanks to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre for providing this copy.

Question:

GoodAfternoon Your Excellency, thisnews that Nauru has entered a newagreement with Australia where itstates that we willbe accepting non-citizens from Australiaknown as the NZYQ.

Who are these NZYQ?

Answer:

Um, It does not matter as much what they are called, what does matter is what type of people they are.

The particular group Australia is asking us to take are not people of Australia.

They are in Australia, they have committed a crime, served their time in jail and are now out and living within the communities of Australia.

Now leading their lives not unlike any other person living in Australia.

Now, Australia has been trying to return them to their home countries and have been unable to for multiple reasons.

Because they are unable to, Nauru and Australia have joined into a partnership, due to our history where we have been able to home people on our land; like people who sought asylum or those that are refugees.

To clarify, these people are not refugees.

They are regular people but their background or their history is that they have been to jail.

These days, they are free to roam around Australia and while they are no longer under penalties but they are not of that place and despite Australia's preference to send them home, they are unable to.

So that is what we have entered into, we will help Australia and take these people and allow them to live among us.

Question:

Regardingthisagreement,thisisgreatforAustraliaasfaras protectingtheircommunities.Wein Nauru, have wereached apoint where wecantake care of people likethis?

Answer:

We have looked at every corner of this arrangement.

This has been going on since last year.

It is not like we slept and woke up and got asked something big.

We have thought about it since last year that it is not unlike the RPC arrangement that we are still undergoing here at home.

If we remember, the people that have come here under the RPC arrangement are not without their own history, they have come from war-torn areas.

Some have taken lives, some have abused people and when they have come here, they have not interfered with anything.

They have just come here, they live their way.

They want to just continue their lives because we are a country and a people that are peaceful.

That is also our attitude at the moment, we say that these people that are coming, there are some that are just going to want to continue their lives and will want to build their lives up in a peaceful way, just like each and every one of us.

Question:

The visa they have, how is it different to the one we are offering to the RPC cohort? How long are they going to be in Nauru and what are the rules of their visa?

Answer:

When they are given the visa, it is clear to all of us that we have given them a place here. 35 If we say 30 years, then 30 years is what they are given.

Unless of course, we, your government, find a way for them to move around, for example; they get to go home.

The problem now is, Australia cannot return them home, these people are what you would refer to as stateless.

Their homelands do not want them and they do not have a way to go home.

And if over time we find a way to return them home then of course they will not reach the 30 years. But the Visa we are providing them to start is 30 years.

It's the same as everyone we brought in during RPC, they can work, we also encourage them to work, so they can feel like they contribute to our community, nothing will be stopping them.

But they will have a 30 year Visa rather than the shorter visas and that's the only difference. Otherwise, they are also subject to the laws of Nauru.

If they break the laws of our home, they will follow our normal legal process. Taking them to court, sending them to jail if needed, fining them if needed.

We are anticipating that now that we are talking, it is not like they are breaking the laws in Australia but Australia does not want them because they are not from there.

So we will take them for the time being,

We are not anticipating that they are wanting to come here and break laws, they just want to continue their lives.

I'll continue reading from the same transcript read out by Senator David Pocock.

Question:

Because of the background of these people, that you are saying have committed crimes.

The safety concerns of the people of Nauru, what does the government have to say to ease their gut about the fact and the shock that they are living within their community?

Answer:

The first thing we have to remember is that these people have their time in jail. They have a history yes, but they also have a present.

And the present of this people now is that they are living within the people of Australia and are not committing crimes, some of them are just enjoying their lives and continuing their lives but they are not from there and Australia does not want them.

And for some reason, some legal reasons, they cannot be deported.

So, we are the solution to them being moved from there. I did wanna provide a solution.

But to address our own, its not that different from how we protected our community back when the refugees first came and after we allowed them out of detention to settle within our community, they also had a history and we also have a history, there are some that come out of jail here with their own histories.

We weren't harmed and we wont be harmed.

Of course, there are extra community safety arrangements that we will bring out to look after our community, maybe, for example, and help them (NZYQ) a little with their movements and to ease the shock of the community.

Because the biggest thing I see now is that there will be surprised people and we have to remember that this is not the first time we have let foreigners come to our home and it will not be the first time we have accepted foreigners with backgrounds that are not 100% pristine.

and we know how to handle arrangements like this and we also know how to empower the lives of these people and we know to take care of them.

And we all get along just fine. We hold that we will be fine.

We will bring out a lot of things for this and we welcome the input of the community if they want to give us their feedback on how to make them feel safer/more secure.

They can make contact with their relevant members of parliament and ministers to let us know.

I have also sat with the Opposition recently to give them all of the facts of this thing that we have entered.

So that they know what is true and what isn't true.

The Australian media will have their own spin on it but what I have given you is what is true to all of my knowledge.

There are three people that will come first, within days, maybe less than a week. We know their profile, what their names are, their backgrounds and their ages.

And we have already prepared them a space and we have prepared the safety protocols to protect them and to protect us.

And we are not overwhelmed, because we have already gone through these things. This is not new here.

The only new thing is that they are not refugees.

Question:

If the 30 years ends and we have not resettled them in another country, what is Nauru and Australia's Plan?

Answer:

Well I guess in 30 years time, there will have to be meetings between the Government of Nauru and the Government of Australia and what we're going to do about these people.

But there's a long way into the future,

I do trust however, that maybe before then, we will little by little be able to return these people home if they want that.

I also anticipate that these people will have family from Australia that will want to visit them here and we are not closed off to that, just like when the refugees were here, we allowed their families to visit them here, we opened our arms to them and we will do that with these people also.

I want to thank my colleague Senator Pocock and I want to thank the ASRC for joining with me tonight to tell the truth about this interview, because this is the interview that the government has refused to produce. This is an accredited interpretation of the interview that President Adeang gave when the announcement leaked out from Nauru—it did not come from our own minister—about a $2½ billion secret deal. This government have been trying to keep this secret from the Australian people, refusing to produce their own interpretation and refusing to tell the Australian people what the Nauruan president said.

I know that Senator Pocock and I read the transcript out in somewhat of a rush, but we did it because we weren't certain that we would get it on the record in the time that we had available. It should have been the government that told the Australian people about this. It should have been the government that had the decency to step forward and be honest with the Australian people about what the Nauruan president said. No doubt there are reasons why the government wanted to hide this, because President Adeang wrongly makes the statement, no doubt on advice from the Australian government, that none of the NZYQ cohort are refugees, which is plainly wrong. Did the government tell them that? Did our government mislead the Nauruan government? Do they adhere to what the Nauruan president said about these people not being refugees—none of them? They're probably also embarrassed about the fact that President Adeang made it very clear that he wants these people to return to the country they came from. We know that they have fled from persecution, by and large. Does the Australian government join with Nauruan president in wanting to send people back to persecution in Iran, in Iraq, in Russia and in Sudan?

Finally, we get to read the truth onto the record. I want to again thank the ASRC for the work they've done on this. (Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 20:30