If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to the censure of a senator.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I move:

That the motion circulated in the chamber be moved immediately and have precedence over all other matters.

The question is the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(1) Notes that:

(a) on Monday 24 November 2025, Senator Hanson engaged in behaviour in the chamber that was intended to vilify and mock people on the basis of their religion;

(b) Senator Hanson's actions were disrespectful to Muslim Australians;

(c) Senator Hanson's actions disrespected the Parliament and were inconsistent with the standards of behaviour that all parliamentarians have an obligation to uphold;

(d) Senator Hanson further disrespected the Senate by refusing to obey the ruling of the chair;

(e) the Senate then took the extraordinary step of suspending Senator Hanson for the remainder of the sitting day;

(f) Senator Hanson refused to comply with the Senate's order and leave the chamber, requiring the sitting of the Senate to be suspended; and

(g) Senator Hanson's actions were contrary to the standing orders, a blatant disregard for the authority of the Senate President and disrespected her Senate colleagues and the people they represent.

(2) Affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith.

(3) Reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace.

(4) Rejects any attempt to vilify or mock people on the basis of religion.

(5) Reiterates its solidarity with those who have been vilified because of their faith.

(6) Reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in Parliament.

(7) Calls on those who work in and report on this Chamber to ensure they are not causing harm or platforming harmful actions.

(8) Censures Senator Hanson for her actions, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

(9) Does not regard it as appropriate for Senator Hanson to represent the Senate as a member of any delegation during the life of this Parliament.

(10) Considers Senator Hanson's conduct in defying the ruling of the chair and refusal to leave the chamber following her suspension amounts to further disorder under standing order 203.

(11) Calls upon Senator Hanson to attend the Senate immediately to make an explanation or apology, of no more than 5 minutes, in accordance with standing order 203(3).

I thank the Senate for the support for enabling this debate. Colleagues, after what occurred yesterday, someone I'm close to, this morning, spoke about a conversation with her seven-year-old daughter last night. Her daughter asked, 'Mummy, do all Christians hate Muslims?' That summarised where we found ourselves. We see it again. You see, I grew up in an Australia where my brother and I were the only Asians at school, and I have spoken at length about what that was like. But, Senator, I would also speak to you about my family: my father converted to Catholicism; my beloved grandmother, a devout Buddhist; my mum, a somewhat lapsed Methodist; and cousins who are Muslim. We are a family of many faiths, as is our country.

This is modern Australia. An Australia that is stronger because we are united at home. An Australia that is stronger in the world because we are united at home. Stronger in the world because our multicultural society gives us the ability to reach into every corner of the world and find common ground, a nation built, Senator Babet, by people of every race and every faith—every race and every faith. A nation that welcomes different races, different religions, different views. A nation united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace. A nation where kids can grow up seeing themselves in their leaders. A nation where kids don't get mocked or threatened or vilified because of who they are, who aren't afraid for their safety on a bus home from school and who don't come home to find it covered in abuse. I know how that feels, coming home as a kid to racist graffiti on the driveway.

Whatever Senator Hanson may tell herself, it is people like this who suffer because of her immature and shameless stunt—and that is all it was. Senator Hanson has been parading prejudice as protest for decades. In her first speech to this house, she said Australia was in danger of being swamped by Asians, by people like me. Now she's added Muslims to the list. In my very first speech in this place, I said that because of people like her Australia was in danger of being swamped by hatred. And yesterday, purely to get attention, and not for the first time—it's an old play, replayed—Senator Hanson mocked and vilified an entire faith—a faith observed by nearly one million Australians, and the second-largest religion in this country.

Colleagues, senators, freedom of expression is central to who we are as Australians, but so too is respect. I believe, and I think most of this Senate believes, that disrespecting fellow Australians because of their faith is itself un-Australian. For a senator to punch down on a Muslim kid—that's the effect of your words—let's understand that that is un-Australian.

Senator Hanson makes absurd comments about people's clothing being a risk to national security at the same time as she's publishing internal floor plans of Parliament House on the internet. Our national cohesion is a strength. Our national security is risked by threats to social cohesion, because a divided nation is a vulnerable nation. We need to remind ourselves of what Senator Brandis spoke about when this stunt last occurred. As he stood against your stunt then, and he was right to do so, he spoke about the importance of working with the Muslim community in the interest of Australian national security. Senator Hanson's hateful and shallow pageantry tears at our social fabric, and I believe it makes Australia weaker. It also has cruel consequences for many of our most vulnerable, including in our schoolyards, who should be able to look to us in this place to set an example.

I want to end on this point. If this Senate passes the requirement for an apology, to enable Senator Hanson to do so promptly, can I indicate to the Senate I will move that this motion be put after 30 minutes of debate. I want to end on this point—that is, people should be able to look to this place to set an example. This can be a robust place. This can be a place of great contest. It should be. But there should be guardrails, as I have spoken about before. There should be the recognition of the importance of civility, even where there is contest. There should be limits on what we do and what we say, and what we saw yesterday was all of those boundaries crossed willingly.

The institution itself was damaged by your behaviour yesterday, because not only did you do what you did, Senator, but the chamber—the President—asked you to remove that item of clothing, and you refused a direct direction from the chair. And then, even worse, when all of your colleagues in this place—or so many, the vast majority—under the standing orders told you to remove yourself because you were defying a direction of the President, you defied the whole Senate and stayed. I have never seen that. I have never seen someone be so disrespectful to this institution.

So we have given you the opportunity, should this motion pass, to apologise. And I give you fair notice, Senator Hanson: if that fails to occur or if it's not to the Senate's satisfaction, we will take the next step of action that is available to the Senate under the standing orders. I thank the Senate, and I indicate, as I said, I will seek to close this debate after half an hour.

Senator Ruston?

Thank you very much, President. In standing to speak to the motion that's before the chair, I would like to move an amendment to the motion moved by Senator Wong. The amendment that we are seeking to move is done out of complete respect for everybody in this chamber and for everybody in this country, because we believe that we must in in this place understand and tolerate the views of everybody in this chamber. But, in doing so, we must do it in a respectful way.

We know that Australia is a culturally and religiously diverse nation. Those values have contributed to this country, and every citizen has a role to play in the cultural diversity of this nation and the strength that it draws from that diversity. For Australia to be recognised as a place where people can live their lives according to their beliefs and their culture, and to be what can be rightly considered one of the most culturally successful nations on this planet, it so, so, important that, when we come into this place, our actions, behaviours and words all reflect what we would like to see as our proud society.

Fundamental to that absolutely has to be respect for everybody. What we do in here is a reflection of what happens out there. We are elected to this place to be leaders in this country. Our actions are important, and I say that to every single member of this chamber. Our actions are important, and you can't come in here and accuse someone of doing something on one side of the chamber and then do the very same thing yourself.

So today we've sought to move an amendment to this motion, because, as the motion says, this nation has been built on the multicultural values of this country—every race and every faith that lives here. We absolutely are a country that is welcoming of every religion and its views, and respect for each other is fundamental to that. Of course, we reject any disrespect, any vilification and any discrimination in this nation, no matter what the basis. As I said, we must reaffirm that parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards, because what we do here is what we cannot expect others in our community to do if we are not prepared to uphold it in this place.

We also need to understand that a safe workplace is absolutely fundamental. It's not just about us; it's also about our staff and all the staff of the Senate. We need to consider them. When our behaviour, in any way, jeopardises, threatens or insults our staff we also have a responsibility for that, because in this place we set the example for Australia.

In speaking to this, we believe the precedent was set in the past in relation to somebody being suspended for an action in this place. We saw it happen with Senator Thorpe in relation to her aggressive behaviour towards another senator in this place, and that suspension took place and was acted upon immediately. We also saw a situation occur with the suspension in relation to Senator Di Natale when he refused to accept the ruling of the then chair, Senator Parry, and action was taken appropriately at the time. We do not believe we should be coming into this place to repechage your decision of yesterday, President. The process was undertaken, the will of the chamber was expressed and the senator in question was required to take the action as expressed by you. We absolutely support you in your decision and we also support you every time that your actions or your rulings are disregarded.

I say to everybody in this place: we are elected by the Australian public because they expect us to come here and do things that are important for them. I don't believe the actions of the other end of the chamber reflect what the Australian public wants us to be doing in this place. They want us to be concerned about the issues that they are facing every day. They can't afford to pay their bills. They can't pay their power bills. They can't get in to see a doctor. They can't afford to buy a house. They are struggling to raise their families. They are the issues the Australian public want us to be addressing in this place. As a party of government that is exactly what we want to be doing in this place, as the coalition. We want to be prosecuting the issues that matter to everyday Australians.

That doesn't mean to say we don't take very seriously the importance of respect in relation to the conventions in this place. We have respect for those conventions, respect for this chamber, respect for this parliament and respect for every single Australian. I move the amendment, as circulated in my name in the chamber:

Omit all words after 'That the Senate—' and insert:

(a) affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith;

(b) reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace;

(c) rejects any attempt to vilify or mock people because of religion;

(d) reiterates its solidarity with those who have been vilified because of their faith;

(e) reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in Parliament; and

(f) calls on those who work in and report on this chamber to ensure they are not causing harm or platforming harmful actions.

I believe the amendment appropriately reaffirms the commitment that every single one of us should have to Australia and the respect that we should have for every member of our community.

Finally, after three decades of piling hate and racism on Muslims, Asians and people of colour, at least some of us in this chamber want to hold Senator Hanson to account. Of course, the decades of harm that One Nation and Senator Hanson have caused to people of colour, Muslims and Asians by her racism and dog whistling won't be taken away by this motion, but it is a start.

Eight years ago, when Senator Hanson did this pathetic stunt for the first time, there was no Muslim in this chamber. There were no Muslim women in this chamber. There are two of us now, and we have been making sure—and we will make sure in the future as well—that racism and Islamophobia is called out every time and that people who perpetrate it are held to account.

It says so much about those sitting opposite me. They talk this talk of a wonderful multicultural nation. I must say that when I came here first, in 1992, I did think that the richness of people that came here from all parts of the world was what made this country so fantastic. But you can't just speak words. You can't just speak words and not call out what is actually happening—

Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. I've asked you to resume your seat.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Faruqi, I've asked you to resume your seat. This debate will be heard in respectful silence.

No, Senator Canavan! If you can't do that, leave the chamber. There will be no interjections and no comments from anywhere. I want to be very clear about that. When I request a senator to sit down, Senator Faruqi, that's exactly what you do. Senator Canavan, when I say to you 'no interjections', that is exactly what I mean. Your leader has just been on her feet saying, 'We support what the President does.' That means, when I require you to be quiet, you are quiet. Senator Faruqi, please continue.

The coalition try to talk the talk, but when it actually comes to the crux of it, they want to remove anything of consequence in this motion and talk in abstract terms about everyone being respectful to everyone else. Sure, we should all be respectful, but this is a particular instance where the motion says that this one senator has vilified and mocked people based on their Muslim religion. It talks about disrespecting Muslim Australians. It talks about disrespecting parliament. So you want to remove all of that, and you just want to talk about respecting each other. Well, this is where respecting each other and just talking the talk has got us. This parliament drips now in racism because for decades politicians—and both major parties, can I say—let it happen. Today, there's a senator here who effectively said that he hates Muslims. That is what it has come down to because you all let it happen, and I won't let that go. I won't let that go, because for years Muslims have been warning you all that, if we don't deal with this now, this is where it'll end up. Christchurch happened when an Australian man mercilessly murdered 51 Muslims. This country did nothing. The dog whistling on migrants goes on. The dog whistling on refugees goes on. It's done by both major parties. It's done by the media. That is what has legitimised what we see in this chamber almost every other day.

Yes, this motion is good. It's finally holding someone to account. It's finally holding Senator Pauline Hanson to account for the pathetic old tactic that she used in the chamber yesterday. Yes, that's a step forward, but there is so much more to be done. On the minister's shelf there is a road map that has been gathering dust for the last 12 months—the National Anti-Racism Framework. Take that off the shelf, dust it off, put funding into it, and start implementing it right now. If you say that there are some red lines and that one red line is racism and discrimination, then do something about it. Nazis are literally marching on our streets, and that is being allowed to happen in New South Wales by the New South Wales Labor government. A motion is good, but that is nowhere near what we need to do.

Every single person in this chamber should be forced to do antiracism training. That has been a recommendation for a long time of various committees and frameworks. Let's start there. At the end of the day, unless discrimination, racism and inequity for First Nations people are ended, nothing will change, because this country was built on violence, on racism and on discrimination against First Nations people.

Today, as a Muslim woman who has faced this racism and discrimination from the day she stepped into public life, I plead with you to act on it, because it gives me no pleasure to say I warned you, when I stepped into this parliament, about where the normalisation and legitimisation of racism would lead to. Let this motion today be a wake-up call. Let this be the start of actually dealing with structural and systemic racism that pervades this country. Let that be grounded in justice for First Nations people.

Before I call Senator McKenzie, I'm not having advisers at the back of the chamber walk around. If an adviser is in here, they are sitting in the box, not standing up. It's a privilege to be in here.

I rise to speak to Senator Ruston's amendment moved on behalf of the coalition. It affirms that Australia has been built by people of every race and faith, Senator Faruqi, through the chair, including white Australians. It reaffirms that Australia is a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, and is united by respect for each other and each other's right to live in peace. Moving motions here, pointing the finger across the chamber and calling each other racists does nothing to move our joint cause forward, which is to continue to be the most successful multicultural nation on the globe. When you stand up and say 'all you white people' are somehow the problem, it does—

You are!

There you go!

I'm sorry, Senator McKenzie. Senator Canavan and Senator Thorpe, you are being rude to the point that I have to interrupt a senator's contribution. This debate is talking about respect. Show respect for one another, whether you agree with the opinion or not.

Thank you. It is beholden on us to demonstrate this unity in this chamber, in how we raise our children and in how we conduct ourselves in our communities, our streets and our country towns in a way that affirms the promise that Australia gives everybody, whether it's Senator Wong's family, who came here for a better future, or my own family, who came here for a better future. That is the promise.

Our motion also reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in parliament. The very respect for diversity that we call on today in both motions before the chair and the very freedom to practise our faiths in this country are built on Judeo-Christian values. Those are the values that mean we can have these debates. We can respectfully listen to a diversity of views. Muslim Australians, Christian Australians, Buddhist Australians, atheists, can live their lives in safety and security.

For the last couple of years, we've been debating how Jewish Australians have been impacted by issues overseas and their right to worship in our suburbs and our cities. This is, as Senator Faruqi laid out, having a real impact out there in our communities, and not just for Muslim Australians. The values that allow us to have these debates, hopefully respectfully, here and outside, are not reflected in so many countries around the world, like North Korea, Somalia, Libya, Sudan or Nigeria, where 4,000 Christians were killed in 2024. We do not have that issue in our beautiful democracy at the moment, and nor should we wish it upon us. But the challenges that we see overseas, whether it is the persecution of people of faith, such as Christians in places like Nigeria, the impact of migration in Europe or, particularly, the United Kingdom, or in nations that have decided to ban the burqa—these are debates that we should have honestly and respectfully here in this country, not where we choose to appropriate religious symbols for political purposes. I think there is a need for respectful and honest debate about migration and values in this country, but this chamber needs to be a place where all the diversity of opinions that our great country holds—and they're very wide, diverse opinions—is expressed. If you don't want to listen, as the President often says to me, and if you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber; the contribution needs to be made anyway. People will violently disagree with my views on migration, on values, and the number of people that need to come in. They don't have to listen to me. But I do have a right and also a responsibility to express that view in this chamber. That's what this chamber's for.

I think, without violence, without murdering people of faith, without blowing up places of worship, we have a responsibility as senators, as executive, as citizens, as parents and as community members to be the very best leaders that we can be, not just in this chamber but outside of this chamber too. So I hope that all of us can honour the people and the diversity of views that have sent us all here and support the coalition's motion, which seeks to uphold our traditions and respectful debate here in the chamber, not the disrespectful way in which it was conducted yesterday.

I rise to make a few short remarks. Senator Wong foreshadowed that we would seek to close debate after 30 minutes, which we are up against now. I think we have a moment here today, really, to stand together and say that what happened yesterday, the stunt by Senator Hanson, was wrong, it was hurtful to many in this place and it punched down and vilified Australian Muslims, and it has consequences. It has consequences that reach out far beyond the walls of this place, and Senator Hanson knows that. Because of that, we find ourselves here today, again, seeking to show leadership and to take a stand about what happened yesterday, which was wrong. All of us should be working to stand together on that.

In the course of the debate, Senator Faruqi made some assertions that were incorrect. So I do feel, because of the nature of this debate and because of what was said, that we should make it very clear that, when the Christchurch killings happened, there was a motion passed in this place and significant comments were made at that time, as I recall. In fact, it was a time passed for this place. It was when the former Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, worked with the former Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wong, to make sure that this place put on the record exactly what we thought about that. To suggest that nothing happened at that time and that we didn't stand with people of Muslim faith and place on the record our complete and total rejection of what the perpetrator of that massacre stood for is incorrect. Again, the Senate stood together, against Senator Anning when he made unacceptable and appalling comments. The motion was clear and was moved, actually, in that instance by Senator Cormann and Senator Wong, working together across the chamber—again, the Senate making a stand, showing leadership, doing the job that the people of Australia send us here to do. It's to pull people together and to unite the country, not just seek to pick fights and vilify and punch down on particular groups for fun, for content, for a stunt. That's not what they send us here to do. And to Senator Faruqi I would say the same thing: it doesn't do your cause any progress at all by attacking—

It's not about Senator Faruqi.

No—I'm making the point about some comments that were made, where this Senate has stood together to reject racism, vilification and the targeting of particular groups. I'll leave it there, and I move:

That the question be now put.

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

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

I seek to have parts of the motion moved by Senator Wong put separately. I ask that paragraphs (1)(a), (8), (9) and (10) be put separately from paragraphs (1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (11).

The question is that (1)(a), (8), (9) and (10) of the motion as moved by Senator Wong and requested to be split by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The question is that the remainder of the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Senator Hanson, in accordance with the order just passed, I call on you to make an explanation or apology in accordance with standing order 203(3). I ask the clocks be set for five minutes.

My comments are basically going to be directed to the Australian people and those in the Senate that are here today to hear my comments. I am pleased now to be given the opportunity to explain myself. I was denied that right yesterday. Yesterday I brought up a bill to amend the Criminal Code to ban the burqa and full-face coverings in public places. I was denied the right to move that bill—denied the right. I was elected a member of parliament by the people of Queensland to represent them and the whole of the nation, actually, for that matter. I was denied the right by the Senate to move my bill, to actually debate it on the floor of parliament. You denied me and the people of Australia to have that voice. You chose to shut it down.

This is not the first time you've done it to me. You've done it a number of times. The parliamentarians that are here—the senators that were elected by the Australian people—dare question me over my respect for this place? The senators in this place have no respect for the Australian people when they have an elected member who wants to move something and to represent them and have a say. If there was no concern over banning of the burqa or full-face coverings, why did you stop me? Why not have the debate? Why not put your case forward? I would put my case forward, but you wouldn't even allow that. You decided what you wanted based on your pure own ideology of what you think is right. You disregard the people of this nation by not allowing me to have a say on their behalf. This has been raised to me many times.

Senator Hanson, could you direct your comments to me, please.

Yes. Also what I want to raise is that even recently, on Australian National Flag Day, I and one other senator draped the Australian flag across our shoulders. We were told to remove it by those that it offended. In this place, the heart of our democracy, we can't even show any love or respect for our flag, which flies in the chamber. But, no, others wanted it removed, and that was the Greens. They wanted it removed because they didn't want it seen.

It's a prop.

When you actually—

Senator Hanson, I'm sorry; would you resume your seat for a moment. Senator Hanson will be heard in silence. If you can't give her that respect, leave the chamber. There will be no calling out.

Thank you very much. This censure motion, at (8), says:

Censures Senator Hanson for her actions, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

I reject that completely. To say that I don't have respect for people of faith—I reject that as well. I have stood up for the Jewish people of this community. I'm not Jewish. But the way they were treated by some of the people in this chamber, including the Greens wearing a keffiyeh, wasn't pulled up at all. The whole fact is that everyone has a right to their own faith, and I respect section 116 of the Australian Constitution, where the Commonwealth cannot impose any religious observance on anyone.

I must inform my fellow senators who say the burqa is a religious requirement that it's not. Wearing the burqa is not a religious requirement. The burqa is culturally worn by some people of Islamic faith, but it is not a religious requirement. It has been imposed on women who are forced to wear it by their husbands, brothers, fathers, whatever; they're forced to wear it. I think it's so hypocritical that you're supposed to be defending women's rights but you're not fighting for these women being forced to wear a burqa, full-face coverings, against their will.

I think Senator Faruqi is calling the kettle black, after her racism on the floor when protesting against the Palestinians. And I've never called anyone by their skin colour, as I have been accused of. (Time expired)

Where's the apology?

Order! My goodness. When I ask for order, it applies to every senator in this place. No-one is excluded.

I move:

That Senator Hanson be suspended from the sitting of the Senate for seven sitting days.

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

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

I seek leave to cancel that division. The people will judge me at the next election—

Senator Hanson, come to order!

Leave granted; question agreed to.

S enator Hanson t hen left the chamber.

The committee is considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill as amended and amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3499, moved by Senator Allman-Payne. The question is that division 2 in item 2 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The question before the chair is that amendments (1), (2), (4) and (6) be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 4), insert:

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

Part 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Division 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

15 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

16 Section 192A

Repeal the section, substitute:

192A Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Social Security Act 1991

17 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Chapter, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Student Assistance Act 1973

18 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Division 2 — Application of amendments

19 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Part apply in relation to a debt that is raised, before, on or after this item commences.

One of the most significant and impactful recommendations made in the robodebt royal commission was recommendation 18.2. That recommendation called for the government to reinstate the limitation of six years on debt recovery. Further details of the recommendation in the royal commission's report note that the six-year limit on debt recovery was caused by a repeal of the relevant subsections by the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016, and that I quote:

There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on any different footing from other debtors.

We know that there are people who have received income support, sometimes decades ago, who live in fear that at some point in their future, they will receive a debt notice because there is no limitation on debt recovery. They live in fear that they're going to receive a debt notice from a department that we know has a history of unlawfully raising debts. The government says that it needs to further consider the implementation of this recommendation, but it's now been two years since the release of the robodebt royal commission, which begs the question: how much more time does the government require to consider these changes? We have a situation where we were told yesterday that the government has recently received advice that means it needs to rush through schedule 5 without inquiry and yet the government has had over two years to introduce a six-year limitation on debt recovery, which was a key recommendation of the robodebt royal commission. Minister, how much more time does the government require to implement this very important recommendation of the robodebt royal commission?

The government has acted on 75 per cent of the recommendations made by the robodebt royal commission, with a broad range of measures introduced to restore trust across the social security system. I remind the chamber that it was the government that commissioned the royal commission into robodebt, so that we could understand very clearly what went on there and make sure it never, ever happens again. We've also invested millions to ensure that a failure like robodebt will never happen again. We've accepted or accepted in principle all 56 recommendations made by the robodebt royal commission, and we remain committed to implementing them all. Some of them are complex, and we need time to work through them. This package is a step towards systemic social security debt reform.

In terms of recommendation 18.2, we won't be supporting Senator Allman-Payne's amendment. It seeks to reinstate the statute of limitations. The government has agreed in principle to this recommendation, and we know it is an important area of work that needs to be completed. The Minister for Social Services is leading this process to examine how an effective statute of limitations would operate in practice. The old six-year statute of limitations was not as effective as it could have been and did not provide a meaningful limit on the raising and recovery of historic debts. For this measure to be effective, the government does believe it needs to be designed properly and consulted on—a process that the government intends to carry out thoroughly. They do come with significant budget impacts and so we need to consider that through the budget process. The government will work across government to ensure that, as this work is completed, we fully understand all of the impacts.

I should also note that increasing the small debt waiver to $250 and waiving 1.2 million undetermined debts this financial year alone—as this bill does, if it's allowed to pass—will remove more debts from the backlog than reinstating the old statute of limitations would, so can we please pass the bill.

I'm struggling to understand why, on the one hand, the government wants to take such an extended period of time to work on a recommendation to put back in place something that previously existed but doesn't require any consultation or time whatsoever to remove people's human rights and go against the rule of law with schedule 5. That seems to be somewhat hypocritical. My understanding is that the last Minister for Social Services had amendments or legislation drafted to reinstate the six-year debt limit on debt recovery but it wasn't brought to the parliament. Minister, how much longer is the government going to require people on income support to wait before this recommendation of the royal commission is implemented? I know you've said that debts are going to be waived, but we still have a situation where, again, people on welfare are being treated differently to everyone else in our community. There is no other area of law where people can recover debts beyond six years. We have a statute of limitation for a reason, and yet the most vulnerable in our community, people on income support, are being told to wait. How much longer, Minister, will they have to wait?

Progress reported.

I rise today to commend Dr Jorian Kippax, who was named the 2026 Australian of the Year for Tasmania. Dr Kippax is an emergency physician and hyperbaric medicine specialist at the Royal Hobart Hospital, a reservist officer with the Australian Defence Force and a man whose career exemplifies courage, skill and service.

Australians came to know Dr Kippax through the extraordinary Franklin River rescue conducted in 2024. When Lithuanian rafter Valdas Bieliauskas was trapped for nearly 20 hours in fierce and freezing rapids, Dr Kippax was winched into the torrent. With no other options, he performed an underwater amputation to save the man's life. For this act of bravery he was awarded Lithuania's Life Saving Cross by President Gitanas Nauseda. But this singular rescue represents only one chapter in a remarkable lifelong career.

Dr Kippax has been deployed with AUSMAT to disaster zones, including the Philippines after a Cyclone Yolanda, and he has supported the Australian Antarctic Program in medical retrievals. He served as a Defence Force reservist, leading Tasmania's health element, and has contributed to international medical exchanges. His expertise spans emergency medicine, hyperbaric therapy and trauma care, and he's shared that knowledge widely through both teaching and mentoring. Beyond medicine, he is also an expedition mountaineer and sailor, embodying resilience and leadership in every sphere.

In accepting this honour, Dr Kippax spoke with great humility, insisting he represents the many colleagues and rescuers who stood beside him. His humility, combined with extraordinary bravery and skill, is precisely why he deserves this recognition as Tasmanian Australian of the Year. I thoroughly commend Dr Jorian Kippax for his selfless service, his courage under pressure and his lifelong commitment to saving lives. He is truly a great asset to our state and to our country, and this recognition is a tribute not only to him but to the values of compassion, professionalism and teamwork that define the best of our nation.

I concur with your comments, Senator Chandler.

As you know, Acting Deputy President Polley, and as I'm sure you campaigned to the good people of Tasmania, during the election we promised to cut student debt, and we meant it. It was the very first piece of legislation we introduced in this parliament, and now we are delivering on that commitment.

Over the next couple of weeks, young Australians will be getting one of the best text messages they've ever received. It's a simple message but one that will make a real difference. It will let them know that their student debts have been reduced by 20 per cent. Our government is stepping up for the more than three million Australians with a student debt. The average HECS debt today is about $27,000. That means the average reduction will be around $5½ thousand—wiped from those balances. There will be no applications, no forms and no hoops to jump through, just real cost-of-living relief at a time people need it most. That is what we are doing.

We are delivering for the people of Australia. We've delivered more bulk-billing Medicare. We've delivered cheaper medicines. We are now delivering the student debt cuts that we promised at the election. While those opposite bicker and back-step, our government is getting on with the job of delivering for all Australians.

In my last few seconds, as I stand here for what will probably be my last contribution of this parliamentary year, I want to say a quick congratulations to Australia's very own Robert Irwin. He has made the finals of Dancing with the Stars, and I know so many of us in Australia are rooting for him to bring it home tonight in the US. Robert is Australia's travel ambassador in the US. He's out there, working hard and proving why US travellers should come and visit Australia. I know those twinkle toes are going to bring home the trophy tonight. Good luck, Robert! We are all behind you. We can't wait to see you exceed our expectations. Congratulations for making the final.

Today is the first day of the UN's global 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign. As I have done for years, I'm going to read the names of women killed by violence this year using records kept by the organisation Counting Dead Women. It is a volunteer organisation because we still don't have a government-kept national toll. The lives of these 43 women matter. They are: Marcia Chalmers, 86; Rhukaya Lake, 39; Lisa Ward, 55; unnamed woman, 58; Jordana Johnston, 36; unnamed woman; Irene Selmes, 84; unnamed woman, 52; unnamed woman, 23; unnamed woman, 31; Carra Luke, 48; unnamed woman, 30; Anu Kumar, 32; Summer Fleming, 20; Athena Georgopoulos, 39; Zoe Walker, 38; Shafeeqa Husseini, 41; Amanda Ramen, 62; unnamed woman, 81; Leanne Akrap, 47; unnamed woman, 22; Krystel Paul, 41; Norma Dutton, 85; Lauren Hopkins, 47; Muzhda Habibi, 23; unnamed woman, 48; Phoebe Bishop, 17; unnamed woman, 28; unnamed woman, 39; Thi Kim Tran, 45; Louise Hunt; Czarina Tumaliuan, 42; Cecilia Webb, 79; Audrey Griffin, 19; Irene Herzel, 78; Kara Weribone, 27; Crystal Beale, 49; unnamed woman, 41; Rachel Moresi, 55; Rachel McKenna, 35; Lilian Donnelly, 88; Merril Kelly; and an unnamed woman, 51.

Our part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy continues to flit around Brazil and take on roles, when instead he should be worried about energy prices here at home. Meanwhile, the Australian energy commission has released a report in which unnamed executives are quoted as saying:

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

They go on:

I think it's the calm before the storm, and I think the storm is coming around cost and competitiveness …

This energy grid that is being overseen by an ideological Labor government—renewables at any cost—is driving down Australia's competitiveness and driving up the costs on every family and every small business.

With Christmas just around the corner, I visited a food producer in Western Australia last week who talked about their daily energy bill increasing from just over $2,000 a day to $4½ thousand a day under this Labor government. Those increases are unsustainable and they feed directly through to the pressure that is placed upon Australian families in the lead-up to Christmas. That is why, once again this year, I'm doing a Foodbank donations drive—getting food donations to give to Foodbank to help those who are struggling this Christmas. Now, more than ever, I need your support to get those donations in. Please drop them in to my office at 1 Harper Terrace in South Perth. We need to give generously this year for all those out there who are suffering.

Renowned researchers such as Annamaria Lusardi, Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, show that financial literacy is lowest among disadvantaged groups and that strengthening financial knowledge helps narrow wealth gaps. Evidence from Peru reinforces this—students who learned financial skills became more financially autonomous and had fewer loan arrears years later.

These lessons extend beyond the classroom. When young people learn to budget and save, their families often follow. This is how we strengthen opportunity across generations. In Tasmania, teachers like Joy Russell and Neesha-Marie Hartog tell me students are eager for these skills, parents value these skills and employers are increase looking for them. Their experiences are echoed by organisations such as Business Educators Australasia. But access still relies heavily on dedicated individual teachers going above and beyond. That is why I support a nationally consistent approach introducing financial literacy earlier and embedding it from early years through to year 12.

Looking internationally gives us a sense of what is possible. Thiry-five American states now require financial literacy for graduation. New Zealand's Banqer program provides financial education resources across primary and secondary schools. The EU has developed a comprehensive competence framework. These examples simply show the scale of ambition that we can match. Australia has every opportunity to lead in this space. If we're committed to productivity, wellbeing and long-term prosperity, then financial literacy should be elevated as a national priority embedded in how we prepare young people for adulthood, supported across jurisdictions and championed across the community. Every young Australian deserves the confidence to navigate life after school with dignity and financial security.

In the last sitting period we saw the Senate at its best, uniting to pass a motion in solidarity on the atrocities in Sudan, forcing the government back to the drawing board on a bad defence honours bill that they had done absolutely no consultation on and using the Senate's powers to force the government to come clean on a jobs-for-mates report that they've been sitting on for two years. By contrast, yesterday we saw the Senate at its worst. Rather than being a house of review, it became a house of theatre, home to a cheap political stunt designed to sow division and disrespect people of the Muslim faith. We need to be able to have hard conversations in this place, but we need to be able to have them respectfully. Without that, all we do is put people in our communities at risk.

In May this year, right here in Canberra, we saw a cowardly Islamophobic attack on one of our Muslim community leaders, Diana Abdel-Rahman. This was a violent, racially motivated, unprovoked assault in Civic, and this is the type of real-life consequences that come from the kinds of actions that we saw here in the Senate yesterday. It's not just people in our community; it's those who've been elected to represent them. I want to call out the heinous death threats that have been made against colleagues in this place and the other place, specifically against Senator Fatima Payman, Senator Lidia Thorpe and the member for Wentworth, Allegra Spender. This is totally unacceptable. We need to call it out, and it needs to stop. I pledge my solidarity with and support for my colleagues and those in our community suffering such unacceptable persecution. We need to do better as a country.

Before speaking I'd like to endorse and commend the comments made by Senator Pocock just then and add my name to his sentiments. Today I want to express my congratulations and appreciation to the Armenian National Committee of Australia, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. Since it was first established 50 years ago, the Armenian National Committee has worked tirelessly to advance the concerns of the Armenian Australian community, to help them play a full role in the civic, commercial, cultural and political life of this nation, to help shape public policy, to help inform lawmakers, including about the history—in many respects, the tragic history—of the Armenian people and the Armenian nation, and to build bridges between today's Armenia and Australia. Through its national network, through its advocacy and through its very active participation in the life of this parliament and indeed the corridors of this building, the committee has served as a vital bridge between the community and their elected representatives, ensuring that Armenian Australian voices are heard clearly in our national discourse.

Today the committee represents some 36 Armenian Australian organisations with some 5½ thousand members right across the country and serves the broader community of around 50,000 Australians who can trace their descent to Armenia. The committee has helped Armenian Australians contribute to the life of our nation in business, in education, in the arts, in public service and in community leadership. It has helped demonstrate how a committed diaspora organisation can enrich Australian democracy, promote human rights and strengthen our very nation. I congratulate the Armenian National Committee of Australia on this milestone and commend them for their tremendous work over these past five decades.

Today marks the beginning of 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence. It is a stark reminder of both the scale of this national crisis and what enables it. At the root of gender based violence is gender inequality. Rigid stereotypes, the gender pay gap and the ways that society excuses abuse all contribute to a culture that devalues women, and the consequences are devastating. One woman in Australia is killed every nine days by a current or former partner. Intimate partner violence causes more death, disability and illness for women aged 25 to 44 than any other preventable risk factor.

Yet, across the last decade, we have started to see a decrease in violence and a significant decline in the number of women murdered over the past three decades. That progress is not accidental; it is the direct result of advocacy, primary prevention and the tireless work of frontline services and their staff. I want to pay tribute to those frontline workers. Every day, specialist domestic and family violence workers, practitioners and workers in child and family services—including services like the Orange Door in Victoria—support victims-survivors through some of the hardest moments of their lives. Their work is complex, highly skilled, emotionally demanding and profoundly important. The decisions they make can be life or death. It is gruelling work, with high levels of burnout and workers exposed to vicarious trauma. Their important work restores safety, dignity and respect to the lives of women and children and helps set people on a path of recovery. The government has a responsibility to back them in. We do so through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children and the National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality, and this drives every bit of progress we make. Those workers deserve our respect.

Tasmania stands on the cusp of making a terrible mistake that will place an intergenerational burden on our state. The Macquarie Point Stadium is an awful deal for Tasmania, and the Legislative Council of Tasmania must vote it down next week. It's a multibillion dollar project that will rip money out of our health system, out of our housing services, out of our public schools and out of the supports Tasmanians desperately need. We do not have billions of dollars to waste on a stadium when people are sleeping rough on the street, when our hospitals are overburdened, when homelessness is skyrocketing and when our public housing waiting lists are stretching for years. A government with its priorities straight would be fighting for Tasmanians and the services they need, not signing up for decades of debt on a stadium the majority of Tasmanians do not want. This saga is turning us into a national laughing stock. The ABC is literally funding a fully scripted comedy based on the stadium saga. This is cargo cult stuff. It is abjectly embarrassing for Tasmania. The Legislative Council of Tasmania needs to clean up this mess, they need to stand up for people who need services, and they need to stand up for people who will be paying the bills long after the politicians and the AFL suits have moved on. Kill the stadium, and tell the AFL, 'We demand our team, we will not held hostage, and we will not be blackmailed.'

Today, on International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, we confront the truth the UN has made abundantly clear: digital violence is violence. It is a real form of violence and is rising at a terrifying pace. Around the world, almost one in three women experience physical or sexual violence. Here, in Australia, the urgency is unmistakable, as 74 women have been killed by domestic violence in just the past year.

Now this abuse has moved into the digital realm, where AI tools, anonymity and weak regulation have created new weapons like deepfake pornography, image based abuse, online stalking, doxxing, hate speech, grooming and coordinated campaigns to silence women with an online presence. These attacks don't stay online; they spill into real-life fear, coercion and, in worst cases, physical violence and femicide. The burden falls heaviest on women of colour, women with disability, young women and those of us in politics, journalism and activism. I've spoken in this chamber about the deepfakes, racist abuse and threats I've personally endured. Too many women in WA, across Australia and globally know this to be a reality.

The UN's message is clear: governments must end impunity with stronger laws; tech companies must remove harmful content and build safer platforms; and we must properly fund organisations supporting survivors. Australia cannot fall behind. We must strengthen the Online Safety Act, lower the barrier for action, enforce platform accountability and recognise digital violence as the gendered human right violation it is. There is #NoExcuse for online abuse.

Yesterday, the Senate blocked a burqa ban and then enforced a burqa ban. The rules here don't apply to the people that make them. Senator Hanson chose to make this very point, and the Senate has now censured her, terrified of calling out the insidious growth of radical Islamic influence in Australia, an influence which makes Australia less, not more. It's an influence which attacks Christianity and Judaism and attacks nonbelievers everyday it's allowed to continue. It's an influence which has seen multiple Islamic religious leaders calling for Sharia law in Australia and for support of the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation. Some Islamic religious leaders in Australia call Christmas 'haram', with one even claiming that saying, 'Merry Christmas,' is worse than congratulating murder. It's an influence which actively encourages their followers to not integrate into Australian society, to not cooperate with Australian law and culture.

To my own constituents who see themselves as Australians and whose religion is Muslim, I say this to you: regrettably, the war against radical Islam has found its way to your door. This was, though, inevitable. It was the Labor prime minister Bob Hawke that radicalised some Australian Muslims when importing Sheikh El-Din Hilaly to head Lakemba Mosque, a man famous for calling Australian women uncovered meat and against the protests of Australian Muslims who correctly predicted his appointment would radicalise Islam in Australia. It's now a Labor-Greens government that has attacked Senator Hanson with venom so as to silence her, temporarily, in the Senate despite her being elected duly to represent the people of Queensland and Australia.

Muslims can, of course, peacefully co-exist with Christians. Radical Islamists cannot. Senators, it's a damning criticism of this chamber that you do not understand the difference or you choose to deliberately ignore it—

Thank you, Senator.

Broken promises, overcrowded hospitals, ambulances ramped for hours, elective surgeries delayed for months, if not years, and a Prime Minister who is shirking his responsibility—this is Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's health and aged-care crisis. The Prime Minister promised to fund 42.5 per cent of hospital funding costs by 2030. Now, he's backing away, putting caps on his own promises, which means the Commonwealth contribution could actually go backwards. This is a major broken promise.

What's worse is that it is Labor's aged-care failures that are fuelling these pressures on our hospitals. Right now, thousands of older Australians are stranded in hospitals waiting for aged-care support. It's no wonder that every single state and territory leader has now written to the Prime Minister to call him out. They are united in accusing the Prime Minister for—I quote from their letter—'forcing those vulnerable people to stay in hospital and denying others a hospital bed they desperately need.' These accusations are backed up by the data. A major new industry report has revealed that only 578 new aged-care beds were made operational last financial year. That's only around five per cent of what is needed to meet demand. Occupancy in our aged-care homes is almost at capacity, and more than 238,000 Australians have been left waiting for home-care support, with a government purposely rationing the care and release of packages. Older Australians are stuck in hospital because there is nowhere else for them to go. This is a national disgrace of the Prime Minister's making. Anthony Albanese promised to put care back into our aged care, but, instead, he is blaming the states and territories for his failure. Enough is enough. Stop blaming others for your failures and do your job, Prime Minister.

Too many disabled kids are being excluded from our public schools. Just last week, over 900 school bags were laid on the steps of Parliament House in Perth, each carrying the story of a disabled student failed by our public school system or the voice of a teacher pleading for the resources to support them. We have seen this before. In 2022, a similar protest called for an independent review. The review produced 15 urgent recommendations. The government has only fully supported one. What many people may be shocked to learn is this: in WA public schools, it is legally permitted to deny the enrolment of a disabled child. This must change, yet the WA government has still not committed to doing so.

We must stop rejecting students because of their disabilities. For students at school, we know that the system isn't providing what they need to succeed. I've heard from parents and from disabled young children that school isn't safe, with bullying, exclusion and ineffective support plans. We need to resource our public schools better. We know that teachers are leaving the profession in unprecedented numbers. They are burnt out, lacking support and underresourced. Our educational assistants are also underpaid while taking on complex behaviour management, supporting disabled students and adapting and adopting curriculum on the fly. Disabled students are being denied the safe, inclusive education that they deserve. Inequitable access to education is a problem in this country, especially in WA. Every student in a public school deserves— (Time expired)

The Macquarie Point Stadium has been dominating Tasmanian headlines. Now that it's passed the lower house and looks like it'll make it through the upper house, we've got to be realistic. If the Tasmanian government is only going to listen to the parts of the community that want the stadium, then we need to step in and make sure it becomes the best investment possible for Tasmania. My focus is to keep the benefits local. If this stadium goes ahead, it must strengthen our local economy, support our tradies and small operators, and put money back into Tasmanian communities, where it belongs. The project must be contracted to Tasmanian businesses and built by Tasmanian workers—no funnelling profits off to the mainland.

The stadium must be for Tasmanians by Tasmanians. I will continue to fight to ensure the federal government's $240 million lands with local businesses and workers. The same goes for the $65 million for the UTAS Stadium redevelopment in Launceston. We need real bang for buck, and we need it staying in our home state. I secured the GST exemption on that $240 million so Tasmanians wouldn't be punished for the government choosing to fund a stadium. Without that exemption, our GST share would have been cut, meaning less for hospitals, schools, roads and energy. Instead, the exemption delivers an extra $1,100 to every household, a huge help during a cost-of-living crisis.

But stadiums won't lift productivity; small businesses will. They are the lifeblood of our economy, all having a go and creating jobs. They need certainty and incentives to grow. That's why I have proposed to increase the instant asset write-off from $20,000 to $30,000 and to extend it for five years, not one. Tasmania thrives when Tasmanians are backed, and that's what I'm here to deliver.

Last week, I travelled to Collie in regional Western Australia to meet with workers, local leaders and community organisations who are shaping Collie's next chapter. It's a powerful reminder that the successful transition is not something that happens to a community; it's something that you build with them. I was proud to attend the Just Transition Working Group alongside Minister Tim Ayres and my state colleague the member for Collie-Preston, Jodie Hanns MLA, who are strong advocates for Collie and for ensuring that the community is genuinely at the centre of all of our work. The message was clear from the room. People want stability, secure long-term jobs and to see new industries take root in Collie, not somewhere else. This is exactly what the Albanese Labor government is delivering. It is a real plan, not a $600 billion fantasy cooked up by those opposite. This is a plan where Collie sees the transition and is part of the national responsibility, and it's this government that keeps showing up, keeps listening to workers and keeps investing in something we can all be proud of.

Thank you, Senator Cox. We'll move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Mr Bowen has repeated on numerous occasions that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Yet, since Labor was elected, power prices have risen by nearly 40 per cent. Minister, when will power bills come down under your net zero plan?

I do remember, Senator Paterson, your colleague Senator Canavan on these questions at the end of the dull, dark period of inaction that characterised the Morrison period of government, saying that electricity prices had gone up by 91 per cent when you lot were in charge of the electricity system. After Mr Taylor and Mr Morrison legislated net zero targets, after Mr Morrison went to the COP in Glasgow and then wandered around and did a big holiday on taxpayers' expense—wandering around, doing a family history tour of southern England—

Minister Ayres, thank you. Resume your seat. Senator Paterson?

President, I'm not sure if you're listening closely to the minister's answer, but it was way, way, way off. On direct relevance, I ask that you pull him back to the question.

I always listen carefully, Senator Paterson, and I will draw the minister back to your question.

What I was illustrating, of course—and I'll get to that little part of your question that brushed with the facts in due course—was that Mr Morrison's approach was to take climate negotiations as a holiday opportunity.

Minister Ayres—to the question.

This government is taking an entirely different approach, resolving the wreckage where 24 out of 28 coalfired power stations announced their closure or brought their closure forward with no action—not one new generator, not any substantial infrastructure. Under us—

Senator, don't you worry; we'll get there. We've got 28 seconds.

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson?

The minister is helpfully signposting that he has no intention of answering my question, by saying he'll get there. I think it's a fair indication that he is not being directly relevant.

I am listening carefully. I have directed the minister to your question. I take at face value that he will get there, but, if he doesn't, I will remind him of your question.

Renewables, backed by storage, gas and hydro, is the lowest possible source of electricity generation. We are battling against a decade of inaction, inertia and policy paralysis that characterise your show, which is getting worse, and power prices will always be lower under our orderly model than under your disorderly show.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Australians have never had it any better, Minister! Mr Bowen said earlier this month:

With investment in the cheapest form of generation, renewables, we are modernising our grid whilst putting downward pressure on bills.

Yet more than 350,000 Australian households were facing electricity bill debt in the first half of the year alone, and 10,268 businesses went insolvent or appointed external administrators, a 53 per cent increase year on year. Minister, what is your message to the more than 330,000 Australian households— (Time expired)

My message is that, on electricity prices, there are two scenarios moving forward from here. One is a rollout of an electricity modernisation program with the lowest possible cost.

How's that working out?

You see, Senator Paterson, there's this thing called 'hard work', which you may not understand. There's this thing called 'national effort', which you may not understand. There are these sets of principles around national interest that obviously always escape you. This is a job that we have to do to recover the wreckage that was left after a decade of policy inertia. That's the truth. We have work to do to recover the wreckage that you and your colleagues left. It damaged Australia's capacity, it damaged ordinary Australians and it damaged heavy industry.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

Minister, Mr Bowen, earlier this month, celebrated a record amount of renewable energy generation in Australia. Considering we have a record amount of what Mr Bowen claims is the cheapest form of power, will you guarantee that the cheapest form of power will reduce household energy bills next year?

I think I said yesterday, controversially, that a question that I was asked was dishonest. The question that you just asked is, at best, wilfully misdirected—a wilful misunderstanding of the position. Of course, you only need to grapple with the economic and engineering realities of this to agree with the Australian Energy Market Commission, who say:

Delaying the connection of renewable generation and transmission into the market would put upward pressure on residential electricity costs.

What we know for certain is that, under your disorderly transition scenario, prices would be higher. Under our scenario, prices would be lower than they otherwise would.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Minister, you've concluded your answer? Yes? Thank you.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Today marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, a reminder that ending gender based violence has been and continues to be a national priority for the Albanese Labor government. Can the minister outline how the government is driving change, including through the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children? And what progress has been made so far?

I thank Senator Smith for the question and for the work that she has done in the last term and this term to support Australian women and make sure they get a better deal. Violence against women and children is never acceptable, and today the Minister for Social Services and the assistant minister, Minister Kearney, and I have announced that we are providing an additional $41.8 million for 1800RESPECT, to make sure that everyone who seeks help can get it. We know, and many senators in this place know, that 1800RESPECT is a critical service supporting families experiencing domestic and family violence to have the trauma-informed and more easily accessible support that they need. This will include on-demand video, counselling and SMS capability, so that victims-survivors can access support by the medium that best suits their needs.

In addition to this, of course, this government has proudly made important and significant investments into ensuring that we are doing everything we can to end violence against women and children, including making the Leaving Violence Program permanent and introducing legislation to make sure our social security system can't be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse. We've invested into emergency and transitional housing, to ensure that women can reach safety when they need it. We are investing in legal services, including women's legal services; legislating 10 days paid domestic violence leave; and launching an inquiry into domestic, family and sexual violence related suicide. We've established the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence in universities, implemented all of the 55 Respect@Work recommendations and legislated a positive duty for employers to protect staff and customers from sexual harassment and abuse. And we know that there is more work to do.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. This work is absolutely crucial and must continue. What steps is the government continuing to take to prevent violence and to hold perpetrators accountable as part of the national plan?

I thank Senator Smith for that supplementary and for highlighting the need to continue to look at the best ways for action to be taken under the national plan, and there is a very significant conversation around holding perpetrators to account and also ensuring that we are investing in prevention. We are investing in programs to support children and young people to heal, recover and break the cycle of violence; delivering prevention and consent campaigns that people may have seen on TV or through social media; holding perpetrators to account through funding programs that intervene earlier with men who want to change their behaviour; taking action to deal with high-risk perpetrators, including investing to detect, monitor and intervene with repeat offenders; and introducing legislation to make sure our social security system can't be weaponised by perpetrators of abuse. There is more work to do on that, and I will work with Minister Plibersek on it.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Today also marks the beginning of the United Nations UNITE campaign and 16 days of activism, which this year is focused on digital abuse. How is the government addressing technology facilitated abuse, including harmful apps and social media practices that enable image based violence?

I thank Senator Smith for that question around technology facilitated abuse. When you have a national plan that goes for a period of time, you have to continue to adjust your responses based on what you're seeing, and this is one of those areas. I'd like to shout out the work of the eSafety Commissioner and those who work at the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, who have done an extraordinary amount of work in this space. They often are the receivers or victims of abuse through the use of technology because of the work they are doing. It is very important work.

More than half of Australian adults say they've been targeted by technology facilitated abuse. Women and children, as we often see in so many areas, are often targeted through this kind of behaviour. We have been taking action to reduce access to nudify apps and undetectable stalking apps. We will work across government with our regulators and industries to make sure our efforts are measured, targeted and effective. Of course the social media ban, introducing a minimum age of 16, is an important part— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, we've had reports from farmers who couldn't track incoming storms to protect their sheep because the new BOM platform failed to load local weather observations, and fishers who couldn't see wind direction or sea state to decide whether to invest their time or whether it was safe. Growers are left to guess the weather when preparing for harvest. How the Labor Party justify spending $96 million on a Bureau of Meteorology website that performs worse than free weather apps, especially when your government claims to care about food security as you launch a free food security council while leaving the very people who produce that food at risk of an underperforming weather app?

Thank you, Senator Cadell. I'm sure Senator Cadell has noticed the comments I've made about the BOM's handling of its website change. I, along with, I'd say, most other Australians, were pretty unimpressed with the way the BOM handled that. I met with—

You're in charge!

I am the minister, Senator McKenzie, and that's why, as the minister, I had a meeting at the time with the acting CEO of the BOM and explained that I didn't think their actions and management of this met public expectations. I asked them to consider urgent changes, which they began making within a couple of days of that. They have also indicated that they will be making further changes to that website, which I think is the right thing to do.

Is in terms of the cost of this website upgrade, the BOM's earlier statements to the effect that the cost had been around $4 million were one aspect of this program. They subsequently clarified that there was more to it than just the public-facing website. I do think that they could have been more fulsome, shall we say, in what they said at the time. We've now had—

Who approved this?

The BOM. They're an independent agency. We don't get in and tell the BOM what the climate is.

You should!

We should get in and tell the BOM what the climate is? Right. Ministers should decide what the weather is? Shall I hop on the BOM website and tell them what I reckon the weather is? Honestly, you people!

Firstly, we respect science. Secondly, we respect independent government agencies. Thirdly, we respect the fact that those independent agencies have an obligation to spend taxpayers' money wisely. That's exactly what I said to the new CEO of the BOM when I met with him twice in his first fortnight in the job. I'll have a little bit more to say about this in your next question.

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

():  Given those concerns and things you have raised here, Minister, will you commit today to commissioning an independent audit, preferably by ANAO, to investigate the procurement, delivery, testing and performance of this $96 million website? If not, what is this government afraid of?

():  Well, Senator Cadell, I can appreciate that you wouldn't be aware of this, given you weren't a member of the chamber at the time, but do you know which government commissioned this new website? It was the Turnbull government. So it was the Turnbull government that signed those contracts about that new website, I'm sorry to inform you. The work continued over a number of years, but this goes back to the Turnbull government, followed by the Morrison government.

What I did as soon as I became aware of the problems with this website was to meet with the acting CEO, explain my displeasure and ask for urgent changes to be made, which occurred. I've met twice with the new CEO of the BOM, including on his very first day in the job, to outline my concerns and the need for him to get on top of them, and I have confidence that the new CEO of the BOM is taking these matters seriously and will properly investigate them.

Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

We would very much prefer an audit, because this side has nothing to hide in this process. Minister, if the bureau and the government can't even manage a rollout of a website, why should Australians trust the government's big systems reforms right across the food security network, energy and the environment?

Well, I can tell you what Australian farmers don't need. They don't need an alternative government that doesn't believe in climate change. They don't need an alternative government that says: 'We don't need to do anything about emissions. We don't need to worry about the fact that droughts are more likely, that floods are more likely and that cyclones are more likely and about impact on agriculture.'

Minister Watt, had you concluded? Are you sitting down? Senator Cadell.

On direct relevance, this was solely about big system reforms and energy technology.

Thank you. I'll draw the minister back to the government's response.

Returning to the matter at hand, as I've said a number of times now—not just here today but also in the media on several occasions over the last couple of weeks—I'm not happy about how the BOM has handled this matter. We do have a new CEO in place who brings a very strong record in managing large, complex science based organisations. I have confidence that he will, as I have requested, get to the bottom of what has happened here to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent wisely, whether it be by this government or by former Turnbull government ministers when they signed off on these contracts in the first place.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Forty-three women have been killed by family and domestic violence this year alone. We continue to be in an epidemic of violence against women. We know that violence against women cuts against all backgrounds and disproportionately affects First Nations women and women with disabilities. Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the start of UN Women's 16 Days of Activism. We welcome the government's additional funding for 1800RESPECT, which has experienced a 3,000 per cent rise in calls. But, as demand continues to grow, it's simply not enough, and it's frontline services that need more funding too. Women are still turned away when they seek help, and underfunding of specialist sexual assault services means that, when 1800RESPECT refers callers to them, they can't provide support. When will the government increase funding to frontline family and domestic support services, to specialist sexual violence services and to comprehensive prevention work across the community?

I thank Senator Waters for the question and also for the role she plays in the women's policy space more generally but particularly in the area of women's safety. I would say to Senator Waters: we are coming at this issue of how to end violence against women and children with every single available lever across government. Yes, it is about frontline services, and we have invested heavily in that space—over $4 billion in programs for ending gender based violence, including support for frontline services and, in addition to that, $3.9 billion in legal services, including women's legal services and Aboriginal legal services, to make sure that they're on solid and sustainable footing, with funding into the future.

We are also coming at this from housing policy; from sharing and valuing care policy—that is, how we deliver care; and from driving women's economic equality policy, ensuring that women's wages are not suppressed, that they are getting paid properly for the work they're doing and that they have skills and training opportunities on par with men. Our women's health package ensures women aren't paying out-of-pocket and are able to access services in the health system in ways they haven't been able to before. Of course, there is also the work that we're trying to do around women's leadership and representation and diversity across the government, using all of the levers available to us. We know, in driving gender equality, which is at the heart of violence against women and children, we have to come at this from every possible angle, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

The Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission has recently recommended a national funding mapping framework to track unmet need in the family and domestic violence service provision sector and to identify funding priorities. When will that framework be developed, and why has it taken so long for the government to establish a clear picture of unmet need in this sector?

I don't accept that assertion at the end. I would say that, since coming to government, since 2022, we have put women's policy and driving gender equality—which, as I said, is at the heart of women's safety and ensuring women's safety—at the centre of the government. It is at the centre of everything we think about. In relation to the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commission, we're having the women's ministerial meeting on Friday, because it is essential. I agree with Senator Waters that we need to ensure, where we are providing investments across the Commonwealth, states and territories, we are doing so in a strategic and coordinated way. The commissioner will speak, I think, at the women's ministerial meeting on Friday. That work continues. Of the investments that are being made, ensuring that we are getting the most out of those opportunities is essential. But, as I said, we can't sit in isolation from everything we're doing across government Ent.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

We know that a key barrier to women and children leaving violent households is that they have nowhere to go and they don't have financial security. When will the government raise the rate and tackle the housing crisis, to ensure women don't have to choose between violence and homelessness?

We have increased Commonwealth rent assistance since May by 45 per cent. We've put $1 billion into crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence. In addition to that, we've invested heavily in the new National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness, which of course supports women and children—in addition to a lot of the other programs we've done. In fact, last week I saw Senator McAllister opening 12 units for women leaving violence and older women, many of whom, Senator McAllister tells me, had lived in temporary accommodation for five years at a former old aged-care facility. They are now in more appropriate accommodation, based on the policies of this government. There is more to do, Senator Waters. I always acknowledge that.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Walsh. The Albanese Labor government went to the election promising to support students at our universities and TAFEs by cutting their HECS debt by 20 per cent. How is the government progressing in its delivery of this commitment, and what other measures is the government delivering to help young Australians with cost-of-living relief? How will cutting student HECS by 20 per cent support young Australians with cost-of-living relief and help set them up for life?

Thank you, Senator Walker, for your question. It's wonderful to have such a strong advocate for young Australians and cutting student debt on the Albanese Labor government team.

A year ago, the Prime Minister of Australia promised that a re-elected Albanese Labor government would wipe 20 per cent off HECS debt. Australians voted for it, and we are delivering it. Last weekend, people started receiving emails and text messages saying their HECS debt had been wiped. And in just two days time, 1.5 million Australians will have their HECS debt cut too. Next week, the same thing will happen for a further 1.5 million Australians. They too will get that text message. They will get that email. That's three million Australians getting the HECS relief that they deserve. The HECS relief that we promised. The HECS relief that this government is delivering.

We've wiped $5,500 from the average student debt—gone!—and put it back into the pockets of Australians just as they are getting started in life, just when they need that relief the most. Three million Australians are benefiting from our commitment. Three million Australians are getting this cost-of-living relief. Three million Australians are getting a weight off their shoulders just before Christmas. These are the kinds of reforms that only a Labor government will ever deliver. From these cuts to student debt to our historic investments in Medicare, only Labor delivers the reforms and the relief that young Australians and all Australians deserve.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

We know the Albanese Labor government's reforms to HECS have been huge for young people, helping to take the pressure off, putting more money back in the pockets of millions of Australians and making our education system fairer. What else is the government doing to support young people in education, and has this received widespread support?

We know that young Australians support our student debt cuts. We know that they support free TAFE as well. And we know that young Australians embrace the opportunity to get an education and get ahead.

But, Senator Walker, do you know who doesn't support our cuts to student debt? Do you know who doesn't support our free TAFE program? It's the 'no-alition' over there. I think some of them might be checking their phones right now just to see whether they have got that text message or that email cutting their own student debt, but they don't support our program to cut student debt. While millions of Australians benefit, they still oppose our student debt cuts. They still oppose free TAFE, with the Leader of the Opposition saying, 'If you don't pay for it, you don't value it.' I'll tell you what we value on this side of the chamber, we value the opportunity for an education and we value the opportunity to do exactly what we said we were going to do. (Time expired)

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

The cut to the HECS debt will support young people by delivering cost-of-living relief when they are starting out in life. Along with HECS relief, what else is the Albanese Labor government doing to deliver for young Australians and help them get ahead? Are there any obstacles standing in the way?

Thank you, Senator Walker. We know that young people starting out in life deserve cost-of-living relief, and we are delivering on that while those opposite are divided. While we're looking after the future of young Australians, those opposite are caught up in the conflicts of the past. On this side of the chamber, we see young Australians, we back young Australians, we support young Australians with our 20 per cent HECS cut, with fee-free TAFE and with paid prac too.

Which nurses and teaches cannot access!

And while we know that the Liberals love lower wages and higher taxes, Senator Henderson, we are supporting young Australians with higher wages and lower taxes because we want young Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, while you wanted to abolish free TAFE, Senator Henderson! You wanted to abolish it!

Senator Henderson!

President, we want more young Australians getting an education, walking through those doors of opportunity and getting ahead. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Minister, the ACT has a dire shortage of GPs. We have fewer GPs per capita than even some outer regional areas in Australia. We constantly have the lowest bulk-billing rate in the country, by a long margin, and the ACT government projects it will need at least 33 additional graduate doctors to staff our hospitals by 2041. Given all this, why is it that the ANU has missed out on being allocated additional Commonwealth supported places for the ACT's only medical school?

Thanks very much for your question, Senator Pocock. I think you will know, from previous discussions in this place, that the government understands the significance of the challenge that we face in the ACT in ensuring that ACT residents have access to health care. We do recognise that the bulk-billing rate in the ACT is significantly lower than in other parts of the country, and it's why we are making the arrangements that we are to expand bulk-billing availability in the ACT. You will know, I think, that an expression of interest is open to establish three new bulk-billed GP clinics for Canberra to deliver more doctors and more bulk-billing practices to Canberra. We are of course very focused on workforce, and the government has made significant investments to generate not just more GPs but more nurses and more personnel able to support the health needs of Australians. We will continue to work across the country to ensure that we have the personnel available to support Australians when they need it.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

I'm still not sure why the ACT didn't get some Commonwealth supported places. If you look at Tasmania, another small jurisdiction that also really struggles when it comes to GP shortages and bulk-billing—rather than make UTAS apply for a greater share of Commonwealth support places for their medical school, Labor simply made an election commitment of 20 additional Commonwealth supported places at UTAS. Why will the government give Tasmania more Commonwealth supported places in medicine but not the ACT?

I do have some Tasmanian colleagues suggesting that we should perhaps not see it as a competition between places, but of course we acknowledge that it is important to raise availability and access to health care right across the country. It's why we are making the largest ever investment in Medicare. We recognise that, under the previous government, bulk-billing was in freefall and people's access to Medicare was compromised by the cuts that were made by that government—by their determination to remove resources from our health system. We back public health care. We back the health needs of Australians, and I tell you what: Australians know who is on their side when it comes to health. We will continue to invest in Medicare and continue to expand access to Medicare for all Australians.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Well, Canberrans are asking whether the government is on our side. I welcome the additional CSPs for the medical school in Tasmania. They desperately need them, as do we here in Canberra. Yet, when you allocate 100 additional ones—on top of your 20 to Tasmania—as an election commitment, the place with the lowest GP-to-population ratio and the lowest bulk-billing rate misses out. Please, can you explain to Canberrans why we've missed out?

I can inform the senator that this was a highly competitive and robust process, and it is the case that not all applications could receive Commonwealth supported places and funding. The selection was based on recommendations from a selection advisory committee. This had representatives from the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, the Department of Education, the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. A further 50 commencing medical CSPs will be allocated through a second grant round, which will open in 2026. I would say to the senator, more generally, that we are determined to repair the damage that was done in the period when those opposite governed. We saw a significant deterioration in the overall capacity of the health system, and we are determined to repair it.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia's immigration system is out of control. Infrastructure Australia's 2025 Infrastructure market capacity report shows there is a shortage of around 140,000 skilled workers across Australia, and this is expected to explode to a 300,000-worker shortfall by 2027. The Albanese Labor government has imported roughly 1.2 million extra migrants since 2022, and now the CEO of Infrastructure Australia has admitted in an ABC interview that a solution to the skills shortage—their solution—is to bring in even more migrants to plug the gap instead of treating this as a 300,000-people opportunity to create a better homegrown skilled workforce. Why won't the Albanese government admit that Labor would rather import a workforce than invest in a better future for our kids, the unemployed and our tradies?

I thank the senator for his question. He's covered quite a lot in it. In fact, if he'd listened to the previous responses I've made in the Senate on employment, he would know that we are trying to grow our own, especially in our remote regions with First Nations people. In fact, we tried to roll out at least 3,000 jobs across remote Australia. We are looking at 3,000 rangers, with 1,000 of them women. So when we talk about growing our own, in terms of employment across Australia, we are certainly doing it.

In terms of your premise around migration to Australia, we're very proud to have people call this place home, along with our oldest culture in the country—in the world. We are very proud to welcome visitors from overseas who call this place home. But I will say this too: each time our government moves to try and improve the workforce across Australia, it's not just building the Australian economy and local people in this country and those who call it home; we also need to build houses. But when we have the other side opposing the opportunity to do that, especially One Nation, who oppose everything that we're trying to do, to develop and grow this country, then I would say to the senator: I'm more than happy to provide those details to you about how, on this side of the parliament, we welcome all people who call Australia home, and we are doing our best to ensure that there is employment and growth.

Senator Bell, first supplementary?

Another 300,000 migrants cannot fix a crisis made worse by the 1.2 million you have already brought in, which turbocharged the demand for housing, roads, hospitals and schools. Minister, this is madness. Why is the Albanese Labor government trying to fix a housing and infrastructure crisis created by mass immigration with even more mass immigration?

President, do you know what is madness? What is madness is that One Nation and the coalition continue to oppose the building of this great country through the development of infrastructure and through the development of housing. We constantly bring to this Senate the ability to do that, and you guys opposite sit there, smirk and say no, and then you want to blame everyone but yourselves for why we are having challenges in trying to move forward. You're blaming migration? There is a deeper theme going on here, and I won't have a bar of it. The madness is not on this side. We know where it's coming from.

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Minister, Infrastructure Australia's net zero workforce report says around 130,000 skilled workers are tied up in net zero infrastructure projects. Will you admit that Labor's ideological rush to net zero is not only driving up power bills but also hoovering up the very tradies and specialists we need for housing and infrastructure? Will you back One Nation's policy of ending the net zero madness so those workers can be redirected to fixing our housing and infrastructure crises?

I so welcome this question on net zero, President; I really welcome this question. I have just come to the Senate from a population of over 100,000 in the north who've had to deal with a tropical cyclone way early in the piece, at speeds that are phenomenal for this time of the year for us. We know, unlike the deniers opposite—

Senator Canavan, I have Senator Bell on his feet, but you are busy interjecting. Senator Bell.

Is the minister suggesting that the net zero policy is related to the cyclone?

Senator Bell, what is your point of order? Senator Bell, your question went to net zero. The minister is being directly relevant.

I can see that the senators are very interested in net zero, but let me tell you this. Unlike the other side, we do see that there are issues impacting the climate. We do know, along with countries around the world, that we have to act. So, on this side of the Senate, we will be responsible. We will be sensible. We will try.

Stop the cyclones.

See—you laugh. Senator Canavan, I'll pick you up on that.

No, you're a joke, Senator Canavan. (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, I've had to call you a number of times today, not just at question time. Tonight is open-ended adjournment. I look forward to seeing your name there to put in all of the comments you've been interjecting with for the day.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Emergency Management, Senator McAllister. Over the weekend, we saw Tropical Cyclone Fina impact communities across the Northern Territory, and last night it made landfall in the Kimberley in my home state of Western Australia. I know the Minister for Emergency Management, Minister McBain, was in Darwin yesterday meeting with the NT government. Can the minister update the Senate on the current situation and how the Commonwealth is supporting our communities?

Thank you, Senator Cox. Over the weekend, we have seen incredible efforts by first responders who have helped communities across the Northern Territory who were impacted by Tropical Cyclone Fina. I want to thank the Territorians who played their role, heeding the advice from relevant agencies, keeping themselves and their communities safe. Our government wants to be good partners to the Northern Territory government and will work hand in hand with them to ensure Territorians do have the support that they need to recover. We have staff from the National Emergency Management Agency embedded in the emergency operations centre to ensure that the Australian government can consider any request for assistance as soon as possible.

You're right, Senator Cox, that Emergency Management Minister Kristy McBain was on the ground up in the Territory yesterday to speak with communities and offer assistance to the NT government. She also joined the member for Lingiari, Marion Scrymgour, and Senator McCarthy in the Tiwi Islands and took the opportunity to deliver food to communities there as well. I know that members and senators across both chambers have worked hard to support their communities and to keep them updated. While Tropical Cyclone Fina is weakening, the situation remains dynamic. Senator Cox, as your question indicated, Tropical Cyclone Fina crossed the Kimberley coast. It does remain important for communities, particularly in Western Australia, to heed emergency advice as this tropical cyclone finishes its track. Our government will continue to monitor the situation, and we stand ready to consider any requests for assistance that may be made by the Western Australian government.

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

I know the Albanese Labor government is working closely with the NT government and yesterday activated the disaster relief funding to support communities as they begin to recover from Tropical Cyclone Fina. What support is available to those affected communities?

Many Territorians will have had a difficult few days, and they are now facing the very big task of cleaning up their homes and cleaning up their communities. Our first priority is helping people get the assistance that they need to recover and to rebuild. That's why we've worked closely with the Northern Territory government to activate financial assistance for impacted communities. Territorians who have had to relocate to evacuation centres or leave their communities due to the impacts of Tropical Cyclone Fina are eligible for immediate relief payments to help them get back on their feet. We've also activated joint funding to help councils and the Territory government rebuild damaged roads and public infrastructure to a more resilient standard. We know recovery will be an ongoing process. We will continue working with the Territory government and the community to understand what's needed and to provide the necessary support.

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

We know that, as the climate changes, we can expect increasingly severe and frequent disasters. How is the Albanese Labor government investing in the Commonwealth's emergency management capabilities to better prepare for and protect our communities from disasters?

(—) (): On this side of the chamber we know that the climate is changing and that we need to prepare communities for more severe and more frequent disasters. It is why our government has made record investments in the Commonwealth's emergency management capability—so we can better prepare and better protect communities. We've invested in the national emergency stockpile. That includes resources like emergency housing and generators. These were ready to be deployed to the Northern Territory had the Northern Territory government requested them. We're also investing in risk reduction through the Disaster Ready Fund to better prepare communities for future disasters. Just this month, Minister McBain announced another $200 million to support 96 projects across Australia to help make communities more resilient. We will work with communities and with our Territory partners to prepare communities— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, I was hugely supportive of Labor's defence of the Australian Public Service at the last election and your move to end outsourcing and the overreliance on consultants. I'm concerned by reports today of a new austerity measure and would like to understand how many total jobs will be lost from the APS as a result of your move to require federal departments and agencies to cut five per cent of their annual budget in a single year. How many of these job losses will be in Canberra?

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. The idea that we are imposing a five per cent cut on agencies is incorrect. As I said in a radio interview this morning, what we have asked agencies to do is to think about all the things they're doing and all the programs they administer and to consider whether they are still priorities, because we need to ensure that we've got resources available to meet all of the pressures that are coming the way of the Public Service. I get criticised from those opposite on the issue of fiscal discipline. This is fiscal discipline. You have rules around how you consider new funding, what the existing funding is, what the new priorities are and what the pressures are. Our job is to try and consider that across the board and work out how to make all of the necessary investments.

This exercise has been around ensuring agencies are constantly thinking about what they do. Since we came to government, we've found about $100 billion worth of savings and reprioritisations across government. By finding that, we've been able to invest in the areas that are priorities for this government and meet some of those pressures. This is a continuation of that approach. We are not looking to reduce ASL as part of that. We have been very clear that we thought the Public Service was in terrible shape when we came to government. It had been hollowed out. It had been contracted out. We turned that around in the first term by employing people to permanent Public Service jobs and reducing the use of consultants and contractors. We will continue with that approach, but we will also bring fiscal discipline to the budget process.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, noting your advice that you will not reduce ASL, can I ask how this austerity measure will make it harder for the National Gallery, say, to plug its leaky roof or for the CSIRO to handle the job cuts, which we now know are more than were lost under the Abbott government.

Senator Pocock would know that we've taken decisions about exempting the national institutions from the additional efficiency dividend that was imposed. We have been very sensitive to the collecting institutions and their relatively modest budgets. We've also invested huge amounts into the national institutions, including the National Gallery. I've been working with the National Gallery for over a year on dealing with their issues of their roof, as have other ministers in this place. I think you've seen our record, which is of actually ensuring that we are protecting the budgets of the national institutions here, investing in them to make sure they continue to do what they do and, in relation to the National Gallery, working with the gallery about the best way and timing to make the investments needed to ensure that that building is safe for the art that it holds, and we'll continue to do so.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Thank you very much, Minister, for that. Minister, please can you table a copy of the correspondence from the Department of Finance to department and agency heads so we can have transparency over the exact nature of the government's ask and who this reduction of five per cent applies to?

I'm sure this is something we can continue in estimates next week. I'm not certain—I'm happy to go back and have a look at the correspondence. It's not the Department of Finance's decision; it's the decision of the government. We took that as part of our budget process. We just think it's good practice. It's not an austerity measure. You can go out and say that in the media as much as you like. This is about fiscal discipline and making sure that, when we make investments in the Public Service, they are using those investments for the highest possible need and the priorities and the pressures that we are trying to manage now. It isn't the case that we can just continue investing layer upon layer upon layer. That is not the world that I operate in. I have to manage this not just in Canberra but across the board. This is simply saying to agencies, 'Look, if you're coming to us for extra money, we want to be convinced that you've been thinking about how you use your current money.'

My question is to the Minister for Trade, Senator Farrell. I refer to the government's decision to sign the Belem declaration on the transition away from fossil fuels, which is an agreement to end Australia's second-largest—being coal—and third-largest—being gas—exports. Did the minister for Minister for Climate Change and Energy consult you before signing this agreement? If so, when did you first learn of the details of the Belem declaration?

Senator Henderson, I'd like to thank you personally for coming to the Sydney Institute last week to listen to my speech on trade. It was great to see you, and you might want to tell your colleagues the offer I made very publicly at that meeting.

In our government, we're an action government, and you've seen that in everything we've done—certainly in my space, the trade and tourism space and as the SMOS. But there is something unique about our prime minister in that he has trust in his ministers. So if he appoints you to be a minister then he gives you the responsibility of looking after that—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Henderson.

A point of order, Madam President, on direct relevance. I was seeking information on whether the Minister for Climate Change and Energy consulted Minister Farrell before signing this agreement and, if so, when Minister Farrell first learned about this.

I will draw the minister to your question, Senator Henderson.

As I was saying, this prime minister gives his ministers the responsibility and, in the case of the issues that were raised at the COP, they were issues in the purview of Minister Bowen. I don't tell him how to run his portfolio; he certainly doesn't tell me how to run mine. I have noticed the criticism of Minister Bowen by the opposition. We have completely rejected that criticism of Minister Bowen. He's doing a fantastic job in this space. Just to give you one example of that: the battery scheme.

Minister, you've concluded? First supplementary, Senator Henderson?

It is common practice for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to commission economic modelling before signing agreements which affect Australian trade. Has the government conducted economic modelling on the impact of signing an agreement which ends Australia's second and third largest exports?

I thank Senator Henderson for her first supplementary question. I reject your categorisation of what that decision means. Until very recently, Senator Henderson, you were part of an opposition, and previous to that a government, that, firstly, signed the Paris Agreement, and, secondly—

A point of order on direct relevance. I asked about whether the government has conducted economic modelling on the impact of signing this agreement.

And the minister is being relevant to your question.

You were part of a government and an opposition that supported the move to net zero by 2050. We're not going to get to net zero without the continued use, for instance, of gas. We simply can't switch off gas and turn on renewables. That's just not the way the world works. And this government and the Prime Minister himself— (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, second supplementary?

Given the government wishes to end Australia's second and third largest exports, which made $150 billion a year for Australia last financial year, what does the government propose we replace them with?

I thank Senator Henderson for her second supplementary question. I don't think you listened to my previous answer, Senator Henderson, because this government sees an absolute imperative for the continued use of gas not only in this country but to export, for instance, to our friends in Japan. The first seven hours of energy every single day in Tokyo come from gas supplied by Australia. We are going to continue to honour our contractual obligations, and we're going to continue to use gas as that transition fuel so that, what used to be your objective, namely net zero by 2050, is in fact achieved by this government under this government.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. This year, delivering cost-of-living relief and affordable health care has been a key priority of the Albanese Labor government. How has the government strengthened Medicare and delivered on its commitments to deliver better access to health care for all Australians?

Thank you, Senator Ananda-Rajah, and I commend you for your ongoing in the health care of Australians. This year the Australian people voted for a government that would stand up for them and would stand up for Medicare. And that's what they got. They got it with the Albanese Labor government, and we are making the largest ever investment in the history of Medicare—an 8½ billion-dollar investment—and that started to kick in just a few weeks ago. This will create a new incentive payment for practices that bulk-bill every patient and expand bulk-billing across Australia. It will triple the number of bulk-billing practices and mean that nine out of 10 GP visits will be bulk-billed by 2030. That is what our year of delivering for Australians looks like. We think that approximately 75 per cent of general practices would be financially better off if they moved to fully bulk-billing, and we know that more than a thousand practices have already indicated that they will stop charging a gap fee and move to being a fully bulk-billed service.

The only card that you should need when you go to the doctor should be your Medicare card, and that is what our expansion of bulk-billing is delivering. It's what it is delivering, and it is a rebuild of bulk-billing after a decade of coalition neglect. It is a stark contrast to the record of those opposite. Bulk-billing rates were in freefall under the coalition's six-year freeze of Medicare rebate, which ripped billions out of Medicare. Compare it with our first term, when we delivered $3½ billion in 2023, which restored access to bulk-billing to the 11 million patients that it covered. This year, we are delivering for all Australians with the largest ever investment in Medicare, and it will provide real cost-of-living assistance to families right across the country.

Senator Anandah-Rajah, first supplementary?

In its first term, the Albanese Labor government delivered 87 Medicare urgent care clinics so Australians could get the urgent treatment they need. How has the government continued to roll out urgent care clinics across Australia, and how is this improving access to health care across Australia?

You're right, Senator. We are expanding the availability of free urgent health care by opening another 47 Medicare urgent care clinics. That's 14 new clinics in NSW, nine in Victoria, 10 in Queensland, six in Western Australia, three in South Australia, three in Tasmania, one in the Northern Territory and one in the ACT. These services are a game changer for families right across the country. Australians have made more than two million visits to Labor's free Medicare urgent care clinics. One-third of patients are under the age of 15. Nearly half of the patients who attended a Medicare urgent care clinic would have used a hospital emergency department if no clinic had been available. Thirty per cent of visits to Medicare urgent care clinics have taken place on weekends, and 25 per cent of patients have attended after 5 pm on a weekday. These clinics are filling a gap.

Senator Anandah-Rajah, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government delivered cost-of-living relief to all Australians by strengthening Medicare and cutting the cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in its first term. What further action has the government taken in 2025 to help more Australians access cheaper medicines via the PBS?

Our government is slashing the cost of medicines. We delivered for Australians everywhere when we passed that cheaper medicines bill. From next year, you'll pay no more than $25 when you're filling a prescription on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is a 20 per cent cut to the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS, and it means that Australians will save more than $200 million a year. We want the PBS to be the very best that it can be, offering more Australians effective and affordable treatments. On 1 October, Australians affected by breast cancer, rare kidney disease and a range of other conditions received access to even cheaper medicines on the PBS, and, for the first time in, unbelievably, 30 years, we listed new contraceptive pills on the PBS. These listings are life changing because, instead of paying thousands of dollars, Australians will have cheaper access to the medicines that they need.

With that, I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I've been asked to explain noncompliance with this order. As Senator McKenzie knows, when I'm asked to turn up for these things, I always do. It's order No. 196, relating to the appointment of the observer to the Housing Australia Board, which I'm advised will be made available shortly. But, as the Senate will be aware, this chamber has agreed to a very large number of orders for the production of documents with respect to housing in a very short timeframe. That occurs against the backdrop of a period in Senate procedure where, in fact, the term 'very large' really doesn't do justice to the industrial scale and sometimes automated process of requiring orders to produce that are very difficult for any government to comply with—and I think that's their intent. The Treasury is working to support compliance with these many and varied orders, but processing times are, of course, impacted as a result.

The government is delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency and accountability. We're upholding a standard that the opposition never did. In fact, their approach to these things was not just to avoid upholding the standard but to avoid being in the same suburb as the standard. This chamber has agreed to an average of four of these orders for the production of documents every single sitting day of this parliament. Recently, the Senate even agreed to 14 orders for the production of documents in a single day. I'll give you a tip: these orders for the production of documents have impact when they're used rarely, when you know you're on to something, not as an industrial-scale fishing operation, which would make some of the large, subsidised, northern fleet operations in the Pacific and the Atlantic blush.

These orders, often with a scope that goes into the thousands of pages and often with a turnaround time of mere hours, do not just sort themselves out. There's no magical safe or filing cabinet in the ministerial wing of this building that will instantly serve up whatever documents Senator Bragg or his artificial intelligence OPD generator can produce. These take work, and the problem, Senator Bragg, is they take the work of people you'll probably never meet, people that Mr Dutton, in the last campaign, was contemptuous of. Public servants, who work hard for Australia every single day, instead of delivering for Australia, are now wandering around the office trying to work out how to comply with the latest 14 Senator Bragg orders for the production of documents. That takes real work from real people, who otherwise would be doing real things, not pandering to your or your team's requirement to try and desperately hang on to something that gives some credence to what otherwise has been one of the worst periods of opposition in Australian political history.

The volume and scope of these orders have blown out of all proportion, not just in recent historical terms but in terms of history since the federation of this great country. I would urge those opposite who are responsible for this malfeasant approach to public administration to spend the Christmas break having a little bit of a think about how to use Senate procedures with a bit of impact and purpose to deliver a few hits for your side—that's okay; that's what it's for. But industrial-scale fishing operations aren't in the public interest.

These documents will be made available shortly.

You just don't like primary production, do you?

There is another primary production word that I could use to describe this process, Senator Canavan—

Let's not.

but I won't tempt the Deputy President by using it.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the response.

The minister's response wasn't really an explanation. It was a summary of the government's complaints that the opposition is seeking transparency on the activities of this executive government. Of course, that's what we're here to do. We're here to get to the bottom of things. Ultimately, we have two main jobs. We have to try and hold the government to account on its expenditure of public funds and its administration of programs. That is the job the Australian people would expect us to do on their behalf. So it doesn't surprise me that the same government that wants to gut the FOI Act to ensure that Australians can't understand the inner workings of their own government is having a massive sook about the opposition seeking documents.

What are the documents we're seeking? The documents we are seeking go to the appointment of an observer to the board of Housing Australia. Housing Australia would be one of the greatest boondoggles in the history of federation. It's a $10 billion scheme that's been going for two years and couldn't build a dunny. What it has done is purchase houses that Australians could acquire themselves. That's what it's done. This hugely expensive bureaucracy has had an observer appointed to it. You have a board full of political hacks and losers that are there to spend the taxpayers' funds that can't be trusted by the government. The government appointed all the dead people from Victoria who have been running a dead government down there for years and years, running the poor old people of Victoria into the ground. They're all on the board of this fund. Then they've got someone from Treasury, appointed by this minister, who goes to the board meetings. Not only do they go to the board meetings; they speak in the board meetings, so they're privy to the financial judgements. When we look at the outworkings of the tenders from Housing Australia, who are the greatest beneficiaries? It is the Labor Party's best friends, the super funds and union aligned bodies that are getting billions of taxpayers' funds. This is a very expensive way to build houses.

It may be the case that it's much better for the government to build public housing, but they've decided to go down the route of this hybrid model where they have to pay off all their mates, spivs and crooks. So we're asking questions about what's going on down there. We want to know why the government has appointed an observer to the board of Housing Australia. Who is this person? Why have they been appointed? What are they doing? What are the terms of their appointment? What can they do in the board meetings? What can they not do? What should they recuse themselves from? We're talking about $10 billion. Billions have been promised. In some cases, we're looking at dwellings costing the taxpayer $1.3 million. The average cost of a new dwelling in this country is $500,000, but the taxpayer is being asked to cough up 1.3 million bucks.

These are reasonable questions. The minister can whinge and cry his crocodile tears about the opposition seeking answers, and he can use his stupid fishing metaphors, but what he should be doing is asking his mates at the super funds why they are funding Vladimir Putin's war against Ukraine. Why isn't Minister Wong looking after the sanctions? Why are we as a country allowing these financial institutions to undermine our own sanctions? Instead we hear about fishing boats which are apparently trawling for information as if this is some mission which has no destination. The destination we are seeking is to uncover the paperwork that underpins the appointment of the observer to the board of Housing Australia. That's all we want to know.

We tried to get these documents back in October, and we received a letter from the minister saying it was going to take time because they were down in the bowels of Treasury, and they were digging around with torches on their hats and everything trying to find these pieces of paper. Now here we are at the back end of November, and we still don't have the paperwork. So we wait with bated breath. I don't think it's a bad thing that we're trying to get to the bottom of things.

I rise to take note of the minister's explanation. As I've said time and again, as have many of my colleagues in this chamber, I'm deeply concerned by the lack of compliance with Senate motions by this government. This isn't a new trend. The Centre for Public Integrity raised the alarm on declining compliance rates in 2023. Compelling the production of documents is one of the most significant powers this chamber has to hold government to account. In the area of housing policy we're seeing a particular lack of transparency and accountability from this government at a moment of deep crisis around the housing issues in our country. I'm still waiting for my overdue OPD on public and community housing spending, which was due back two months ago.

Housing is a crucial issue. There's nothing more important right now than having a safe roof over your head, and so many people are struggling, especially renters—seven million Australians in three million households, and all those first home buyers and homeowners who shrink when they read the headlines every day in our newspapers and listen to the radio. It's getting worse for those people who want to enter homeownership, and especially for our young people. We see so many people living in crippling housing stress and with huge mortgage repayments. Homelessness is also a growing problem—10 per cent growth on Labor's watch, since Labor came to power. Everywhere you look, the news is only getting worse and worse.

Just today, Cotality's new housing affordability report shows that Australia's housing affordability has 'hit new lows' compared to the past five years. The median house is now 8.9 times the median income, up from 6.6 just five years ago. National dwelling values have grown 6.3 per cent in this year to date, and Westpac forecasts they're going to grow by an enormous nine per cent next year. In reality, this means that saving for a 20 per cent deposit for a house now will take more than 12 years—12 years!

Cotality's report points to the growing divide between those who own property and those who do not, saying that capital gains themselves potentially widen the gap. We have in our tax policy right now a new engine firing historic levels of intergenerational inequality, driven by tax benefits for wealthy property investors. Cotality also says that those who already own a home and have made strong capital gains can use that windfall profit towards their next property purchase, and we know that is happening, hand over fist, across our financial and housing system. This creates a larger gap of access to housing for those who do not own property and have little possibility in the near future of doing so.

So when will the government listen? When will they finally tackle the unfair capital gains discount and negative gearing tax breaks? The Labor Party used to want to address these unfair, unsustainable and distorting tax breaks for wealthy property investors. Treasurer Jim Chalmers once said that reforming negative gearing and capital gains tax discount was the 'most meaningful lever' that government could pull on housing affordability. In 2017 Senator Brown said:

Any housing affordability package that does not deal with negative gearing and capital gains tax discount is a sham.

And in 2017 Senator McAllister said:

There is something very, very wrong about a tax system that privileges the investor over the young person, the young couple, perhaps a young family, seeking to buy a home to live in.

Spot on, Senator McAllister! She said that our unfair tax system would have 'very significant social consequences as fewer and fewer Australians are able to enter the housing market'—a housing market that has only got worse on Senator McAllister's watch. And these are Labor's own words. What happened to this party, which was willing to take on the big end of town and wanted to put people in places where they had a roof over their head?

Reforming the unfair capital gains discount and negative gearing would reduce inequality and rebalance the housing market. PBO analysis commissioned by the Greens shows that 50 per cent of the benefits of capital gains tax discount go to the richest one per cent—that's 50 per cent of the benefit going to the top one per cent. Instead, we could redirect those billions of dollars into building new public and community housing. Jim Chalmers admits that he got Treasury to model the impact of changes to that tax. He knows what we need to do. Let's get on with it.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

Something that I've been reflecting on recently is something that a lot of people tell me when I talk to them: that they would like their representatives in this place and in the House to actually answer their questions plainly—to answer them directly, without going around in circles. Today's answers to coalition questions, particularly in relation to energy prices and the BOM failure, reminded me of that. Whether people want to accept it or not, this government went to the last election with a promise of reducing electricity prices. There is no planet upon which anybody can stand and suggest that that has occurred. That was a failure of this government to deliver on an election promise of reducing energy prices. Most people have not seen a reduction in any energy prices at all. I would hasten to say that probably no-one has seen a reduction in energy prices, and not even of the $275 that the government promised. Instead, Australians are paying many, many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more. The fact that people are afraid during winter or worried in summer when it's hot to turn on their cooling or their heating, whichever is appropriate, is not okay. People shouldn't be worried about doing that in a country like Australia.

There is an urgent need for this government to address their failed energy policies, which are seeing prices continue to increase, which are seeing the cost-of-living burden for Australians continue to rise and which are making it harder for everyday Australians to pay their bills and do the things they need to do. Particularly, as we approach Christmas, the statistics that we see are really disturbing. Families are saying, 'We actually can't afford to do the things we used to do.' They can't afford to do that, because of the increased cost of their groceries, the increased cost of their insurances, the increased cost of their energy, the increased cost of their mortgages and the increased cost of their rent. We can't hide from the fact that this government has presided over the greatest fall in living standards in the OECD. That is a reality. The rising cost of energy is a core reason for that. This government has presided over excessive spending. Part of the reason that we have a problem with persistent inflation—and 'persistent inflation' is a term used by the Reserve Bank, not one that the opposition has created; it is one that has come from the Reserve Bank—is the excessive spending of this government. It's not to do with something that has happened overseas, and it's not inherited from the opposition, from when the opposition were in government; it's a direct result of the actions and inactions of this government. What has happened with the BOM website is a further example of that.

The questions to Senator Watt were really important because they go to the core of the problems that we have in our country today. Australians can't afford to pay their bills under a government that is presiding over an almost $100 million expenditure on a Bureau of Meteorology website that was estimated to have cost $4 million. I have seen in my life some things go over budget. I've worked in many different organisations both professionally and as a volunteer. I have seen things go over budget. I have never seen things go over budget from $4 million to almost $100 million. I've got the amount here. I think it's more than a 2,000 per cent increase. That is extraordinary. I don't know how anybody can justify that. I also don't know how it was allowed to ever happen in the first place. That is a question that this government must answer, not just in the isolation of this egregious case of wasting taxpayers' money but in what they have been doing since they were first elected to government, including the impacts that it's having on Australian taxpayers and the impacts that it's having on the budget of our country and our ability to deliver the infrastructure and everyday needs that we have across health and education and the breadth of our budget. This is a complete and utter failure of the management of the economy by this government.

I also rise to take note of answers provided in question time. I'm just mindblown at the absolute hypocrisy from those opposite on energy and on energy prices. They are the party who had 23 energy policies. They are the party who, just last week, were led by their minority coalition partner and dropped their commitment to net zero—a commitment that was made under two former Liberal prime ministers and that was legislated under the former Liberal government. They are a party who took a $600 billion nuclear plan to the last election that was wholeheartedly, overwhelmingly rejected by the Australian people when they went to the ballot box in May.

They are the party that has no plan to increase energy supply in this country and no plan for more, cheaper energy for Australian households and businesses. They are the party who, during their time in government, oversaw 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations either announce their closure or bring forward their closure date, yet they had no plan and took no action to fix that problem as it arose. They are the party that opposed energy bill credits that our government put in place to take pressure off Australian households. Their plan is to continue to rely on aging coal-fired power stations—infrastructure that the private sector will no longer invest in. That is not a plan to reduce the energy costs of Australian households, Australian businesses and Australian industry.

Our plan is a plan that is backed by Australians, backed by industry and in line with the rest of the world. We are investing in large-scale renewables in wind and solar, backed by gas, hydro and batteries. Our plan is about providing support for households in the uptake of solar and batteries both to reduce their reliance on the grid—to take pressure off the grid—and to make their energy bills cheaper over the long term. These are not plans that we've seen under those opposite, either when they were in government or now, when they sit on the opposition benches. But it is a plan that has been overwhelmingly supported by the Australian people, because they are voting with their feet. Four million Australians have solar panels on their roof. Since our battery rebates came into effect just a couple of months ago, 130,000-odd Australians have put a battery in their house. That is about real, long-term energy bill relief—taking pressure off the grid, reducing their reliance on the grid and making their energy bills cheaper over the long term.

Every single household across this country has benefited from our energy bill rebates, which have kept their power bills lower than they would otherwise have been. In my home state of Western Australia, thanks to partnership with the Cook Labor government, that has meant thousands and thousands of dollars off people's power bills, much of which has been opposed by those opposite.

What we are seeing from those opposite is absolute chaos. It is a denial of the science and it is a denial of the momentum that we are seeing around the globe, and they have no plan to bring energy prices down for Australian households. They have no plan to increase energy supply in our country. That is in stark contrast to our plan, which is to build Australia's future, to invest in the renewables rollout and to help households keep their energy bills low, not just now but well into the future.

This is, of course, just part of broader cost-of-living relief that our government is providing. It's not just in energy that we're making things cheaper. It's in cheaper medicines, it's in reducing HECS debts and it's in bringing inflation down, and it's only our government that is doing that work. (Time expired)

I, too, rise to make a contribution to this motion to take note of answers given by government ministers to coalition questions during question time. What question time has again demonstrated to the Australian community is that you cannot believe a thing that this government says. When they get into a bit of a corner they revert to the old tactics: ramp up the rhetoric, start calling people names across the chamber and then deflect the blame to somebody else. It doesn't matter who they deflect the blame to; they're just not prepared to take responsibility for their own decisions and their own actions. You see it time and time again. Then they all trot out the talking points. They've read the BS in the talking points so many times that they actually believe it themselves. The fact that the assertions being made by government ministers and senators are not true doesn't seem to mean anything anymore in this place.

We started today with a conversation and a debate about respect in the chamber, and yet what do we get from government ministers across the chamber during question time? We get personal reflections. We get attacks on colleagues on this side of the chamber. Then, of course, Minister Watt—in something that probably only Minister Watt could do—tries to blame the Turnbull government for something that's happening under his watch now. It's as if the last three and a bit years didn't happen. What have the government been doing for the last three or so years while the Bureau of Meteorology has been developing its website? Have they been wandering around blindfolded? Have they been looking at what's going on? How did Minister Watt allow the BOM to suggest that a project that had cost $96 million had cost $4.1 million? He did acknowledge that he was upset about it, but it is just extraordinary that a project of this nature and of this importance to Australians, from a whole range of different perspectives, could be done so wrong. What does Minister Watt try to do? Blame the Turnbull government because they commissioned the project. So what has Labor been doing for the last three and a bit years while the project's been finalised? Who was it that checked up on the project before the website went live to see that it was providing the service that it needed to provide? How can that be the Turnbull government's fault? It is preposterous to suggest that this could be the Turnbull government's fault.

That is why you cannot believe what this government's saying. They do this all the time. It's their stock in trade: ramp up the rhetoric, blame somebody else and distribute the blame to somewhere—it doesn't matter where it goes. And of course, when it comes to the promises that they've made, it's as though they were never made, and they certainly can't be believed. We all remember the 97 times before the 2022 election when the now Prime Minister Albanese and his then shadow ministers promised a $275 reduction in Australians' power bills. What did they do? They spent billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to provide a rebate because they can't meet their promise. They promised the most transparent and open government, and yet they are the worst in history, to the frustration of this entire chamber. You cannot believe a word that this government says. They promised us cheaper housing. How's that going? They promised us a better cost of living, and yet Australians' cost of living is going backwards. On all of these promises that they made, Australians are coming to understand that they cannot believe them, and the government should do better.

I, too, rise to speak on the responses in question time today. Firstly, in their contributions, those opposite talked about questions not being answered directly. You couldn't get any more direct answers to questions than those in question time today from our ministers. They directly answered the questions that were put to them. Unfortunately, the coalition just don't like the answers. The other thing that the coalition don't seem to like are facts. Facts matter. It is important that the coalition are reminded of their record when they were in government when they seek to lay blame at this government's feet for actions the coalition did or did not take—and when we get to energy prices we'll talk about 10 years of neglect in that sector. It matters, and they can't walk away from the decisions they made.

Then we go to the BOM website. Minister Watt has been on the record on so many occasions in the last few days about his expectations and what he has done in terms of the BOM website. I'm going to read some of his response to an interview he gave prior to question time. Why did the coalition ask the question about the BOM website when the answer was already out there? They'd have to go back to their tactics committee to work that one out. Minister Watt said, 'I'm not happy with how this has been managed.' You may have seen a few weeks ago, when the issue first arose around the issue with the website, that he got the acting CEO in for a meeting and said that it wasn't meeting his expectations or public expectations, and since that time they've made changes. He continued: 'We have now all learnt about the cost increases. I would just say the website change was always going to cost more than $4 million.' This actually began under the Turnbull government. I don't know why they're so sensitive over there. That is a fact. It was begun under the Turnbull government, and the first contracts for the new website were signed under the Morrison government in 2019. That's the reality. Not only did Minister Watt respond directly to the questions that were asked of him today by Senator Cadell; he has also been out in the public arena responding to the legitimate concerns of the community and asking the BOM to look deeply into this and come back on how this could have happened.

One of the other questions that was asked today was around energy. This is another area where the coalition will simply not look at their own record. The simple truth is—and the facts are—that the opposition had almost 10 years to put an energy policy in place, and they failed. They're still failing, actually. You only have to look at the complete chaos that's reigned during the last month. For a decade when they were in government, they lurched from slogan to slogan, without delivering a settled plan. They had 23 different policies which came and went. None of them stuck. None of them delivered certainty. None of them delivered investment. All the while, the system aged and the market moved. During their time in government, 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing, and yet they did nothing to prepare the country for it. As the minister said in question time, power prices will always be lower under this government.

Just a few years ago when I finished school—actually maybe it was a bit longer ago than that—I did an apprenticeship in electronic servicing. If I'd had a dollar for every time that someone brought in some equipment and said, 'I've replaced the fuse multiple times, but I still have the same problem,' it would have been a handy little bonus on top of the small salary I used to receive as an apprentice. People would just replace the fuse without actually dealing with the underlying problem. The reason why a fuse blows is that there's an oversupply of current going through the circuit—it's beyond the capacity of the circuit and therefore the fuse blows. This is what is going on right now when it comes to energy policy in this country. This government keeps doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

There is a root cause of the problem that is here, and that problem is that prices are going through the roof and people are seeing their energy bills go up time and again. We've seen a 40 per cent increase in people's electricity bills. The Labor Party might like to try to convince people that their own eyes are deceiving them when they're looking at their power bill and it's clear before them that it has gone up, but their own eyes do not tell a lie—people can see that the cost of energy has gone up. The reason this is occurring is that the blind ideology of this government, which has it continuing to go down a path of pursuing the so-called lowest cost of energy, is actually driving up the cost of energy. That's why people are seeing the result on their power bills. That's why we're seeing large industrial-scale projects under pressure. You only need to go to the front page of the West Australian newspaper site today to see that Lynas, a rare earths producer in the Goldfields, have said that they have an unreliable supply of energy and it is driving up their costs. We need rare earths. We've just signed a deal with the United States. These sorts of projects are at risk because of the high cost and unreliability of the energy grid. This pursuit of net zero, without reliability and with increased costs, is just like replacing that fuse time and time again. It just keeps blowing, and Australians are feeling the pressure of that every single day.

We have to get serious about addressing the high cost of energy and the unreliability that is now occurring in our electricity grid. It's not fair that Australians are facing these high costs, because they were promised, ahead of the previous election, that their power bills would in fact go down by $275. Of course, Australians are seeing that that has not occurred. They've not seen the promised lower cost of energy. This Labor government has spent $75 billion, and it's only delivered higher prices, stalled emissions and uncertainty for households. Industry in the regions is facing the pressure of this government's energy policies. It's proposed that, to reach their 2035 target, a further $530 billion in additional spending will be required. That is only going to drive up the cost. That's $50,000 per Australian household to meet the objectives of Labor's ideology.

What we need is reliable power. What we need is cheaper power. What we need is affordable power so that Australians can pay their way and make ends meet. Unfortunately, under this government, that is all out of control. We're seeing large industrial-scale projects—like the ones that we need out in the Goldfields, with this Lynas project—under pressure, under threat, because of the pursuit of this policy of net zero. What we need to see is some sensibility come into our energy policy, and that is what the coalition is offering. We're calling it quits when it comes to the pursuit of blind ideology. We need to pursue lowest-cost affordable and reliable energy and not cost Australians their livelihoods. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Women (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to violence against women.

I rise to take note of the answers given to Senator Waters regarding the deeply troubling reality facing older women in Australia, especially in relation to housing, a reality laid bare in the recent Priced out, run down report by Housing for the Aged Action Group and the Swinburne University of Technology. That report was released just this week, and we've had a delegation here in Parliament House. This report confirms what frontline services have been telling us for years: older women are amongst the fastest-growing groups falling into poverty, housing insecurity and homelessness. We know that women over the age of 55 are eight times more likely to experience homelessness than other groups. When they do have a home, they are disproportionately poor-quality homes in insecure, private rentals, and they place women under increasing financial strain.

In the private rental market, 35 per cent of older women are living in homes that are both unaffordable and in poor condition, far higher rates than affect men. These are homes with leaks, mould and structural issues, homes that are expensive as well as inadequate, homes that undermine health and wellbeing. Single older women are one of the most marginalised groups in the fight for safe, affordable and suitable housing. This is a gender inequality issue at play. As the report states, this disparity stems from lifelong disadvantages like the gender pay gap, time taken off for caring and lower-paid work, all of which accumulate into severe housing insecurity later in life, a lifetime of care for others and a retirement and older years of poverty and insecurity.

Housing insecurity for women is not just an economic issue; it's also a question of safety. Today is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Almost half of women who experience homelessness in Australia are victims of domestic, family and sexual violence. Research shows that unstable or unaffordable housing is one of the strongest factors trapping women in abusive or coercive relationships. Many simply do not have the financial means to leave, and, without affordable, accessible housing, the choice is impossible: staying with a violent or controlling partner or facing homelessness. Let's be clear—domestic and family violence happens to all women, regardless of their age or background. It doesn't stop at 50 or 60 or 70. It often becomes more hidden—psychological or financial abuse, neglect and coercion by family members happening behind closed doors, pitching women into homelessness. When a woman has no safe and secure housing alternative, the abuse continues unchecked. Housing is not just a roof over someone's head. It's autonomy, dignity and safety.

Australia's housing affordability has hit record lows, and buying and renting have reached unsustainable levels for too many. Despite all of the evidence of need, the government's Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, contains no dedicated funding stream for older women, not one. This is a glaring policy gap. Older women are clearly a high-risk cohort for poverty and homelessness. They should be a priority for any national housing investment strategy. If the government is serious about gender equality, if it's serious about preventing violence against women and if it's serious about ageing with dignity, then the HAFF must include targeted, gender-responsive investment for older women's housing. Without it, we'll continue to see older women priced out, run down and left behind.

Right now, this government is failing women, older women, in relation to housing safety and security. It doesn't have to be this way. We know there are solutions. We need a dedicated allocation within the Housing Australia Future Fund for older women, and we need to build more public and community housing designed for older women—safe, accessible, affordable and secure. And we need tax reform. We need to raise the rate of income support and to fully fund frontline services. Older women have spent their lives working, caring and contributing, often invisibly, to their families, their communities and the economy. They deserve to age in safety and dignity. They deserve secure, affordable homes, and they deserve to be seen and supported in our national housing policy.

Question agreed to.

Senators, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 8 November 2025 of the Hon. Graham Frederick Richardson AO, a former minister and senator for the state of New South Wales from 1983 to 1994. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 8 November 2025, of Graham Frederick Richardson AO, former Minister for the Environment and the Arts; Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories; Minister for Social Security; Minister for Transport and Communications; Minister for Health; and Minister for the Environment, Sport and Territories, and former senator for New South Wales, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

President, I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the passing of the former senator for New South Wales Graham Richardson on 8 November at the age of 76. And I convey at the outset the government's condolences to his wife, Amanda, and son, Darcy, and to his family and friends and parliamentary colleagues mourning his passing.

Graham Richardson was a truly larger-than-life figure in Australian politics. He served as a senator for New South Wales for over 11 years and a cabinet minister in both the Hawke and Keating governments. Richo, as he was known, was prominent in Australia's public consciousness for decades, and his impact was felt far beyond this place. His was a storied generation of Labor figures: Hawke, Keating, Evans, Faulkner, Ray and others, leaders who in each of their own ways shaped our party and in turn the nation.

Graham Richardson was born in Kogarah in 1949, the son of Fred and Peggy Richardson. His father was a senior clerk in the Postmaster-General's Department and later a union official, his mother, Peggy, an office manager. Both were involved deeply in union and community life. Immersed in politics from an early age, Graham Richardson joined the Labor Party at 17 and quickly established himself as a leader amongst a generation of ambitious young Labor figures in New South Wales—figures who would go on to play key roles reshaping the Labor Party and, with it, the country.

He served as the general-secretary of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party from 1976, at the of just 26, until elected to the Senate at the 1983 double-dissolution federal election. At just 33 years of age, he was then the youngest ever senator elected to the parliament. In his first speech to this chamber, Graham Richardson pointed to the first line of the Labor Party's national economic platform of the time to succinctly summarise his commitment to the people of New South Wales who had elected him. It read simply, 'Labor believes the ultimate aim of economic policy is to promote the wellbeing of the people.'

In his first term he sat on the newly created Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and there he drew on his considerable experience as party secretary and campaign director, advocating on the committee for reforms to ensure a strong, functioning parliamentary democracy. The committee made a number of sweeping recommendations designed to make Australian elections fairer and voting easier. The most lasting of these was for the parliament to legislate for an independent electoral commission. The Australian Electoral Commission is something all of us in this place—indeed, all Australians—should cherish and work to continually strengthen.

Graham Richardson was elevated to the Hawke government's ministry in 1987 by the man he had helped install as Labor leader back in 1983, Bob Hawke, and under Prime Minister Hawke he served as minister for the environment and the arts and, later in the life of the Hawke government as Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories.

As many have remarked since his passing, it was in his role as minister for the environment that Graham Richardson made his most lasting contribution to Australian public policy. Graham Richardson understood before many others that public consciousness of the environment was growing fast. He deployed his considerable talent for attracting attention in service of crucial environmental issues. He exercised his substantial political clout within the government to ensure that the environment was considered seriously at cabinet level to an extent previously not seen. And he used his considerable influence to broaden Australia's national conversation around environmental protection. He built alliances with green groups that were not necessarily, at the time, natural allies of the Australian Labor Party. He was media savvy, quick witted and prepared to push boundaries. And Graham Richardson went on to become one of the most effective and perhaps, for some, unexpected environmental advocates in Australian political history, something that was even recognised by Bob Brown.

As the Prime Minister has said, there was more to Graham than the long lunches and tall tales. He loved and lived all of what politics can be—service, calling, art and craft—and his work helped elevate the cause of environmental protection at a turning point in Australia's political history. As minister, he oversaw the protection of the Daintree and Kakadu, amongst other areas of wilderness. And he said this:

My memory won't be around for very long, but the rainforests of north Queensland will be around forever.

That is a remarkable legacy and an enduring act of solidarity with future generations.

Graham Richardson continued in the cabinet under Prime Minister Paul Keating, serving as Minister for Social Security, as Minister for Transport and Communications and, finally, as Minister for Health. In social security, he grappled with the rapidly changing social policy landscape as the Australian economy struggled in the early 1990s. In transport and communications, he navigated an increasingly complex media and communications environment. As health minister, he advocated for Indigenous health, motivated to improve the poor conditions he had seen visiting remote communities, and he went on to secure what was then the largest ever investment in Indigenous health. This, like his environmental advocacy, demonstrated that, whilst Graham Richardson certainly believed in power, it was not power only for its own sake. And, as a minister, he deployed a sharp political mind and astute political judgement honed through years of hard politics.

Graham Richardson retired from the Senate in 1994. Upon announcing his retirement from parliament, he declared:

I have been happy in it … I will be a lot happier out of it—

a typically blunt declaration from a man who rarely minced words. Leaving parliament didn't mean stepping back from public life for Graham Richardson, and he continued as a fixture of Australian political life for decades. He turned to journalism, radio and television. He became one of Australia's most recognisable political commentators. And his memoir, Whatever It Takes, published soon after leaving office, cemented his reputation as a man unafraid to confront his own controversies. His life was famously colourful and at times controversial, and indeed in his valedictory address to this chamber he noted he had had 'never laid claim to being perfect'. As such, his legacy isn't simple, nor is it straightforward. But ultimately it is that of a Labor warrior—a fighter for what he believed both for and within the Labor Party, the party which shaped him and which in turn he shaped. In later years, he channelled his remarkable determination into a fight for his health. He undertook that fight with trademark resolve.

Graham Richardson was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in June 2020 for his distinguished service to the people and the parliament of Australia. As Prime Minister Albanese has noted, Graham Richardson made one final promise in his final months to his wife, Amanda, who I welcome here today, and to his son, that he would live to see his son D'Arcy, who is also here, complete his Year 12 exams. Graham kept his word.

Once again, on behalf of the government, I express my condolences following the passing of the Hon. Graham Richardson AO, and I extend my sympathies to all who loved him.

I, too, rise today to speak on the condolence motion for the Hon. Graham Richardson AO. Much has been written and said about Graham Richardson since his passing earlier this month, but what is beyond doubt is that he led a significant life and he left an enduring mark on federal politics, both within the Australian Labor Party and also in his service to this place as a minister of the Crown.

Graham Frederick Richardson AO served as a senator for New South Wales from 1983 to 1994. During that time, he held a series of influential roles in the Hawke and Keating governments and made a substantial contribution to the direction of his party. His parliamentary career followed many years deeply immersed in the organisational work of the New South Wales Labor Party, including his time as the party's state secretary. Across those years, he was involved in internal debates and decisions that helped shape the modern Australian Labor Party and, in turn, the governments it went on to form.

In government, Senator Richardson held a number of ministerial portfolios. He first served as the Minister for the Environment and the Arts, later adding responsibilities for sport, tourism and the territories. In subsequent ministries, he served as the Minister for Social Security and later as the Minister for Health. Having followed the same path through those portfolios, I have some appreciation of the challenges and the responsibilities that he carried during his time in those portfolios. He also participated in the work of several parliamentary committees, including the joint committee on electoral reform, whose recommendations contributed to the establishment of Australia's Electoral Commission and the reforms to electoral funding and disclosure frameworks. Senator Richardson's ministerial career was marked by a capacity to exercise influence both within the parliament and through the broader structures of his party. He played a role in significant environmental decisions, including the protection of rainforests and wilderness areas and matters involving the Kakadu National Park. His position in Labor's Right ensured he remained a central figure in many of the defining debates of his era.

After leaving the Senate in 1994, Senator Richardson continued to play a visual role in public life. He authored the political memoir Whatever It Takes. It seems like a very appropriate title for a book written by Richo—a title that has often been understood to reflect the varied interpretations of his career, from an appreciation of his determined and resolute approach to recognising the complexities he openly acknowledged. Whatever view one may take, his writing and commentary form part of the public engagement and continued debates to this day. He went on to a long career in the media, including talkback radio, print commentary and television. He remained, and still remains, a recognisable and often forthright voice in the national political discussion. His later years also included corporate and advisory work, as well as his contributions to major events such as the Sydney Olympic Games.

At the time of his passing, it is fitting that the Senate acknowledges Graham Richardson's service as a senator for New South Wales and his contribution as a minister of the Crown. His career, with its achievements, its debates and its complexities, reflected the realities of public life and the significant impact one individual can have on that.

My personal interactions with Richo were experiences that were colourful, and I was never left wondering what his views were on the topic we were discussing. He was a man who could be easily described as interesting, of conviction, and always prepared to share his views, no matter how controversial.

So, on behalf of the opposition, I extend my sincere condolences to Senator Richardson's family, and also to his friends and colleagues, and to the whole Australian Labor Party, who have lost one of theirs. We recognise the loss of a husband, a father and a grandfather and of a political movement. We offer you all our deepest sympathies at this difficult time.

I rise today on behalf of the National Party to acknowledge the passing of Graham Frederick Richardson, a formidable figure in Australian politics, and, for many of us in this chamber, a reminder of a different era of parliamentary life. Much has been said about Graham Richardson, the Labor warrior, factional operator, powerbroker, fixer and colourful Labor identity. He understood his role in the labour movement, as evidenced by his autobiography, with the title Whatever It Takes, a book that became a must-read text for a generation of political aspirants. But today I want to reflect on the Richardson who does not always appear in the official biographies, one I came to know personally.

When I was a young senator, particularly as Deputy Leader of the National Party, many years ago, Graham was unexpectedly generous with his time and advice, despite coming from opposite sides of politics. When others on your own side are telling you to bide your time, Graham was encouraging, enthusiastic and, of course, unfailingly direct about not wasting a moment in this place.

Born in Sydney in 1949, the son of a respected union official and a mother who worked as his father's office manager, Richardson was shaped early by the Labor movement and the realities of working-class life. His parents were not Labor Party members, but they were fiercely anti-Communist, a sentiment that informed his later ruthless and absolutely single-minded determination to keep the New South Wales Left at bay, including stomping on the early career of our now prime minister.

Richardson joined the Labor Party as a teenager and, after a brief period at university, plunged straight into the world of political organising. He was a fast learner. By his 20s, he was already a key operative in the New South Wales Labor machine, and, by the late seventies, he was the party's state secretary, navigating the brutal factional battles of the era. He entered the Senate in 1983, beginning a parliamentary career that saw him serve as minister, negotiator, tactician and political lightning rod. Graham Richardson was undeniably a senator to his core. Those of us who've been here for a long time know when we meet a senator's senator, as opposed to other people here who aren't senators' senators.

He understood the importance of this chamber—

There was a pause!

Just take a look around! He understood the importance of this chamber and its role in our democracy, particularly ensuring that there wasn't a rubber stamp for the executive, a place where legislation was scrutinised, contested, amended and, at times, defeated. That is all of our job. Graham knew the power structures, the evolving nature of the Senate, the delicate balance between government and crossbench that defines this place. Even when his own prime minister was dismissing the Senate as 'unrepresentative swill', Richardson defended its—our—purpose. He understood, perhaps better than most, that this chamber's authority is a shared endeavour.

Please be in no doubt that, had Senator Richardson and I been contemporaries, we would have been fierce and passionate adversaries in this chamber. As a daughter of a timber worker, I would have fought him every step of the way on his portrayal of forestry communities. Indeed, Graham Richardson's most controversial and enduring political legacy was to deal with the Greens in Tasmania in 1989. This was the agreement that brought the Greens formally into the fold, to secure support for the minority Labor government in Hobart, a decision that reshaped Australian politics well beyond Tasmania's borders. Inside the Labor Party, it was bitterly contested. Then the finance minister Peter Walsh warned that Labor would become hostage to sectional interests rather than governing in the national interest. Whether history proves Walsh or Richardson right is a matter I'll leave for others on this day—although, I obviously have my own view.

In reflecting on his ministerial legacy, it's impossible to ignore Graham Richardson's decisive role in the aftermath of the Helsham inquiry into Tasmania's forests. The inquiry's majority report had recommended keeping much of the contested southern forests open to forestry, an outcome that placed the Hawke government in an awkward political position which guaranteed continued opposition from environmental activists. Richardson, the then serving environment minister, believed the findings of the inquiry were inadequate both scientifically and politically, and he refused to accept what he viewed as an untenable compromise, telling Hawke, in characteristic Richo style, that the answer is, 'No, you'—insert expletive.

In one of the most assertive interventions of his career, Richardson persuaded cabinet—and overruled his own prime minister—to adopt the minority report instead, expanding World Heritage protections far beyond what the inquiry had recommended. The decision was, for many Tasmanians, a deep betrayal of the regional communities, and a precursor to the forestry politics that have evolved and often escalated ever since. What we now know today is that Richardson's win was the activists success in their onward quest of moving the goalposts. But it also showed Richardson's unmistakable style, a tough-minded minister prepared to use ministerial discretion and an instinctive understanding of seizing the key moments of politics when they arrive.

That Tasmanian settlement had profound consequences for rural and regional Australia. His engagement with forestry debates, particularly the fights over old-growth forest, wilderness protection and also the Daintree and Kakadu decisions, placed him squarely in the centre of the environmental conflicts of the era. I now think of how the nation finds itself in the midst of yet another environmental battle, one in which the government is trying to save the environment by destroying it.

Graham Richardson was many things: partisan warrior, factional head kicker, bon vivant and later an insightful media commentator on a variety of channels. But he was also a parliamentarian who believed in the contest of ideas, in the importance of debate and in the value of a robust Senate and a robust cabinet. He believed, too, that politics was a human enterprise run by flawed humans, of whom even Richo himself would concede he had flaws—and, yes, he had a few. Yet his encouragement of younger senators, even those from the other side, his disarming ability to charm and destroy in one fell swoop reminds one of the often forgotten verse from Peter in the Bible, that charity covers a multitude of sins.

On behalf of the National Party, on behalf of those who respected him across the aisle and on behalf of my own personal relationship, I extend all of our condolences to his family, his colleagues and his many friends.

Question agreed to, honourable senators joining in a moment of silence.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4 before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 13 February 2026:

The current state of democracy and human rights in Burma, with specific consideration of the inability of the upcoming phased elections to serve as a democratic enfranchisement of the people of Burma.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That—

(a) the Senate notes the recent reports on the handling of privileged documents by the Department of Parliamentary Services, and decisions by the Secretary of the Department to provide these documents to a third party without reference to the Senate or the House of Representatives; and

(b) the following matters be referred to the Privileges Committee for inquiry and report by 10 March 2026:

(i) the current processes and policies for handling and maintaining documents, communications and technology that may be subject to a claim or parliamentary privilege, with particular reference to:

(A) the Department of Parliamentary Services' policies and procedures relating to parliamentary privilege,

(B) the management of documents, communications and technology with respect to maintaining parliamentary privilege, and

(C) any arrangement, agreement or memorandum of understanding with a third party, agency or department in relation to the provision of documents that may be subject to a claim of parliamentary privilege,

(ii) the actions taken by the Department of Parliamentary Services in the provision of documents, communications or technology to any third party outside of a memorandum of understanding, or agreement that has been agreed to by the Commonwealth Houses of Parliament, and

(iii) any other related matter.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move government business notices of motion Nos 1 to 3 together, and I table statements in relation to the works:

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1

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

Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Refurbishment of Australian High Commission staff residential compound, Konedobu, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2

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

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Great Barrier Reef Aquarium redevelopment project, Townsville, Queensland.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3

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

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at One City Hill, Canberra City.

The statement s read as follows

REFURBISHMENT OF AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION STAFF RESIDENTIAL COMPOUND, KONEDOBU, PORT MORESBY, PAPUA NEW GUINEA

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is proposing construction works to refurbish 39 of the 45 staff residences located at the Australin High Commission staff residential compound in Konedobu, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.

The scope of works is for fit-out works only, including the demolition of internal surfaces and fittings, removal of redundant services, new wall and ceiling linings, a full refurbishment of wet areas and kitchens, replacement flooring, upgrades to building services and safety upgrades to staircases.

The upgrades are required as the condition of these residences, originally constructed in 1993, has gradually declined to a point where residences are increasingly unfit for purpose.

The estimated total cost of the works is $37 .3 million (excluding GST, but including local Value Added Tax).

Subject to Parliamentary approval, including resolution of any outstanding requirements, construction is expected to commence in early 2026 and be completed in 2029.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

GREAT BARRIER REEF AQUARIUM REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, TOWNSVILLE, QUEENSLAND

he Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is proposing to redevelop the Great Barrier Reef Aquarium, the national education centre for the Great Barrier Reef at 2-36 Kelleher Place, Townsville, Queensland. This project is a key deliverable of the Townsville City Deal, signed in 2016.

The scope of works includes significant architectural works and redevelopment of the existing building, living and thematic exhibitions, filtration and life support systems, remediation of dilapidated structural, electrical, mechanical services and civil foundation works.

The estimated total cost of the works is $161.1 million (excluding GST).

The works must be referred to, considered by, and reported on to both Houses of the Parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence.

Subject to Parliamentary approval, construction and major works are scheduled to commence in late 2026 for completion by late 2028.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

FITOUT OF NEW LEASED PREMISES AT ONE CITY HILL, CANBERRA

The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (Infrastructure) is proposing to fitout levels 1-6 in new leased premises at One City Hill, Canberra City.

The proposed work will comprise predominantly open plan and modular workstations, meeting and breakout areas and support facilities. The work will conform to Infrastructure's operational requirements including physical and electronic security with high security zones and secure lift lobbies to each floor.

The total project cost is estimated to be $46.4 million (excluding GST).

The works must be referred to, considered by, and reported on to both Houses of the Parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence.

Subject to Parliamentary approval, the works are expected to commence in July 2026 with completion in May 2027.

I commend the motion to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator McAllister, I move:

That, in accordance with subsection 10B(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Senate approves the Health Insurance (Extended Medicare Safety Net) Amendment (Indexation No. 2) Determination 2025 made under subsection 10B(1) of the Act on 4 November 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Bell to make his first speech (of approximately 20 minutes) without any question before the chair.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025

Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill 2025

VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator McDonald, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 257.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003, and for related purposes. Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I am honoured to introduce the Greens' Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025.

This bill does something very simple but very meaningful—and long overdue.

It undoes the Morrison Government's cruel, unfair, and downright absurd Job-Ready Graduates package fee hikes.

This bill will reverse the punitive fee hikes that have left hundreds of thousands of students saddled with higher and higher debts for simply wanting to study what they love.

It repeals the fee hikes from Job-Ready Graduates. It provides that the maximum student contribution amounts for a place in a unit of study in Law, Accounting, Administration, Economics, Commerce, Society and Culture and Communications are reverted to what those amounts would have been on 1 January 2026, accounting for indexation, if the amendments made by the job-ready graduates bill had not commenced.

Right now, in 2025, we still live with the ideological wrecking ball Scott Morrison's Coalition government took to our universities in 2020—and Labor has had more than three years to fix it, but hasn't.

When the Morrison Government rammed through this bill in 2020, it was an act of breathtaking cruelty and short-sightedness. It came at a time when universities were already reeling from 35,000 pandemic job losses, brutal funding cuts, and years of neglect.

Rather than support higher education, the Coalition used the crisis to further its ideological war against public universities and the arts.

This was about punishing students. It was about punishing universities. And it was about punishing critical thinking.

It was about making education serve the market, not the public. It was about turning universities into profit-driven corporations rather than places of learning and discovery.

Under the Job-Ready Graduates scheme, fees for humanities, arts, law and social science degrees exploded—with students now paying over $50,000 for an arts degree.

More than fifty thousand dollars to study literature, politics, philosophy, or history. These are the disciplines that help us understand who we are, why the world is as it is, and how to make it better. But the Morrison Government decided they weren't "job-ready" enough.

The damage from JRG has been so devastating that the cost of an arts degree has doubled. This Bill brings down the cost of an arts degree from over $50,000 to just $24,500.

This was an ideological attack on education itself—on the idea that universities should exist to expand knowledge, not serve the market.

And the damage has been devastating.

Universities are teaching more with less. Students are paying more for less. Casualisation is rampant, research is gutted, and staff morale is on the floor.

This is not a system built for learning—it's a system built for profit.

Labor, when they were in opposition, called Job-Ready Graduates "inequitable, perverse, and punitive."

They were right then. But where are they now?

They've been in power for more than three years. They've overseen multiple budgets.

They even commissioned a Universities Accord that concluded, very clearly, that the Job-Ready Graduates fee hikes require "urgent remediation."

Urgent remediation. Not in a few years. Not after another roundtable or consultation.

And yet, nothing.

Literally everyone in higher education is calling for a reversal of JRG, urgently, but Labor has kicked the can down the road.

No more excuses. Labor can support this bill right here and remove some of the burden of debt on struggling students.

Labor is able to find hundreds of billions for nuclear submarines, for tax cuts for the rich, for fossil fuel subsidies—but not to undo a Coalition policy that is actively punishing students every single day.

The hypocrisy doesn't end there.

Last year, while students were drowning in debt, the Government spent months trying to push through awful legislation scapegoating international students in a bid to deflect from their own policy failures on housing.

Instead of focusing on the so-called "problem" of international students—who contribute billions to our economy and enrich our campuses and our communities—Labor should have been focused on fixing the actual problem: the outrageous fees facing domestic students because of Job-Ready Graduates.

All that time in Parliament wasted blaming migrants, when they could have used it to make higher education fair again.

And Labor knows it. Their own MPs are begging them to act.

Just in August, The Guardian reported that a group of Labor MPs—including Louise Miller-Frost and Carina Garland—urged the government to prioritise reform of the "failed" Job-Ready Graduates scheme. They said it had created "perverse incentives," damaged equity, and urgently needed fixing.

When your own backbench is calling your policy a failure—when even your internal reports admit it's broken—what are you waiting for?

It's not just MPs saying it.

At the end of July, more than 100 well-known Australians—authors, academics, historians, and public figures—signed an open letter calling on Labor to abolish Job-Ready Graduates.

They said we need a funding system that doesn't punish students for choosing the humanities or social sciences.

Tim Winton, one of our most prominent writers, said:

"Earning a humanities degree was life-changing. My little arts degree has created jobs and cultural value for over forty years."

And yet, if he were studying today, that same arts degree would cost him more than $50,000.

What kind of country does that? A country that has forgotten what education is for.

When I was an academic, I saw firsthand how corporatisation hollowed out our universities.

Universities have become obsessed with branding, rankings and "revenue diversification." Vice-chancellor and senior executive salaries have exploded while staff are underpaid, overworked and pushed into insecure work. Students are treated as numbers and teachers treated as expendable.

Job-Ready Graduates supercharged that shift. It decoupled teaching from research, slashed public funding, and locked in a model where students—not the government—pay the price.

This bill is our chance to start reversing that.

Because education should never be about profit.

It should never be about producing "job-ready" cogs for a market economy.

It should be about producing informed, creative, critical citizens—people who can think for themselves and shape a better world.

Universities should be life-making, not profit-making.

The idea that an arts degree is somehow less valuable than an engineering or business degree is absurd. And I say that as a proud civil engineer.

Humanities graduates work in public service, community organising, journalism, education, research, politics, and countless other areas that hold our democracy together.

We need more of them, not less.

Labor's one-off student debt cut may have made for good headlines and election ads, but it did nothing for new students starting today. Nothing for high school graduates who look at those fee tables and think, I just can't afford university.

That's the quiet tragedy of Job-Ready Graduates—not just the people crushed by debt, but the people who never enrol at all.

The young woman in regional NSW who dreams of studying sociology but can't take on $50,000 of debt. The mature-age student in Western Sydney who wants to retrain in teaching or social work but just can't afford the fees.

Education should open doors, not close them.

Notably, this Bill halves the cost of an arts degree. That is how severe the damage of job-ready graduates has been. Had it not been for this cruel and disastrous plan, students starting today would be paying half of the fees they face today. And they can, if the Parliament supports this Bill.

This Bill recommits this Parliament to the principle that higher education is a public good—something we gladly invest in because it benefits all of us.

Because when we invest in students, we invest in our future.

When we invest in universities, we invest in research, innovation, arts, science, culture, and progress.

When we make education free and accessible, we build a more equal, creative, and democratic society.

President, I've said it before and I'll say it again—education is a right, not a privilege.

Growing up in Pakistan, I saw how transformative that right can be—and how easily it can be denied.

We can't sit by while this government keeps a broken, punitive system in place.

Labor's own words, their own reports, their own backbenchers, their own voters are saying the same thing: Job-Ready Graduates has failed. It's time to fix it.

The Greens will keep fighting for a fully funded, free higher education system—for the abolition of student debt, for secure work for university staff, and for real democracy in how universities are run.

Our vision is clear: education is a public good. It should be free, fully funded, and accessible to all. Universities should focus on changing lives, not earning profits.

Governance failure after governance failure has revealed universities as places where staff and students are afraid to speak out, those who do are silenced and punished. This system must be overhauled. Elected staff and students must run unis not corporate appointees.

We need a higher education system that values knowledge for its own sake—that nurtures curiosity, creativity and critical thought. One that pays and respects its staff. One that is governed democratically, with students and workers determining their futures—not vice-chancellors and corporate boards.

We will keep pushing until every student, regardless of background or postcode, can study without a lifelong debt.

And that starts right here—by undoing the damage of Job-Ready Graduates.

I urge all senators—especially those on the government benches—to remember what they, and their party, said when this policy was first introduced.

You know it is unjust. You know it is unsustainable. And you know it can be fixed.

You have the power to make $50,000 arts degrees are a thing of the past.

You have the power to ensure that education in this country is once again a right, not a privilege.

Let's reverse the Job-Ready Graduates fee hikes and then let's make university and TAFE fully funded and free.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to repeal the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, 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—

Late last year the Parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This bill was passed via a curbed debate. It was fast-tracked through the Parliament via guillotine along with dozens of other bills.

Since the passage of this bill, much objection has been raised by the general population, tech companies, and human rights advocates.   .   The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is not fit for purpose and presents substantial risks to human rights, privacy and data security.

This bill is simple in form, but vital in purpose.

It repeals in its entirety one of the most rushed, ill-considered, and intrusive pieces of legislation this Parliament has passed in recent years.

The so-called Social Media Minimum Age Act was sold to Australians as a measure to protect children, which sounds lovely until you realise it does the exact opposite.

In actuality, the Act threatens to harm children, while trampling on the rights and privacy of every other Australian in the process.

To enforce its social media ban, tech platforms will need to verify the age of every social media user.

That means every Australian—from a 12-year-old on Instagram to a 72 year-old on Facebook—would be forced to hand over personal data to tech companies or intermediaries.

We've seen what happens when personal data is stored en masse: it gets breached, leaked, or sold.

The idea that Australians should trust social media giants or bureaucratic contractors with their biometric information is not just naïve, it's reckless.

Worse still, by pushing kids off mainstream platforms, we risk driving them into darker, unregulated online spaces where there's less oversight and more danger.

To save kids from Instagram dances, we'll push them toward encrypted chat rooms.

Let's also remember that the Social Media Minimum Age Act was rammed through Parliament before the Government could confirm how it would be enforced.

The technology doesn't yet exist to make the Government's ban work effectively.

In fact, during recent trials, government-approved age-checking tools mistook 15-year-olds for 37-year-olds. Which, incidentally, makes it the only government program in history to make teenagers feel older.

The proposed safety system threatens to descend into farce.

The Australian Human Rights Commission has made it clear that this blanket ban is the wrong response.

Instead, it recommends a statutory duty of care for social media companies that holds them accountable for the safety of their platforms.

At the same time, why not introduce stronger digital literacy programs in schools and better tools for parents and teachers?

Because here's the key point, parents, not the Government, are responsible for raising their children.

Canberra should support families, not substitute for them.

This legislation also collides headfirst with international human rights obligations.

It threatens freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to education, to culture and play, to privacy, and to access information. These are rights protected under the ICCPR, the ICESCR, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Elon Musk's X platform has warned that the law is punitive, disproportionate, and likely unlawful under international treaties.

Australia's eSafety Commissioner is responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this ban. Back in 2024, she rebuked the proposed ban comparing it to banning children from the ocean instead of teaching them how to swim. "We do not fence the ocean or keep children entirely out of the water but we do create protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach important lessons from a young age" she said.

We all want children to be safe online. But safety cannot come at the cost of freedom, privacy, or common sense.

It must be done lawfully, proportionately, and intelligently.

Education, parental empowerment, and corporate responsibility, rather than coercion, are the real tools of online safety.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 fails every one of those tests.

That's why this repeal is necessary.

We need to restore privacy, preserve freedom, affirm parental primacy, and return common sense to our digital laws.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I request that general business notice of motion Nos 248 and 249 be withdrawn.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I ask that general business notice of motion No. 258 be withdrawn.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 259.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025, any advice, including but not limited to written or digital correspondence, documents, briefing notes and meeting notes, given to the minister or her office since 24 October 2025 relating to replacing the outgoing Chair of the Housing Australia Board, Ms Carol Austin.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. As already outlined to this chamber, the 48th Parliament has seen an increasingly inappropriate use of OPDs. The time to comply with OPDs is often unreasonable and sometimes impossible. The original OPD had a compliance date of midday tomorrow, Wednesday 26 November. Senator Bragg amended this motion at the last minute to provide an additional 24 hours, which does not make a material difference to the unreasonableness of this motion. The short timeframe of this OPD means it would not be possible to comply with. The number of OPDs has doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed to an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 259, as amended, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 11 December 2025:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Social Services and/or her office and the Department of Social Services in relation to the development of amendments to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 that introduced benefit restriction notices; and

(b) a document that contains an explanation as to why the amendments referred to in part (a) were not included in the bill when it was introduced.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion, as already outlined to this chamber. The 48th Parliament has seen an increasingly inappropriate use of OPDs. Historically, OPDs have insisted on specificity or have sought a particular document. The scope of this OPD is so large it amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition. The government encourages the senator to narrow the scope of their order. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 260, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I ask that general business notices of motion Nos 261 to 263 be taken as formal motions.

There is no objection to formality.

I ask that general business notices of motion Nos 261, 262 and 263 be moved separately.

Certainly.

I move general business notice of motion No. 261:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 184, agreed to on 28 October 2025, relating to the establishment of a Triple Zero Custodian; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with the order by no later than midday on 1 December 2025.

Question negatived.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Housing has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 208, agreed to on 3 November 2025, relating to the Australian Government 5% deposit scheme; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on 1 December 2025.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The extremely broad scope of this order means that a substantial number of documents must be reviewed to consider whether they may be in scope. The scope of the order includes all ministerial submissions, records of conversations, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails, instant messages and electronic messages across both Housing Australia and the Treasury. These documents need to go through the proper and usual processes, and I expect that the minister will respond to the order in due course, along with the remainder of the record high number of orders in this portfolio.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 262, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 215, agreed to on 3 November 2025, relating to the social media ban academic advisory group; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with the order by no later than midday on 1 December 2025.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Minister for Communications (the minister) has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 37, agreed to on 28 July 2025, relating to the development of legislative instruments for the social media ban,

(ii) in a letter relating to a subsequent order requiring the tabling of an explanation of the basis for the minister's public interest immunity claim, the minister advised that no further information is available regarding the claim, and

(iii) no further information has been provided since the minister attended the Senate on 5 November 2025 to provide an explanation; and

(b) requires the minister to attend the Senate on 26 November 2025, at the conclusion of question time, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 20 minutes and shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The government has provided documents to Senator Payman and has offered a briefing which I understand has not been accepted.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 264 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 265.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 2 December 2025, all documents in the possession of the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, or their offices or departments, related to a hospital or other healthcare facility in Yanchep, Western Australia.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. Minister Butler's office has offered Senator Smith a briefing on this issue. The scope of this OPD is so large that it amounts to nothing more than a fishing expedition. Minister Butler's office has encouraged Senator Smith to narrow the scope of the order.

The number of OPDs has doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed to an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, which is double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general notice of motion No. 266 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) its agreement to orders for the production of documents no. 47, on 29 July 2025, and no. 100, on 26 August 2025, requiring the tabling of the incoming government briefs prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water for its incoming ministers following the 2025 federal election,

(ii) the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Minister for the Environment and Water provided similar responses to subsequent compliance orders on 31 October and 5 November 2025, and

(iii) that each brief has been provided with significant redactions applied on the basis of various public interest immunity claims and Appendix D of Volume 1 of each brief, relating to 'other department policy areas', has been fully redacted on the ground that the material relates to work in another minister's portfolio;

(b) accepts that, in this instance, it is appropriate for personally identifying information, such as personal phone numbers and email addresses, to be redacted;

(c) otherwise rejects the public interest immunity claims raised by the ministers for the following reasons:

(i) it is not sufficient that the subject matter of a document ordered to be tabled by the Senate may come before a future Cabinet meeting for discussion; what must be established is that disclosure of material would disclose actual deliberations of the Cabinet,

(ii) the Senate does not agree that disclosure of the material would make officials temper what they write or say in future, as this would be contrary to the concept of officials providing frank and honest advice, encapsulated in the Australian Public Service values,

(iii) there is insufficient information provided in the ministers' responses to support their claims that release of the material would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states or international relations, and

(iv) it is not sufficient that material in a document simply touch on an area of shared Commonwealth and state responsibility; what must be shown is that the release of the particular material would damage relations;

(d) does not accept that there is a valid basis to withhold Appendix D of Volume 1 of each brief; and

(e) requires the Minister for the Environment and Water and the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy to each attend the Senate after the consideration of private senators' bills on Wednesday, 26 November 2025, to provide explanations of the failure to fully comply with orders nos 47 and 100, respectively, and that any senator may move to take note of the explanations; and

(2) That time limits be applied in relation to paragraph (1)(e) as follows:

(a) an explanation by a minister—5 minutes, and

(b) motion to take note debate—individual speakers, 5 minutes; overall limit, 30 minutes.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. We have provided the incoming government briefs requested by this OPD. All governments have the right to redact documents as appropriate.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 267, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

(1) That the Senate—

(a) notes that order for production of documents no. 186, requiring all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, budgets or other records of interaction from 1 May to 27 October 2025 between the Treasury and the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services or their office in relation to potential amendments to the Consumer Data Right, including a banking de minimis threshold, agreed to on 28 October 2025 has not been complied with; and

(b) orders that if the order has not been fully complied with by midday on Wednesday, 26 November 2025 the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services attend the Senate on Thursday 27 November 2025 immediately before government business is called on to provide an explanation of the failure to fully comply.

(2) That time limits be applied in relation to paragraph (1)(b) as follows:

(a) explanation by the minister—5 minutes; and

(b) motion to take note debate—individual speakers, 5 minutes; overall limit, 30 minutes.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The order for the production of documents moved by Senator Smith is exceptionally broad in scope, and the process of identifying all documents captured by the order requires considerable time. It is also necessary to assess any potential commercial sensitivities that may warrant appropriate redaction. Minister Mulino's office has offered a briefing to Senator Smith and Senator Sharma, who jointly sponsored the order. My understanding is that no response has been received to that offer. The government has acted in good faith in seeking to comply with the order. However, the documents have not been provided at this time due to the complex scope of the request and the need to protect commercially sensitive information.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 268, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and as moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all documents currently held by the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation which contain the phrase 'Patties Food Group'.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue that I understand has not yet been accepted. The OPD relates to an investment made by the NRF and covers too many documents to comply with by this date. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed to an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 269, standing in the name of Senator Hume and as moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move general business notice of motion No. 270:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all ministerial submissions provided to the Minister for Industry and Innovation by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, from 1 June 2025 to date which contain the phrase 'Tomago'.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

In relation to the request for leave, I wonder if the statement can simply be tabled or incorporated by reference, instead of us listening to the same statement again and again.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue that I understand has not yet been accepted. The OPD has an extremely wide scope and covers too many documents to comply with by this date. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. I inform the chamber that the Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 270, standing in the name of Senator Hume—

Senator McKenzie, can you just be quiet?—and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all ministerial submissions to the Minister for Industry and Innovation by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation respectively, from 1 June 2025 to date, which directly concern the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue that I understand has not yet been accepted. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 271, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all research materials received by the Net Zero Economy Authority in 2024-25 from BIS Oxford Economics Pty Ltd.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue; I understand it has not yet been accepted. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs—

Fourteen OPDs in a single day.

in a single day, Senator Scarr.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 272, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 1 December 2025, all electronic messages, texts, instant messages, emails or any other written material or media, received by the Minister for Industry and Innovation from Mr Glenn Thompson from 1 June 2025 and to date.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will oppose this motion. A briefing has been offered on this issue that, I understand, has not yet been accepted. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has also expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August, the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

I think that's seven times now we've heard the same spiel from the government. It's getting a little bit tiresome. Seriously, if we're going to get the same contribution from the government every time someone is requesting an OPD, individual senators should consider whether the government is denied leave for the same crappy spiel.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 273, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 275 in the terms circulated.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025, all documents related to the funding agreements secured and/or agreed concerning round 2 of the Housing Australia Future Fund.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. Negotiations with states and territories and other housing delivery stakeholders are underway and are commercial-in-confidence—

More secrecy!

It's very important that you listen. This OPD would compromise those negotiations. Furthermore, the original OPD had a compliance date of 7 pm tomorrow, Wednesday 26 November. Senator Bragg has amended the motion at the last minute to provide an additional 17 hours, which does not make a material difference to the unreasonableness of this motion. The short timeframe of this OPD means it would not be possible to comply with it. The number of OPDs has also doubled since the 2022 election, and the scope of these requests has expanded significantly. The Senate has agreed an average of four OPDs per sitting day—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I think people want me to slow down; that's what I'm hearing—in the 48th Parliament, double the average of two per sitting day in the 47th Parliament and almost four times the average in the last term of the coalition government. On 27 August the Senate agreed to 14 OPDs in a single day.

Order, Senator Bragg! I've said 'Order!' three times. Not only are you incredibly disrespectful; it's an even bigger offence to call out and interject when you're not in your correct spot. That goes for people on my left, too, who were also interjecting. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 275, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, as amended, and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 28 November 2023 the Senate agreed to order for production of documents no. 405, which required the tabling of:

(i) the statement of reasons document held by the Attorney-General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023, and

(ii) the 'Nomination Form—Criminal Code' held by the Attorney General's Department relating to a terrorist organisation listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps prepared in January 2023;

(b) further notes that:

(i) on 30 November 2023, the Attorney-General made a public interest immunity claim in relation to the documents sought, stating that the production of the documents 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security',

(ii) on 27 February 2024, the Senate agreed to a further order for production of documents (no. 472), requiring the Minister representing the Attorney-General to provide to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, on a confidential basis, by midday, Thursday 29 February 2024, a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed on 28 November 2023,

(iii) on 29 February 2024, the Attorney-General maintained a claim of public interest immunity, stating again that the production of the documents 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security',

(iv) on 28 August 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order of production of documents (no. 125), requiring the Minister representing the Attorney-General to table a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed on 28 November 2023, immediately following the third reading of a bill that gives effect to, or enables, the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, and

(v) on 6 November 2025, the Attorney-General maintained a claim of public interest immunity, stating again that the production of the documents 'would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security'; and

(c) orders that, immediately following the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, the Minister representing the Attorney-General table a copy of the documents that were the subject of the order agreed on 28 November 2023.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The government will be opposing this motion. The longstanding practice of governments is to not release national security documents. There is a strong and clear public interest in ensuring documents prepared for government by intelligence and security agencies are not publicly available. In this government's view, it is irresponsible to suggest this should not be the case. While the government respects the Senate and its processes, the government has consistently claimed public interest immunity on the release of these documents, on the basis that the disclosure of these documents would or might reasonably be expected to be damaging to Australia's national security.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 278, standing in the name of Senator Chandler, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Sharma, I move:

That the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee hold an additional meeting during supplementary Budget estimates 2025-26 on Friday, 5 December 2025 from 9 am to allow for the allocation of additional time to the following departments and agencies:

(a) an additional 40 minutes for the Department of Parliamentary Services and the Parliamentary Service Commissioner;

(b) an additional 110 minutes for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet; and

(c) an additional 30 minutes for the Australian Electoral Commission.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. The Senate agreed to the dates and times for the supplementary budget estimates hearings earlier this year. The motion moved by the government, and agreed by the Senate, included an additional four days of estimates above what would usually occur. This motion from Senator Sharma either pre-empts the proceedings of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee or is an admission by the opposition that they can't manage their own time during estimates hearings. It is the usual convention that the committee determines whether a spillover hearing is required after the scheduled hearings have concluded. There are mechanisms for senators and committees to request and schedule those hearings under the standing orders that do not require a motion in the Senate.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 279 standing in the name of Senator Sharma be agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday evening two votes were deferred, as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate to hold those votes now. I will now deal with a motion moved by Senator Shoebridge concerning a reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I will now deal with the deferred vote relating to a proposed reference to the Senate Economics References Committee moved by Senator Roberts. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item No. 15 of today's Order of Business:

The need for the Australian Government to take immediate action to tackle racism, the emboldening of the far-right and the rise of neo-Nazism and reject white supremacy and extremism as evidenced by the anti-immigrant 'March for Australia', the violent attack on Camp Sovereignty, and the racist rally outside NSW Parliament.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

I move:

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

The need for the Australian Government to take immediate action to tackle racism, the emboldening of the far-right and the rise of neo-Nazism and reject white supremacy and extremism as evidenced by the anti-immigrant 'March for Australia', the violent attack on Camp Sovereignty, and the racist rally outside the New South Wales Parliament.

The far right is surging and racism is rising because politicians and the media have spent years dog whistling, scapegoating and stoking resentment. Now the consequences are erupting all around us. Communities are scared; hate crimes are rising; Neo-Nazis are emboldened. Politicians and the media cannot now pretend to be shocked that the wolves have arrived at the door.

Racism is raging more openly and more viciously than I have ever seen in my time in this country, and the far right is gaining ground and not just because of their own bile; they get a free kick from the Liberal Party, which is now so desperate for relevance that it jumps to answer the calls of open racists. Just weeks after Neo-Nazis marched through our streets calling for an end to Indian immigration and the expulsion of black and brown communities from what they call 'white Australia', what did the Liberals do? They called for an 'Australian values' screening for migrants—as though the people who come here fleeing war, poverty and persecution are the ones who lack values, and not the politicians who demonise them every single day.

But even trickier to confront than the open hatred spewed by the Liberal Party is the sly racism executed by a political party that claims to know better—Labor—because, while the Liberals shout their racism loudly, Labor writes it quietly into law. In Victoria, a Labor government has announced laws allowing children to be locked up for life—laws that we all know will disproportionately incarcerate First Nations and black and brown children. There is nothing more racist than designing a justice system whose default setting is to punish the marginalised.

In New South Wales, the Minns government green-lights Neo-Nazi gatherings on the steps of parliament, while passing draconian anti-protest laws targeted squarely at pro-Palestine protesters calling out Australia's complicity in genocide. They have criminalised dissent rather than confronting their own failures.

And the Albanese government has set a shameful national standard. The government's anti-refugee and anti-migrant legislation has been cruel, unnecessary and deeply shameful.

But there is another truth that we must not shy away from. The far right grows in the cracks of inequality. It feeds on desperation. It recruits from the communities governments have abandoned. When people cannot afford rent, when they're working three jobs just to stay afloat and when the cost of living is crushing them and they see no political will to change it, the far right steps in with someone to blame.

If this government is serious about change, it must tackle racism and it must tackle the economic conditions that allow racism to grow. We cannot ignore the housing crisis, the skyrocketing cost of living and rising inequality and then act shocked when the far right exploits people's fears and frustrations. We need real investment in public and affordable housing. We need a rent freeze. We need to lift income support above the poverty line. We need fair wages, secure jobs, free education and an economy built on care and community, not on extraction and exploitation, because, when people have stability, dignity and a roof over their head, they are not so easily seduced by those peddling hate.

The Albanese government is failing to do their primary job—to look after people—and that failure has fed the far right, who are now marching openly on the streets in our cities. They're on the verge of forming a white Australia party. They call for a white revolution. They train. They recruit. They celebrate hate.

So today I make this plea. Open your eyes. Drop the denial. Stop gaslighting people who highlight racism and the many failures of this government. Face the racism that is spilling onto the streets and dripping off the walls of this parliament.

This is not a moment of political calculation. This is not a moment for more inquiries or envoys. This is a moment for courage, for truth, for justice and for action.

by leave—I move the amendment in the terms circulated in the chamber:

The need for the Australian Government and all political leaders to commit to tackle racism, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, the emboldening of the far-right and the rise of neo-Nazism and reject white supremacy and extremism as evidenced by the anti-immigrant 'March for Australia', attacks on Jewish and Muslim communities, the violent attack on Camp Sovereignty, and the racist rally outside the New South Wales Parliament.

I will make a few comments on behalf of the government in the broader debate. After what we have seen here over the course of the last 24 or 36 hours, I do think it is important that this chamber has something to say about the way that we, as political leaders, as the government and as senators in this chamber, should deal with questions of racism and social inclusion and how we believe that Australia is a pluralist country that incorporates people of all faiths and all religions.

The reason that the government's amendments are there is that we also believe that how we oppose racism and exclusion matters. I have seen the proposed amendments and the original motion. Not every MPI debate is of great importance, but I do think it's important that what emerges from this debate today is that we start to improve the standard of debate in this place and the way that we, as senators, engage with this set of challenges. I do think that there has been a lack of seriousness and a lack of responsibility about the way that we approach these issues. This was no better symbolised than by Senator Hanson's behaviour in the chamber yesterday and her refusal to account for that in the context of the debate today.

I have never been more horrified, in the context of a debate in this chamber, than when I heard what Senator Babet had to say as an interjection in the course of the debate. I say to people who pretend to be patriotic Australians and who wrap themselves in the flag: real, decent, patriotic Australians shrink from that kind of vileness. I have never heard a comment in this chamber more repulsive. It would repel every decent Australian, and it should be absolutely repudiated by every single person here. As I say, the way that we conduct these debates does matter. The way that we approach these questions matters. I think it was right for Senator Wong this morning to point to the way that Senator Cormann, when he was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Wong worked together, whether it was in response to former senator Anning's revolting comments or in response to the Christchurch massacre. There was no equivocation and no mucking around. They were thinking about the interests of the Senate as an important democratic institution and coming up with a set of words that could unite Australians and send a message, not just to voters but to little girls and little boys at school, about what this place stands for.

That's why the government has moved the amendments in the way that we have. It is impossible, I think, for decent people not to commit to tackling racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia and to being concerned about the rise of Neo-Nazis, white supremacy and far-right extremism. The Prime Minister was right to say that not everybody who goes to a march has those characteristics, but those March for Australia marches were organised by Neo-Nazis, who were openly expressing, manipulating and using that platform. We should be opposed to attacks on Muslim and Jewish communities, the attack on Camp Sovereignty and indeed that outrageous racist rally outside the New South Wales parliament. It's not just about what the government does; it's about what each of us as political leaders do. (Time expired)

Senator Ruston, are you seeking to move an amendment to the amendment?

I will not be moving my amendment, but I would like to make a small contribution. I acknowledge that the government has moved this amendment and that the Greens have apparently accepted the amendment, which reflects the fact that all forms of racism and extremism need to be called out, following the coalition's refusal to support an incomplete and one-sided motion that was originally put forward by the Greens. If you stand against racism, you stand against all forms of racism. In supporting this motion, I put on the record that there were many Australians who attended the March for Australia rally who did so because they had legitimate concerns at the level of migration. We do not believe that those people should be caught up in this motion. The coalition condemns all forms of racism, and I encourage all senators in this place to do the same. It's critical that the Albanese government shows some leadership and takes action to protect the social cohesion of this nation. Extremism has no place in Australia, no matter what side of the political divide you come from.

I want to acknowledge everyone in this chamber this afternoon who has worked together so that we could have a set of words we can all coalesce around. On the question of race we should all come together to make unequivocal statements about the standards that we seek to maintain in Australia—that we seek to be a country which protects all people against any form of discrimination and which acknowledges that there have been too many Australians in these past few years who have been hurt by extreme ideology. I put on record the many Indian Australians, in particular, who were offended by the organisers of the March for Australia rallies. There were people who were grievously hurt by the statements made at those rallies and in the lead-up. No Australian should feel that they are under attack in their own country. I put on record those facts.

I also put on record, in relation to this motion, the reality that the Sydney Jewish community had to wake up to, with a bunch of Nazis standing in front of the state parliament of New South Wales, Australia's oldest parliament, holding placards saying 'abolish the Jewish lobby'. These events are all linked, and no person's experience is more important than anyone else's. The fact is that the way that we treat minority groups shows the standard that we are prepared to maintain in our society. That goes for any minority group, whether it be an Indian Australian group or a Jewish group, that has been exposed to these forms of deliberate discrimination, which is designed by its perpetrators to tee off on minority groups, because their nasty, mean politics is all based on playing to a small base of people. It is vindictive and wrong.

That's why I want to acknowledge all the leaders today—Senator Ruston, Senator Ayres, the Greens, Senator Wong and others—who have been able to bring us together to agree on a set of words that we can all support. The parliament is working at its best when we can show that there is a community standard represented by all the different groups with all their different life experiences and engagements across the community. So I want to put on record that this is the leadership that I believe Australians are looking for. Australians are looking for leadership at a time of great discord and division. We are not a nation of tribes. We are great, diverse country. Over the past few years, not because of anyone's particular fault, we have not always maintained the standards expected of us, so this a very important occasion for us to be able to maintain the standards that Australians want us to have here in parliament.

Racism is dangerous, and we feel it deeply and physically in our bodies. White people wouldn't understand that, because you have to be black or brown to feel and know what that feels like. It is a toxin that creates disease and distress in the body, and it is a root cause of inequity that shortens lives, worsens disease and drives mental distress globally. The Lancet journal declared racism a global public health emergency. It shapes who gets sick, who gets care and who survives. Research from the Mayi Kuwayu study found almost half of First Nations adults experience high psychological distress linked to everyday racism and that racism alone accounts for nearly half the mental health gap between First Peoples and non-Indigenous peoples. As Dr Chelsea Watego reminds us, it is not just about health justice; it is about sovereignty. Our very presence is a reminder to the colonisers that their sovereignty is illegitimate. That is the truth this government must confront. Our poor health outcomes are not accidental but the direct result of a colonial project that still controls our lands, our bodies and our futures. The understanding of racism and its impacts in this place is so superficial, so black and white. This week showed us how the government benefits from Nazis, Pauline Hanson and Andrew Bolt, because it lets them say: 'Look over there! Those are the real racists.' But it is the government who has the power, and it is its violent policies, no matter who is in power, that manufacture circumstances that make us sick.

This government does not have a good track record on racism. The Albanese driven referendum ignited a brutal national backlash that tore through our communities, and, ever since, Labor has left us exposed to the unchecked violence of the states and territories. It's no surprise when you have Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who told me I needed mental health support while I was standing up to white supremacists, and President Sue Lines, who called my message stick with over 500 notches for deaths in custody a prop and cut off the microphone when I was speaking of the death or murder in custody of my first cousin Josh Kerr. Then we have Minister Gallagher, who tried to lecture brown women on racism earlier today. We need to stop showing respect to racism. Racism is stupidity, and it is not— (Time expired)

I stand in this chamber today to say clearly, without hesitation and without any qualification, that racism and Neo-Nazism have no place in this country—not in our streets, not in our institutions, not in our public discourse and not in our future. Recent events in this country have shown us why this message must be stated so plainly. Whether it's the stunts that we've seen like those in the Senate this week or the groups of Neo-Nazis brazenly marching through our cities, chanting some of the same slogans that Hitler used and other things that I won't list, the fact that these displays occurred at all is an affront to our national values and an insult to every community that has suffered from hatred, discrimination and organised violence. We have seen hateful attacks on the Jewish community, the Muslim community and First Nations communities. These incidents aren't just fringe. They aren't just protests. They are not misunderstandings, political disagreements or cultural differences. They are expressions of ideologies built on dehumanisation, and they are disgusting. They are ideologies responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history. Racism and Neo-Nazism are designed to divide, to degrade, to exclude and ultimately to harm. They disgracefully operate by painting some people as less human and others as superior. They thrive on fear, lies and violence.

We live in a truly multicultural society. We are a nation built by many cultures, languages and stories. Our history, from over 65,000 years ago to today, is filled with stories of struggle, of joy, of resilience and of community—Sudanese nurses, Vietnamese grocers, Indian engineers, Lebanese artists, Aboriginal agriculturalists. We are the most successful multicultural country in the world, combined with the oldest continuous culture, and that is something to truly celebrate. There is absolutely no room for racism here. We stand with modern Australia against hate, against racism, against Neo-Nazism and against white supremacy. Nothing could be less Australian.

This government remains firmly committed to ensuring that extremist ideologies that promote hate or violence are never normalised in our society. In February, the Australian parliament passed the Criminal Code Amendment (Hate Crimes) Act, containing the toughest laws Australia has ever had against hate crimes. These laws matter because, unchecked, hatred can quickly turn into violence, and we've seen the devastating impacts of this.

We are not a perfect nation, but we are a nation that overwhelmingly rejects hate. When racism or fascist ideology appears, we must recognise it for what it is: it is a poison, a danger and a direct threat to who we are and who we aspire to be. We reject racism outright. We reject antisemitism outright. We reject white supremacy outright. We reject Neo-Nazism outright. We stand with all Australians who share the views and the values of fairness, justice and equity for everyone.

We're witnessing a terrifying resurgence of far-right politics here in Australia, and our polity is failing to adequately address the seriousness of the issue. Right now, there are literal Neo-Nazis marching through the streets with the approval of the New South Wales police, and not many people in this place, except the Greens and some members of the crossbench and a few lone voices, seem to be batting an eyelid. There are many who attended the so-called March for Australia in August and who want to downplay the fact that that event platformed known Neo-Nazis, white nationalists and others who are actively working to tear down the fabric of our society—those very same people who stormed Camp Sovereignty, a peaceful First Nations meeting place, ambushing and assaulting people in the most disgusting display of white supremacy and racism; those very same people who are parading through our streets chanting slogans associated with the Hitler Youth.

Racism against migrants and people of colour in this country is not new, but it has been blatantly normalised and legitimised, and pretending that we don't see it only allows it to continue, especially while politicians and parts of the media gleefully fan the flames of hate and foment right-wing extremism. It's up to us to ensure that marginalised communities do not pay the price—that they are not persecuted, demonised or blamed for the problems of the day. It is up to all of us to remind people that it's billionaires and big corporations making life worse for all of us, not migrants, not people of colour and not First Nations people. It's billionaires like Rupert Murdoch, whose media empire exists to create division and dollars for him. It's billionaires like Gina Rinehart who want to pay workers less or Clive Palmer, who refuses to pay his workers at all. It's the same billionaires that delight in hosting right-wing politicians like Senator Hanson on holiday in Bali or partying with President Trump.

Cynical politicians like Senator Hanson are working hard to attract votes with unfounded racist attacks based on where people were born or the colour of their skin. But the Greens know that it is inequality and not immigration that people should be angry about. It is inequality that allows racism to flourish, but people of colour are not responsible for a system that keeps the rich rich and that screws ordinary people. We need everyone in this place and in our communities to face down the rise of the far right and turn that blame towards the big corporations and the billionaires who are actually responsible for making life harder for all of us and the politicians who refuse to fix the system so that people can have their everyday needs met.

The events of the last two days have established that even in this place, despite our trusted position of authority and responsibility, senators are afraid to deal with matters which may be contentious or even offend. Instead, the issues Senator Hanson and One Nation raised have met a response that can only be described as cowardice wrapped in fake outrage. One Nation will not be discouraged from addressing these issues that are threatening the welfare of everyday Australians. Radical Islam is a threat to the future of our beautiful country, and I will continue to defend Christianity and our Australian identity.

I want to address specific issues raised in this motion and related debate—firstly, the accusation that our opposition to the burqa would endanger schoolchildren in burqas. I must ask: what the hell is a schoolchild doing wearing a burqa? France solved that with a ban on burqas and face coverings in school. Australia must do so as well. As for talk of using a prop, the Greens' own Senator Hanson-Young brought a dead fish into the chamber and waved it around. That was not called a prop. Senator Thorpe brought a traditional Aboriginal weapon into the chamber, and that was not called a prop. Senator Faruqi demonstrated her fanatical support for Palestine with the frequent wearing of the keffiyeh; that was not deemed a prop. Senator Price wearing an Australian flag was a prop. Senator Hanson wearing a burqa was a prop. The definition of a prop appears to be anything Greens senators don't want to talk about.

This motion criticises everyday Australians marching proudly for their flag and their country, the same flag that flies above us right now. These marches are peaceful, joyous family events celebrating everything Australia used to be. No wonder the Greens hate it. The violence that occurred in the Melbourne march came from people who gatecrashed the event. Tarring unrelated groups with the same Nazi brush is brain-dead Greens propaganda. One Nation stands in defence of our flag, our community and our nation. Why don't you?

I'd like to start by congratulating the Senate on rejecting racism by censuring Senator Hanson and ejecting her from the floor. Her behaviour is an act of deep disrespect to the inherent dignity of every morally grounded Australian citizen. Today, we have a choice: we can allow the noise of this division to define us, or we can choose the stronger path—the path of active, unconditional kindness. Hatred is easy. It's a cheap political tactic designed by one-trick ponies to fracture society. Kindness, however, is the defining strength of a truly mature and diverse democracy.

There are many challenges that prevent authentic kindness, from racial stereotyping to societal norms that emphasise superficial qualities over empathy. Our collective response to this legislative attempt from this particular one-trick pony should continue to not be merely legalistic; it must be moral. We must counter the agenda of division with an unwavering commitment to inclusion to find solutions that help us solve tangible problems for all Australians. Pauline Hanson attending an anti-immigration march doesn't fix the housing crisis or help with protecting our environment and, most importantly, protecting each other. Our job is not to attack communities but to uplift them, to protect their rights and to celebrate the rich tapestry of Australian life.

I stand absolutely and unequivocally against Senator Pauline Hanson. In doing so, I stand beside the Muslim community, the migrant community and all Australians who simply ask for respect, dignity and the freedom to be who they are. Let us reject this rogue senator for now and ever more and embrace the kindness that is the true foundation of our national spirit.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Hume which was also shown at item No. 15 on today's Order of Business:

Dear President

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

"Australians have a full-time frequent flyer and part-time energy minister delivering a part-time energy grid, prioritising global summits ahead of reducing power prices for Australians."

Yours sincerely

Senator the Hon Jane Hume Senator for Victoria

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.

Finally, we've got a more appropriate title for the member for McMahon, Mr Chris Bowen. He'd now officially known as the part-time energy minister. It happens to be a role he is very well prepared for, because he's already had a part-time approach, let's face it. He's delivered a part-time energy grid and full-time power price pain for Australian families and Australian businesses. Australians are paying an awfully high price for Labor's wrong priorities and their broken promises on energy. Let's remember those three promises that Labor took to the 2022 election: 82 per cent renewables in the grid by 2030, 43 per cent emissions reduction from 2005 levels and, of course, the infamous but never spoken of again $275 cut to electricity bills by the end of 2025. Goodness me, we're getting close, aren't we?

Well, the government has failed on all three. Eighty-two per cent of renewables in the grid is well off track. Every credible expert forecasts that, even in the most optimistic scenario, we're now looking at around 65 per cent, and the rollout is only at half the pace that is needed. Industry is crying out for gas more than anything else. After emissions went up under this government, they are now only back at 28 per cent of 2005 levels. That is the same level as when the coalition left office 3½ years ago. Most offensively to Australians, power prices are up 40 per cent. Your bills have increased 40 per cent under this government, and an Australian household is paying on average around $1,300 more on their energy bills in a year than Labor promised. It really is a trifecta of failures under this minister—prices up, reliability down and emissions flat-lined.

You would think with that record that the energy minister would take his job a bit more seriously—but no. Instead, what we've seen and what we learnt last week is that the Australian government has spent $7 million for the privilege of losing a bid to host COP31. That's $7 million gone, and not a single family is better off for it. According to Labor, though, we shouldn't worry, because we've got this fabulous consolation prize. We should all be so proud. Mr Bowen is going to be the president for negotiations for COP. What a title that is! How extraordinary! What an honour! To be fair to my colleagues on the other side of the chamber, I understand why it's viewed as a prize, because it might mean that the member for McMahon has to spend a little less time here answer questions about his failed policy and his failure to deliver the $275 he convinced not only all of Australia of but all his colleagues of as well. The fact is that Australia's energy minister taking on this role will not make energy any cheaper. The only winner out of this is Chris Bowen's CV. While the minister racks up more photos for his Instagram—a selfie with Greta, maybe—Australian households and businesses will be left to deal with more expensive energy bills and an unreliable energy grid.

Since Labor came to power, 1,900 manufacturing businesses have closed their doors, like Qenos plastics, Incitec Pivot Fertilisers and Oceania Glass in my home state of Victoria. Now, of course, we're talking about Tomago Aluminium at risk of closure or headed for a billion-dollar taxpayer funded bailout just to keep the thousand jobs that this vital industry provides. In 2024, COSBOA surveyed small businesses and found that 34 per cent have experienced financial strain paying their energy bills—that's a figure that's higher than it was during the pandemic—and 45 per cent were concerned about their future energy bills. When it comes to Australian families who were holding out for that $275 cut, there are actually 200,000 Australian families now who are on hardship plans with energy providers because of those rising energy costs.

Australians don't need an energy minister with two jobs; they would just like him to have one, and to do it well. Do what was promised. Fix the energy crisis in this country. It really is only ever Labor that could give us a part-time energy minister during a full-time energy emergency. Only Labor could prioritise global summits ahead of Australian families who are suffering to keep the lights on. Labor's priorities are wrong, and Australians are still paying that price.

I'm pleased to rise to speak to this matter of public importance and to follow the mover of the motion, Senator Hume. The content of her contribution really tells me that she hasn't—the effort into her MPI is not really up to scratch, I'm sorry. What I mean by that is it did seem like it was more tongue-in-cheek. I thought Senator Hume's contribution was more tongue-in-cheek. Unfortunately, the issue of energy is a serious matter, and this MPI really shows that the opposition are not here to take that issue seriously. In terms of their position on energy, they're here because they're climate deniers dragged around by the Right and the further right of their own party. The MPI is not about policy; it's a distraction from the chaos overtaking the Liberal Party. Their leader is under pressure, their backbench is undermining them, and their party is split. Ms Ley would rather deny climate change exists than face what is going on in her own ranks.

The simple truth is this—I actually said this earlier today, but it is worth repeating because these are the facts—the opposition had almost 10 years to put an energy policy in place, and they failed. For a decade they went from slogan to slogan without delivering a single settled plan. Twenty-three different policies came and went. None of them stuck. None of them delivered certainty. None of them delivered investment. All the while, the system aged, and the market moved. During their time in government, 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing, and yet they did nothing to prepare the country for it.

I know those opposite understand this. They know that these are the facts. They know that their inaction is a key reason Australians face the pressures they do today. When you ignore a problem for 10 years, it doesn't go away; it becomes harder to fix. Instead of taking responsibility, the opposition now want to entirely abandon net zero, a target they signed Australia up to and which their own colleagues in New South Wales and Victoria still support.

What we are watching here today is not a policy debate; it's a party being pulled apart by its extremes. They come in here, attacking a very good minister, Minister Bowen. They come in here time after time, attacking the COP process, even while Australia has been asked to take on a global leadership role, Senator Hume—a global leadership role! They attack global cooperation because it suits the internal politics of their party. Their party, the Liberal Party, has lost its way.

Meanwhile, the Labor government is focused on protecting Australia's interests and restoring credibility after a wasted decade. We have secured an unprecedented role for Australia and the Pacific at COP31. Turkiye will host the conference, and Australia will lead the negotiations. It's a significant honour for Australia. We will lead the negotiations from the end of COP30 through to COP31. We should be very clear about what this role actually means for Australia. Securing it has not been automatic; it took real partnership with the Pacific and serious diplomatic work. (Time expired)

The irony of this motion is obvious to anyone watching from home. The coalition accused the energy minister of prioritising global summits, when clearly they are not doing enough. We failed our COP bid, and the Prime Minister didn't even bother turning up to the world's biggest climate meeting. Our chance to lead the region went up in smoke because of weak leadership and a climate rhetoric that collapses under scrutiny.

I'm no fan of Labor, but I do find it ironic that the same people who are in the comments sections and on the coalition benches ridiculing domestic climate action because Australia is too small to make a difference are now angry that Australia is going to put effort into global climate action at the COP. 'Australian emissions are too small to save the planet,' they said last week while abandoning net zero. 'Focus on Australia,' they say this week, completely undermining their own clown show. Well, here is some good news for the climate deniers on the coalition benches: Labor doesn't really have a plan for climate action either. They take donations from the same fossil fuel industries, they take the same jobs after politics and they approve the same giant fossil fuel projects stretching out to 2070.

Let's be clear. While coalition hypocrisy is loud, Labor's complicity is quiet, but it is just as destructive. One of their own members even admitted this week that our gas export regime is absurd. Here is a fact that every Australian deserves to hear: no gas export project has ever paid a cent of petroleum resource rent tax. The government collects more from HECS—off the backs of our students—than from the PRRT. Now that is a failure of national policy! Despite all of the scare campaigns, 99.7 per cent of Australians do not work in the oil and gas industry, yet our national energy policy continues to be written for them. Meanwhile, tying domestic supply to volatile global gas markets keeps pushing up prices for Australian households, all while Australia's gas is shipped offshore for next to no return, doing nothing for our energy security and leaving behind environmental destruction.

No matter how many talking points the fossil fuel lobby feeds into this chamber, the facts do not change. Renewables are cheaper. Renewables are cleaner. Renewables are reliable. Australians deserve a government and an energy minister who treat that reality as a mandate, not as an inconvenience.

What Australians are witnessing is a part-time energy minister who spends more time chasing global applause than getting power bills down for hardworking Australians at home. How can the energy minister, who now has two jobs, face the Australian people? Australians expect his first duty to be to Australian households and businesses, not to the conference circuit. Under Labor, taxes are climbing, spending is soaring and debt is spiralling out of control. The minister has boasted that he walked away from the failed negotiations for COP31 with, in his words, 'all the power'. We ask ourselves, 'All the power over who and over what?' He will be the President of Negotiations at next year's COP31 climate summit. How will that help hardworking Australians? How will that help them get their energy bills down? Australians are entitled to ask a simple question: how much of their money was spent just so the energy minister could grab all of the power for himself? A figure of $8 million has been thrown around, but I'm sure that, as we find out more in this place, there will be hidden charges and costs that come with that.

This theatre is paid for by you, the hardworking taxpayer. Australians do not want another global summit or another slogan. They want the lights to stay on and their bills to come down. They want an energy minister who spends less time on the tarmac and more time fixing our energy grid. They want someone who is focused on affordable, reliable power here in Australia instead of chasing claps in conference halls overseas. It's time to end the climate theatre and to get back to honest, practical energy policy that puts Australian households and jobs ahead of our minister's frequent flyer status. Australians are tired of being lectured on emissions by global elites who will happily bulldoze a rainforest for a more convenient access road to a climate summit. These conferences burn more carbon than they save, yet everyday Australians are turning off their heaters or their air conditioners and tightening their belts at the grocery store just so they can balance their household budget.

Emissions are rising globally, not falling, despite all the grand announcements, the billions and trillions of dollars that are being spent and all of the glossy communiques. Power bills are up by around 40 per cent, and it is hardworking families and businesses who are paying roughly $1,300 more than they were promised. Let's remember that this government went to the election promising Australians a $275 reduction in their power bills. Labor's promise of that $275 reduction is now just a cruel joke to the Australian people. The only thing that has gone down under this government is trust. Emissions remain at about 28 per cent below 2005, exactly where they were when Labor took office. So Australians are getting higher bills without any extra progress in relation to emissions. Only the coalition has a plan that maps a practical path to affordable power and lower emissions—not Labor's recipe for soaring prices and targets that cannot be met. Our focus is on results for Australians, not targets that Australians can't meet.

Our energy minister has gone out there and has committed to taking our No. 2 and our No. 3 exports completely off the table. Coal and gas are worth about $180 billion to the Australian economy. Our energy minister has gone over and signed us up to the Belem declaration, which is a declaration to phase out the use of fossil fuels. How is this going to help the Australian people and our economy? Our own minister is overseas, signing us up and impoverishing our nation just so that he can get that global applause on the world stage.

I thank Senator Hume for providing me with the opportunity to highlight the strong record of the Albanese Labor government on energy, international diplomacy and leadership. Quite frankly, it's quite remarkable that the senator has chosen this topic, given the chaos and the divisions in the Liberal and National wannabe One Nation parties. This government has delivered the most significant uplift in Australia's international influence in a generation. In 2026, Australia, together with our Pacific family, will lead the global conversation on climate. We will preside over a landmark pre-COP, giving the world an opportunity to see Pacific climate impacts and solutions firsthand. This will give our Pacific family the global stage that they have always deserved, and this is real leadership from a friend. It stands in contrast to those opposite who, in 2015, belittled our Pacific family, who are at risk of rising sea levels. Still, in 2025, they continue to disrespect our Pacific family through scrapping net zero and through their ideological infatuation with coal-fired power stations. It isn't leadership; it's just, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Instead of delivering one-liners, this government is delivering a responsible energy plan that creates jobs, that gives business certainty, that cuts emissions and, most importantly, that delivers for our economy. Just last month, renewables supplied half of the national electricity market, while wholesale electricity prices fell by a third in the last quarter, a direct result of record renewable uptake and a reduced reliance on coal and gas. That's right; lower coal and gas output does mean lower prices. We've also delivered energy market reforms to protect consumers and force retailers to deliver fair deals. One in three households now have rooftop solar, with over four million installations nationwide. Since July, more than 120,000 households have had batteries installed under our program, boosting battery capacity nationwide by 50 per cent in just a few months. This is what happens when you listen to the science, when you cooperate and when you plan.

The Australian Energy Market Commission is clear: delaying renewable energy generation and transmission drives up prices. All credible experts agree that a renewable powered grid is cheaper than fossil fuels. But what's the cost of doing nothing? It's staggering. Clean Energy Council research from March warned that, if we keep relying on coal and gas and delay renewables, household power bills could soar by $449 every year by 2030. If a major coal-fired power station fails, that figure rises to over $600 annually. But it's not just households who pay the price. Treasury modelling shows that a disorderly transition could drain $1.2 trillion from the Australian economy by 2050. That's 1.2 trillion bucks gone—the cost of inaction.

The coalition asks, 'Why are bills so high?' The answer is, 'Because of them.' They created policy paralysis, investor uncertainty and great instability. They failed to land 23 different energy policies in their decade of neglect. They failed to protect Australia from global price shocks, which directly contributed to the dramatic price rises in 2022-23. They abandoned their own National Energy Guarantee because of internal climate wars, not because it didn't work. They ignored warnings that 24 of the nation's 28 coal-fired power stations were approaching end of life, and they've opposed our energy bill relief at every step. Worst of all, some of them just keep spinning reports, pushing narratives defined by conspiracy that fail to withstand even the most basic scrutiny. Yet they have the audacity to lecture this government on energy. We're not part time on net zero; we're all in, every single day. Those opposite are part time on facts—that's being generous—and they are full time on tearing each other apart. Experts have confirmed that the coalition's plan, if you can call it that, will not reduce power bills. Instead, their plan would raise bills, raise emissions and raise uncertainties. (Time expired)

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has presided over rising electricity prices, falling energy reliability and an emissions reduction program that is flatlining, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has decided to reward the minister for energy with the full-time frequent flyer role of being a part-time Australian energy minister while he takes up the role of 'His Excellency the PON', 'His Excellency the President of Negotiations', for the COP31 conference that will happen next year in November. This is my bold prediction: electricity prices for Anthony Albanese will be like the carbon tax for Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd. Remember, it was Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, who robbed Bill Shorten of his election victory in 2019. And now it is Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, who is going to rob Anthony Albanese of his third parliamentary term at the next election. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese instead thinks that he should reward the minister for energy.

There are some questions for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and some questions for Chris Bowen, the minister for energy. As he assumes his position as the PON, the President of Negotiations, for the COP31 conference, these are the questions he needs to answer. Will the minister for energy attend every parliamentary sitting day in 2026 up to the point of the COP31 conference, which happens in November? That's the first question: will Minister Bowen attend the House of Representatives on every sitting day to take questions from the opposition about a whole range of matters—predominantly why electricity prices are still rising in our country? The second question is: what Australian taxpayer resources and which officials from which departments will be used to support the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, in his new role as the PON?

The third question is: will the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, excuse himself from cabinet deliberations on issues where there's a clear conflict between Australia's national interest and the work that he does to negotiate for COP31, where the interests of other nations might be ahead of our own national interest? The fourth question is: when the minister for energy, Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, is travelling around the world doing his President of Negotiations work—remember that Istanbul, in Turkiye, is 15,000 kilometres away from Canberra and that it takes 24 hours to fly from Canberra to Istanbul—who will look after the interests of the citizens of McMahon? Those 120,000 voters deserve to be represented by a full-time member of the House of Representatives.

Those are the four primary questions that Prime Minister Albanese might like to think about and might like to turn up to the House of Representatives tomorrow and Thursday with clear answers to. If he cannot provide clear answers to those four questions, then Chris Bowen, the member for McMahon, is the wrong choice. Despite what Chris Bowen, the minister for energy, has said, it is totally incompatible for him to be the minister for energy at a time when electricity prices are rising, when reliability is falling and when our own emissions reduction experience in this country under his watch is flatlining and to also take on the role of President of Negotiations.

You might ask: why is this happening now? I've got an answer to that question. It just so happens that it coincides with this month's release of the Australian Energy Council's report on the future of electricity prices in this country, on the future of energy reliability and on the future of emissions reductions. It's a very, very bad and gloomy report, and it marks the minister for energy down. This is not the time to be rewarding Chris Bowen. (Time expired)

The time for the discussion has expired.

I present the fourth report of 2025 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

I present the 229th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

At the request of Senator Kovacic, I present additional comments by opposition senators to the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025.

I present the government response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 and seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security:

Advisory Report on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in the Advisory Report on the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that, in line with the proposed expansion of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's oversight role, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020 and, to the extent necessary, other legislation be amended to expand the oversight remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to cover the intelligence functions of the ACIC (including, but not limited to, the use of network activity warrants by the ACIC).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020) and, to the extent necessary, other legislation be amended to expand the oversight remit of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to cover the intelligence functions of the AFP (including, but not limited to, the use of network activity warrants by the AFP).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, the Intelligence Oversight and Other Legislation Amendment (Integrity Measures) Bill 2020) and, to the extent necessary, other legislation be amended to extend the oversight remit of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security's oversight to include all intelligence functions of the AFP (including, but not limited to, not the use of just network activity warrants).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 and, to the extent necessary, other legislation be amended to expand the inspection mandate and functions of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to cover—in explicit terms—the propriety of the AFP and ACIC's actions, practices, policies and activities under these new powers.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The Committee recommends that, where a Bill proposes to give operational or intelligence agencies specific new or expanded powers, those agencies should, in addition to providing input to any departmental submission, provide a separate unclassified submission to the Committee which should, at least, outline the necessity and proportionality of the proposed new or expanded powers. Such a submission should include, where appropriate, case studies on the current environment and how the use of any proposed new or expanded powers will assist the agency in the carrying out of its functions. The Committee also recommends that the Department of Home Affairs not make any further submission to the Committee that purports to be authored by, or submitted on behalf of, the "Home Affairs Portfolio." For the avoidance of doubt this recommendation should not preclude an agency providing a classified submission in addition to any unclassified submission.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The Committee recommends that, in support the proposed expansion of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's oversight remit (see Recommendations 1 and 2), the AFP and the ACIC provide an unclassified annual report to the Committee which sets out:

Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and xvii Disrupt) Bill 2020

This new reporting requirement should be supplemented by classified briefings to the Committee outlining the use of the new powers and their relationship both to each other and other existing powers provided to the AFP and ACIC.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The Committee recommends the INSLM Act be amended to provide for INSLM review of the data disruption, network activity and account takeover warrants introduced by the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 within three years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. The Committee further recommends that the INSLM Act be amended to require the INSLM to provide a copy of his or her report to the Committee at the same time the report is provided to the Minister.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may conduct a review of the data disruption, network activity and account takeover warrants not less than four years from when the Bill receives Royal Assent to allow the Committee to take into account any report by the INSLM. In addition the Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that each of the new powers sunset five years from the date on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 9:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the issuing authority for all of the new powers introduced by the Bill, including emergency authorisations, must be a superior court judge (either of the Federal Court or a State or Territory Supreme Court), except for Account Takeover Warrants which may be granted by an Eligible Judge per Section 12 of the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 (Cth).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 10:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to provide additional requirements on the considerations of the issuing authority to ensure the offences are reasonably serious and proportionality is maintained. The effect of any changes should be to strengthen the issuing criteria and ensure the powers are being used for the most serious of offending.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 11:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the issuing authority, to the extent known, must consider the following:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 12:

The Committee recommends the Government commission a review of Commonwealth legislation to determine whether the concepts of "serious offence," "relevant offence" and other similar concepts:

Acts of ParliamentTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979Surveillance Devices Act 2004

This body of work should inform the eventual electronic surveillance bill being considered by the Department of Home Affairs and other departments.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 13:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that, in order to provide an emergency authorisation for disruption of data held in a computer:

Surveillance Devices Act 2004

In addition, the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 should be amended so that, where an issuing authority declines to retrospectively approve an emergency data disruption authorisation, the issuing authority may require the AFP or ACIC to take such remedial action as considered appropriate in the circumstances, including financial compensation.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 14:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that any post-warrant concealment powers must be exercised within 28 days after the relevant warrant has expired unless the AFP or the ACIC (as applicable) has obtained the approval of a superior court judge to undertake post-concealment activities at a later date. Consistent with the recommendation made by the INSLM, the superior court judge should be required to consider:

In addition, and noting that the Committee did not receive evidence on concealment in relation to computer warrants, the Committee recommends that the Government consider whether the same amendment should be made in respect of computer access warrants in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 consistent with the recommendation made by the INSLM.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 15:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that:

The notification to the Commonwealth Ombudsman or IGIS (as applicable) must include, among other things, details of the loss or damage caused by the disruption activity and an explanation of why the loss or damage was necessary to do one of the things specified in the warrant.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 16:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the power to temporarily remove computers and other things from premises under a data disruption warrant or a network activity warrant must be returned to the warrant premises as soon as it is reasonably practicable to do so.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 17:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 should be amended to change the reporting requirements from the agencies to the Commonwealth Ombudsman from six-monthly to annually.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 18:

The Committee recommends that the Government introduce legislation to implement the Committee's recommendations in its report on press freedom as soon as possible. In the meantime, the Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that the issuing criteria for each of the proposed new powers requires the applicant, and the issuing authority, to consider the following matters in respect of any warrant that relates to—or may affect—a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist or a media organisation:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 19:

Consistent with Recommendation 2 of the Committee's report on press freedom, the Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to require that—with respect to an application for a data disruption warrant, a network activity warrant or an account takeover warrant that is being sought in relation to a journalist or media organisation—a "public interest advocate" be appointed.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 20:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to make clear the issuing criteria for an assistance orders also requires the issuing authority to be satisfied that:

Assistance and Access Act 2018

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 21:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to require consideration by the issuing authority, to the extent that is possible, of whether a person is, or has been, subject to other mandatory assistance orders (including mandatory assistance orders made under other Commonwealth legislation). Having regard to the covert nature of mandatory assistance orders, and the fact that it may not be possible for the issuing authority or applicant to have knowledge of previous (or even concurrent) orders, the Committee further recommends that the Government develop a mechanism to ensure that individuals and companies are not subject to multiple mandatory assistance orders unless specific consideration is given to whether, in all of the circumstances, it is reasonably necessary and proportionate.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 22:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 23:

The Committee recommends that the Government make clear that no mandatory assistance order, including those defined in the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020, can ever be executed in a manner that amounts to the detention of a person.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 24:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to introduce good faith immunity provisions for both assisting entities and those employees or officers of assisting entities who are acting in good faith with an assistance order.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 25:

The Committee recommends the Explanatory Memorandum to the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to make it clear that decisions under the proposed new powers are not excluded from judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act).

For the avoidance of doubt, the Committee believes that no decision made in relation to data disruption warrants, network activity warrants and account takeover warrants should be exempt from judicial review under the ADJR Act.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 26:

The Committee recommends proposed paragraph 27KA(3)(b) of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to provide that the statement of facts and grounds accompanying all applications for data disruption warrants must specify the following matters to the extent that is possible:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 27:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that only individuals who satisfy the following requirements may apply for a data disruption warrant or an account takeover warrant:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 28:

The Committee recommends that paragraph 27KC of the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended so that, rather than a judge having to be satisfied, that a data disruption warrant would be "justifiable and proportionate", the judge must be satisfied, to the extent possible at the time an application is made, that a data disruption warrant is:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 29:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 and the IGIS Act be amended to make it clear that staff members of the Australian Signals Directorate are subject to IGIS oversight if they are seconded to the AFP or ACIC to execute a data disruption warrant for and on behalf of the AFP or ACIC.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 30:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to strengthen the issuing authority considerations for network activity warrants, including by amending the definition of a "criminal network of individuals" to require there to be a reasonable suspicion of a connection between:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 31:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to clarify that a decision-maker, and the issuing authority, must consider the privacy implications to the extent they are known, of a proposed network activity warrant.

To be clear, the committee does not believe that privacy considerations should be determinative in their own right, just that they should be considered.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 32:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to require a sworn affidavit setting out the grounds of an application for an account takeover warrant (consistent with the delayed notification search warrants in the Crimes Act).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 33:

The Committee recommends that the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be amended to require an issuing authority to consider, to the extent that is possible at the time the application is made, whether a proposed account takeover warrant is likely to have an adverse impact on third parties, including a specific requirement to assess the likely:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 34:

The Committee recommends the Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identify and Disrupt) Bill 2020 be passed, subject to the amendments outlined above.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning the Triple Zero Custodian, the incoming government brief prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the financial impact of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025.

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 exploratory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I move that this Bill be now read a second time.

There is no greater responsibility for a Government than keeping Australians safe.

This year, the Director-General of Security delivered what he called his 'most significant, serious and sober' threat assessment of Australia's security environment to date.

In the coming years, he assessed that an already challenging security environment will be characterised by threats of an increasingly varied, dynamic and unpredictable nature.

In response to such advice, the Government is faced with the crucial task of ensuring intelligence and security agencies are appropriately equipped to keep Australians safe.

Those agencies are entrusted with significant powers to detect, disrupt and respond to threats to the nation's security- powers that by necessity may be covert and intrusive, with the potential to infringe individual rights and freedoms if misused.

Therefore, it is critical that those powers are balanced with the necessary oversight to ensure that public trust is maintained and the rule of law is upheld.

Without such accountability, we risk jeopardising core aspects of our democracy in our noble endeavour to keep Australians safe.

This is not to say our security and intelligence agencies are acting improperly.

In fact, the strength of, and their commitment to, a culture of legality and propriety are core characteristics of these agencies.

It has underpinned public trust in these institutions—and is central to the important work they do each and every day.

However, the ever-evolving threat environment requires the intelligence community to become increasingly interconnected in its work.

The corresponding oversight framework that provides appropriate safeguards across the National Intelligence Community is no longer uniform.

Reform is required to provide targeted, focused and consistent oversight in response.

When I was sworn in as Australia's 40th Attorney-General, I committed to uphold the rule of law and maintain the community's trust in our legal systems.

Consistent with that commitment, I am therefore proud to introduce—as my first Bill as Attorney-General—the Strengthening Oversight of the National Intelligence Community Bill.

This Bill will extend statutory and parliamentary oversight to all agencies exercising intelligence capabilities and ensure holistic oversight of the National Intelligence Community.

And this is a Bill that delivers on this Government's commitment to maintain the trust and integrity of our institutions, and fundamentally, to keep Australians safe.

The current oversight framework

There are three key pillars of Australia's security and intelligence oversight framework: the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.

Each of these bodies plays an important and complementary role in ensuring accountability.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security performs dedicated statutory oversight of agencies within its jurisdiction, providing independent and impartial assurance to Ministers, the Parliament and the

public that intelligence agencies conduct their activities with legality, propriety and in a way that is consistent with human rights.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security reviews proposed counter-terrorism and national security legislation, ensuring laws are fit-for-purpose. It also reviews the administration and expenditure of agencies within its jurisdiction.

Finally, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor reviews the operation, effectiveness and implications of specific counter-terrorism and national security legislation to assess whether those laws effectively address security threats and maintain respect for human rights.

The existing oversight regime is strong but, as the national intelligence community evolves to meet the complex and dynamic security challenges it faces, the oversight framework must move with it.

The Bill

This Bill amends the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act, the·Intelligence Services Act and other Commonwealth legislation to expand the jurisdictions of the Inspector-General and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to oversee:

This expansion of jurisdiction will embed holistic oversight of the ten agencies in the National Intelligence Community by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security currently reviews proposed counter-terrorism and national security legislation as a matter of practice to ensure it is fit-for-purpose.

The Bill amends the Intelligence Services Act to put this important scrutiny mechanism on a solid legislative footing, enabling the Committee to review proposed reforms to counter-terrorism and national security legislation, and all such expiring legislation, on its own motion or on the basis of a referral by the responsible Minister, the Attorney-General or either House of Parliament.

The Bill amends the Intelligence Services Act and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request the Inspector- General to conduct an inquiry into the operational activities of agencies within its jurisdiction.

This will enable areas of concern identified by the Committee to be brought to the Inspector-General's attention, while simultaneously protecting the sensitive operational information of intelligence agencies and respecting the independence of this important statutory office.

Further, the Bill provides the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with the ability to request a briefing from the

Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and requires the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and the Director-General of the Office of National Intelligence to provide annual briefings to the Committee.

These measures are designed to ensure the Committee has the necessary context and information to most effectively perform its important oversight role.

The Bill also strengthens the relationship between the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, facilitating increased engagement between the intelligence community's key oversight mechanisms.

Lastly, the Bill amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act to enable the Monitor to initiate reviews into the full suite of contemporary counter-terrorism or national security legislation at the Commonwealth level.

The Monitor is currently able to undertake reviews into a defined list of legislation of their own motion, which limits their ability to prioritise reviews in line with emerging security threats.

Expanding the Monitor's mandate reflects the fact that our legislation is increasingly moving beyond terrorism-related activity to address national security threats of a more varied, complex and interconnected nature.

Conclusion

Our intelligence community is entrusted by the public with the critical role of keeping Australians safe from those who would seek to do us harm.

Achieving this outcome necessitates balancing national security interests and the protection of individual liberties.

As a Parliament, it is our job to get this balance right.

Establishing a holistic and consistent oversight framework for the National Intelligence Community will do just that.

The Bill will ensure consistent treatment across the National Intelligence Community, and that the enhanced powers and capabilities with which intelligence agencies are entrusted are subject to specialist oversight.

Robust oversight serves our national security interests by giving Australia's intelligence community the licence to exercise significant powers, while also assuring the public that they are doing so with accountability and integrity.

In a rapidly changing security environment, effective oversight remains a critical democratic safeguard and an integral part of our legal system.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 2026:

The obligations of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in relation to the impartiality and accuracy of its news and information content, including relevant obligations under the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (ABC Act), ABC editorial policies and ABC Code of Practice, with particular reference to:

(a) recent or otherwise significant instances where the accuracy or impartiality of ABC news or information has been called into question, including the nature of any alleged breach of the ABC Act, ABC editorial policies or ABC Code of Practice and any resulting corrections, clarifications, retractions, complaints, legal proceedings or other actions;

(b) the adequacy and transparency of the ABC's complaints handling processes, including:

(i) the operation and resourcing of the ABC Ombudsman's Office,

(ii) the timeliness and independence of investigations, and

(iii) the accessibility of complaints pathways for the public;

(c) the appropriateness and potential risks of the ABC entering into partnerships, collaborations, arrangements or agreements with external organisations (domestic or international) which may create real or perceived conflicts affecting impartiality or accuracy;

(d) the qualifications, training, supervision and continuing professional development of ABC journalists, editors, producers and presenters, including whether internal processes adequately support adherence to the ABC's impartiality and accuracy obligations;

(e) the role, responsibilities and available powers of the Australian Government and the Minister for Communications in responding to or remedying failures by the ABC, including its Board, to meet obligations relating to impartiality and accuracy; and

(f) any other related matters.

Today I am calling on the Senate to support my motion for an inquiry into one of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's most fundamental statutory obligations: to disseminate news and information impartially and accurately. This obligation is embedded not just in the ABC Act but also in ABC policies and the ABC Code of Conduct. My motion also seeks to inquire into the ABC complaints process, the training and supervision of ABC journalists and other content producers, and any third-party arrangements which may undermine the ABC's impartiality and accuracy obligations.

From the outset, I make it clear I am a very strong supporter of public broadcasting and the ABC. As part of a 16-year career, principally as a television journalist and presenter, I worked at the ABC for nine years in current affairs and factual television programming, where I won a Walkley award for my work. ABC journalists, presenters, producers, editors and other content makers frequently produce work of the highest calibre on free-to-air and digital TV and radio and online, across news, current affairs, documentaries, opinion programs, drama, comedy and talk radio, including at times of emergency. Often they work under extreme pressure, meeting the most challenging of deadlines. I also know what it's like to feel the heat when politicians don't like the stories which are told.

This inquiry is not about questioning the ABC's editorial independence. This is sacrosanct. It is about examining the standards which must be applied when that editorial independence is exercised. Section 8 of the ABC Act requires the ABC board:

(b) to maintain the independence and integrity of the Corporation;

The section also requires the ABC board:

(c) to ensure that the gathering and presentation by the Corporation of news and information is accurate and impartial according to the recognized standards of objective journalism;

The ABC receives around $1.2 billion of taxpayer funding every year. Accordingly, Australians have every right to demand the highest standards of our national broadcaster.

Trust in our ABC means ensuring the ABC leaves no stone unturned to meet its impartiality and accuracy obligations. Trust in our ABC means ensuring that, when mistakes are made or when there are errors of judgement, they are corrected quickly and comprehensively. Regrettably, there have been too many times when the ABC has failed the impartiality test. This is compounded by the Albanese government's failure to hold our national broadcaster to account when it falls short of the highest standards of journalism. Just in recent weeks, we've seen the doctoring of a photograph featuring Senator Hume that was broadcast on the ABC's flagship current affairs program, Insiders. She was made to look as if she was mocking the coalition's leadership team. We also saw the hectoring of the Leader of the Opposition, Ms Ley, in an interview on the 7.30 program. Ms Ley was interrupted by the program's host on 35 occasions. Senator Nampijinpa Price was recently—and I have to say disgracefully—called a racist on Insiders.

Four Corners has not yet explained why it deleted key lines of President Trump's speech in a program on the Capitol riots—the same editing decision made by the BBC, which led to the demise of two executives, amongst other matters at the BBC. These lines, when the President called on people to 'walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congress men and women', did not fit with the program's narrative that President Trump had incited violence. While I do not contest the ABC's right to exercise its own editorial judgement and conclusions in relation to this very significant story, it must do so impartially and accurately. Deleting key facts which undermined Four Corners' narrative—I would say, to suit that narrative—just as the BBC did, was simply the wrong journalistic call.

No-one is suggesting, I might add, that the ABC program reflected precisely the same editing decisions as the BBC. The ABC's managing director, Mr Marks, has said that the criticism initially raised by Sky News's presenter Chris Kenny, and then by me, were 'false and opportunistic'. There was nothing false about these concerns. They were factually correct. There is nothing opportunistic about holding the ABC to account when these issues of journalistic integrity arise.

One of the worst incidents concerned the false allegations made by the ABC against former special forces commando Heston Russell, which included the insertion of fake gunshots in one report and the waste of millions of dollars in legal proceedings defending the indefensible. In the face of egregious allegations he had committed a war crime, Mr Russell was dragged through the mud and forced to fight for justice in the Federal Court, which found the ABC's conduct to be recklessly indifferent to the truth. Yet, still, I would argue, there has still been no cultural reckoning inside the broadcaster.

I've also raised concerns the ABC Act is no longer fit for purpose and needs to be rewritten. It was established in 1983 when journalists were still working on typewriters, before digital news, social media, rolling online commentary and the modern ecosystem of information. Yes, there have been amendments, but I say strongly that the ABC Act is not fit for purpose, and I do place on record that the former Labor minister for communications, Ms Rowland, now the Attorney-General, also agreed with my view that the ABC Act needed an overhaul. Yet this government, in three and a half years, has done nothing to that effect.

Impartial journalism means making decisions to cover stories impartially. The Federal Court case Tickle v Giggle, which found that Sall Grover did not have the right to exclude a biological man who identified as a trans woman from a women-only app Giggle for Girls, received considerable coverage by the ABC. However, the Federal Court appeal into the chilling impact of the Sex Discrimination Act, which, as it is currently interpreted, no longer gives women the right to female-only spaces, has received no attention from the ABC.

The Lesbian Action Group has also raised concerns about the ABC's refusal to cover issues which challenge gender identity activism. The ABC has declined to cover this group's battle to hold a women-only event, which will be heard in the Federal Court next year. In a complaint lodged by the group last week, it said:

The ABC was created to serve all Australians—not activist organisations, not lobbyists, and not ideological driven movements. Its independence is not optional; it is the foundation of public trust in our national broadcaster.

We urge the Board and executive leadership to take immediate action to restore confidence in the ABC's impartiality, transparency, and editorial integrity.

The Lesbian Action Group, amongst others, has also raised concerns about the ABC's partnership with ACON, which supports trans ideology. The group says the ABC's endorsement of ACON's Australian Workplace Equality Index, a 'paid, commercial system under which organisations are benchmarked, trained, ranked, and rewarded for alignment', is not consistent with the ABC's impartiality obligations. The group says:

This is not a benign HR initiative. It is a governance relationship with an activist body whose ideological positions directly intersect with sensitive areas of ABC editorial output.

No public broadcaster can credibly maintain impartiality while being assessed and rewarded by a political lobby group whose position it routinely amplifies.

This is just one arrangement which needs to be scrutinised by the Environment and Communications References Committee.

There have been numerous other controversial decisions which bring into question the ABC's impartiality. Its coverage of antisemitism and the plight of Jewish Australians has received a lot of focus as has the ABC's coverage of issues relating to migration and concerns about mass immigration. Our inquiry would give Australians a direct voice to raise their concerns. Under the proposed terms of reference, the committee would investigate the adequacy and independence of the ABC Ombudsman. Right now, the ABC has structured its complaints system so that it investigates itself, it determines whether it has breached its own standards and, in too many cases, arguably, it absolves itself without, perhaps, proper scrutiny. So we need to ask the question of whether Australians deserve an improved complaints mechanism which is independent, transparent, timely and perhaps more accountable.

Under the ABC Act, what can the Minister for Communications do when the ABC breaches its statutory duties? Right now, it appears almost nothing. More often than not, the government turns a blind eye even when the ABC gets things very badly wrong, as it did in the Heston Russell case. And, of course, that was at enormous cost to Mr Russell personally and caused taxpayers to lose many millions of dollars. So we do need to ask what more can be done when the ABC seriously transgresses these most important obligations.

I reiterate again that the ABC is an important national institution, but that does not place it beyond scrutiny. It is funded by taxpayers. It is governed and also protected by statute. It carries immense influence. With that comes a solemn responsibility to uphold the highest standards of journalism. Australians deserve a public broadcaster they can trust in every respect, especially in times of crisis, conflict, emergency and national debate. This inquiry is how we can rebuild that trust. It is how we can properly ensure accountability. It also is how we can better support ABC journalists, producers, editors and content makers.

There have been many occasions at the ABC when very-high-profile presenters and journalists received a lot of attention and some very favourable consideration, and many hardworking younger journalists, who weren't as high profile, were disregarded—and I particularly point out the hardworking journalists in regional Australia, where they sometimes struggle to get basic equipment to do their job. I'm really keen to ensure what we can do as a parliament to better support our journalists who work extremely hard to tell the most important Australian stories.

This inquiry is how we restore the ABC to the standards that the Australian people expect and deserve in every respect. I commend this inquiry to the Senate.

I rise in support of Senator Henderson's referral of this matter, this evening. Anywhere else in the world in 2025 a woman fighting to defend her right to a single-sex space would be front-page news. This isn't theoretical or hypothetical. In April, the UK supreme court heard the For Women Scotland case and confirmed that the UK's Equality Act 2010 does protect women's rights to their own spaces and services. It was all over the news and the media in the United Kingdom. Yet, here in Australia, if you relied on our taxpayer funded national broadcaster, you would have no idea that we are facing our own landmark test case here.

Roxanne Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd & Anor will shape the future of women's rights in this country, but you wouldn't know it from the ABC's coverage. The Tickle v Giggle case has seen Australian entrepreneur Sal Grover taken to the court to defend her right to operate her online platform Giggle for Girls to the exclusion of males. While the Australian and Sky News have reported on this case extensively, the ABC has barely touched it. Even its own watchdog, Media Watch, has conceded that there are gaps in Aunty's reporting. That isn't journalism. That's just selective reporting, and it's not good enough.

When the ABC chooses silence, Australians are denied the truth, and it is a disgrace that this is happening from our national broadcaster. The Tickle v Giggle case isn't about personalities or politics. It's about whether women can have spaces exclusively for women, spaces that are safe and fair and free from compromise. It is about rights, it is about fairness and it is about safety. When our national broadcaster ignores that, it fails in its duty under its charter to inform Australians impartially.

Let's not pretend that this biased reporting is new. In 2022, I lodged a complaint about an ABC article titled 'Trans women's participation in sport has been framed as an election issue. This is what some trans athletes think'. The ABC's own review of that article found it to be materially misleading. The then chair of the ABC, Ita Buttrose, in correspondence to me, admitted serious editorial lapses had occurred in relation to the article and called them regrettable. Those aren't my words. They are Ms Buttrose's. Yet, three years later, the ABC still refuses to even touch this subject, let alone provide balanced coverage. Why? Because, when the facts clash with ideology, silence becomes the strategy.

Australians deserve better. The ABC is funded by taxpayers. It is not a private blog site. It is a public institution with obligations—obligations to report impartially, to cover all sides and to trust the public to make up its own mind. When the ABC fails to do this, it erodes trust, not only in the institution of the ABC itself but in the entire media ecosystem. Tickle v Giggle isn't a fringe issue; it is a test case for whether women's rights still matter in Australia. If women cannot have spaces of their own, whether it's in sport, online, in shelters or in prisons, then where does that leave the rights of women in Australia? These aren't abstract debates. These are debates about acknowledging biological reality and the rights that flow from that. Women have fought for decades to secure spaces where they can compete fairly, recover safely and connect freely. Those rights should not be erased quietly because a broadcaster finds the conversation uncomfortable or because its agenda is being manipulated by a lobbyist group.

I call on the ABC to do its job. Cover the case of Tickle v Giggle. Ask the hard questions. Interview both sides. Let Australians hear the arguments and make up their own minds. That is what journalism is supposed to be. Anything less is advocacy by omission. This parliament shouldn't stand by while taxpayer funded media is picking winners and losers in important debates. We cannot allow silence to become censorship. Women's rights aren't negotiable. They're not a trend. They are a cornerstone of fairness in our society. So I say this: Australians deserve the truth. They deserve coverage that is balanced, fearless and complete. They deserve a national broadcaster that respects its charter, not one that hides behind ideology. Tickle v Giggle matters. Women's rights matter. It's time the ABC started treating them that way.

I rise to support Senator Henderson's motion referring this matter to the Environment and Communications References Committee. The ABC receives about $1.1 billion in taxpayer funding each year. This funding will increase by $30 million each year until 2029. With that level of public investment, there comes a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of accuracy and impartiality. Australians expect their public broadcaster to get the facts right, present issues fairly and correct mistakes quickly. Last year, the ABC received about 4,000 editorial and content complaints, with only 56 breaches upheld. The majority of complaints were not even investigated. This level of public concern makes it clear why oversight of the ABC is necessary.

Senator Henderson has rightly said the ABC's editorial division has been allowed to run wild and is no longer fit for purpose as a taxpayer funded source of trusted news. I'll go through and highlight some of the examples, but I will take some out because my colleague Senator Henderson has covered some of them. In 2019, the ABC aired serious allegations accusing fellow senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who was then deputy mayor of Alice Springs, of spreading racist vitriol and hate speech. The claims were unverified. In 2021, two years later, the ABC apologised after a defamation action confirmed that the allegations were, in fact, false. The ABC admitted it failed to verify those statements before broadcasting them.

They took a now senator through two years of a defamation trial at the taxpayers' expense, only to be found to have never verified the statements that they broadcast. In January 2023, the ABC's report on a community meeting in Alice Springs was found by the ombudsman to breach accuracy and impartiality standards. The ABC relied heavily on just one attendee, who described the event as a 'white supremacist fest', and ignored the broader community perspective. The ABC also understated the crowd size, reporting hundreds when more than 2,000 locals were present peacefully. The ombudsman ruled that the story misrepresented both the tone and the scale of the meeting, and the ABC was forced to correct and re-edit the story.

These two instances show a clear pattern. We can keep going. In October 2023, the Federal Court ruled that the ABC defamed former commando Heston Russell, yet another trial that was paid for by you, the Australian taxpayer. In May 2025, the ABC news repeatedly reported that 14,000 babies would die in 48 hours in Gaza. The statistic was incorrect and was based on a misstatement by a UN spokesperson in an earlier BBC interview. The ABC repeated the claim across multiple programs and took a full week to correct it. The ombudsman found a clear accuracy breach and a breach for failing to correct a significant error promptly. This mistake spread misinformation and showed weak fact-checking and weak correction processes. I could keep going on. In recent weeks, I've seen a doctored photograph of my colleague Senator Hume on Insiders, which again raises questions about the ABC's editorial judgement. These examples matter. What we see here are unverified and one-sided claims, misrepresentations of events, failures of investigative fairness, major factual inaccuracies and editing choices that distort context. These are not isolated, one-off mistakes. They point to a systemic weakness in editorial processes.

And what about the accountability to the Australian people and the taxpayers who fund this journalism? Public funding comes attached with accountability. The ABC is funded by Australians. That is $1.1 billion of taxpayer dollars every single year. Australians deserve confidence that this funding delivers factual, balanced and trustworthy journalism. Independence is important, but it does not mean that the ABC should be exempt from scrutiny.

This inquiry will allow the Senate to examine whether editorial standards are being upheld, complaints processes are independent and effective, and corrections are made in a timely and transparent manner. This is a constructive process. It ensures the ABC meets the high standards that it sets for itself. That is why it is time for a transparent, independent inquiry into the ABC's impartiality. Australians deserve to have confidence that their national broadcaster upholds the highest standards of fairness, accuracy and balance. An inquiry would not be about attacking journalists nor about controlling content. It is about restoring public trust in our national broadcaster. With rising concerns about political bias, selective reporting and uneven scrutiny, Australians deserve transparency and accountability in our public broadcaster. We must ensure that the ABC truly serves all Australians. The ABC needs to be held to the standards as set out in its charter, a charter that is rightfully attached because it is publicly funded.

We are not supporting this inquiry. We've seen four years, in my time, of ideological attacks against the ABC. In that time, I've seen so many of those opposite who seek to bring down the ABC and seek to insult the ABC. But today, upstairs, there's the ABC showcase. I wonder how many of those opposite have gone up there and taken advantage of the hospitality, taken a little tote bag with little goodies in it and had a great time engaging in all the great things that the ABC offers us and provides to the Australian people, before coming in here and playing an ideological game.

The kind of kneejerk attacks that I've seen—I spent three years chairing the estimates session that covers the ABC and watched that session grow to up to three hours of questioning at a time for the ABC. They should be accountable, open to questioning and open to having the people in this chamber making sure that what they are doing is appropriate and in line with what we expect. We've seen attack after attack proven to not be correct. There are occasions, of course, when complaints are made and they are upheld, and at every point the ABC is open and transparent about those things. There is a complaints process for a reason.

The ABC is a highly trusted source of news. They bring not only a balanced news service—which I know many of those opposite don't like because balanced news is maybe not their vibe, and they're much happier on 'Sky after dark'—but also amazing current affairs and documentaries about spectacular things in this country—critical things that people in this country want to hear about. They also bring us some of the most amazing drama across the world. They bring us fantastic children's content. This is where Bluey came from. Many of us in this chamber have had our photos taken hugging Bluey. Bluey has gone on to great things.

Who doesn't love Bluey?

Exactly—who doesn't love Bluey? But there's a line here. There's a balance here. Of course there are going to be complaints against any news service, and of course we need to hold them to account. But we see these ideological attacks, championed by Senator Henderson, who used to work there. I'm not sure if that ended well or badly, but it looks to me like it might have ended badly given the vitriol that I've seen over and over and over again from Senator Henderson towards our friends at the ABC. That's all I have to say. I'll allow you time to put the vote before we go to adjournment.

Senator Henderson, you have a point of order?

Yes. The reflection on me is an imputation in breach of the standing orders.

I withdraw, Senator Henderson.

That's quite untrue, Senator Grogan. I had a wonderful nine years at the ABC—

Senator Henderson, it's not a debating point. Are you seeking withdrawal?

I'd like the record to stand as I've just said it.

Sit down!

Don't speak to me like that, Senator Gallagher. This is a matter for the—

Senator Henderson, please take your seat. Senator Grogan, I understand you withdrew.

I'm happy to withdraw twice.

Thank you, Senator Grogan. You have the call.

I'm done, thank you very much, Acting Deputy President.

There being no other speakers, the question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division having been called, and it now being the time for the Senate to commence adjournment, that division will be deferred.

Recently I had the privilege of attending a celebration for the very first cohort to graduate from Victoria's end-to-end rural medical training program, delivered in partnership between La Trobe University and the University of Melbourne. It was a landmark moment for the graduates, for regional Victoria and for the nation.

For as long as I can remember, we have had a doctor drought in the regions. The evidence is clear that students who come from the regions and train in the regions stay in the regions. This is precisely what this partnership delivers. It is not an add-on or a placement tacked on to a metropolitan degree; it is true end-to-end regional training that opens the doors wider for rural and regional students, many of whom might never have seen themselves reflected in a traditional city-centric model of medical education.

At the celebration, I met graduates who are already working in their communities—young people with deep roots in their community who have not endured the dislocation of travel away from family, sporting teams and childhood friends, nor the cost-of-living pressures of studying away from home. Many are the first in their family to attend university. Many have juggled study with work, caring responsibilities and, in some cases, the disruptions of fires, floods and a pandemic. These are not just bright students; they are resilient. After all, they have managed seven years of medical study—that's much longer than my training was. They are community-minded clinicians who understand their patients, because their patients are neighbours. They share their lived experience.

If we are serious about equity in health, we must be serious about innovative models like this. They work. They grow a work-ready rural medical workforce. They give country kids a fair shot at a medical career and give country communities a fair shot at a timely and high-quality health service.

Of note is that our government has increased the number of Commonwealth-supported places for medical students by an extra 100 places per year, starting from this year, increasing to 150 by 2028. Notably, we have seen the highest number of doctors taking up general practice training—this year, it was 1,800, and that will increase to 2,000 by 2028. It is welcome.

Finally, we've also seen, for the first time, the inclusion of rural generalism as a brand-new medical speciality. This just does not happen very often. In fact, it's the second time it has happened in 15 years. It was signed off by the Medical Board of Australia in September this year.

I want to place on record my congratulations to the graduating cohort and to their families, to the educators and to the clinical supervision staff for this partnership. Their success is not just a personal achievement; it is an investment in the health and dignity of regional Australia.

On a recent trip to north-east Victoria, I was taken back to my days as a medical professional while touring the Australian Defence Force School of Health at Latchford Barracks, Bonegilla. Set in beautiful gardens, this facility provides world-class medical training to hundreds of trainees each year. It does so by combining cutting-edge technology with highly experienced educators, placing students in an environment where they are pushed physically, mentally and academically.

This is an educational experience like no other. In a matter of steps, I went from a hospital ward to the inside of a helicopter and a medical-grade ambulance. This is an immersive, accelerated learning experience, where vital clinical skills are distilled, not over years but over months, for medics who can manage blast injuries, sepsis, wounds and heart attacks. But they push into realms not taught in a standard medical school, like aviation medicine, barotrauma and CBRM. Under the stewardship of educators who have served, these medics will go on to deliver life-saving care, sometimes under extraordinary pressure. The success of the school was written on the faces of the trainees I met, some carrying 20 kilos of gear, in flak jackets and army fatigues, about to embark on a trek, with medicines, bandages, smiles and banter.

The fact that this program is sought-after internationally is testament to its reputation. It is heartening that our defence personnel are being equipped with world-class medical training—skills that not only save lives but also uphold Australia's commitment to excellence and service. I want to sincerely thank the team for their tour and for giving me the opportunity to speak to our future health leaders in defence.

When speaking to my children and their friends and to young Australians right around the country, I've noticed this growing and deeply troubling sentiment, and that's a feeling that no matter how hard they work they can't get ahead. It doesn't matter how much they save; they simply won't be able to do better than their parents. That's a broken social contract between this generation and the next.

For decades, Australia has prided itself on being a place where each generation could climb that little bit higher, where owning your own home wasn't a privilege—it was reward for hard work and aspiration. But under Labor that dream of homeownership is getting further and further out of reach. Mortgage holders are now paying $1,800 a month more than when this government was elected. Rents are up by 21 per cent, and construction prices have shot up by over 20 per cent. Under the coalition, Australia was building around 200,000 homes each and every year. Under Labor, it's dropped back to 170,000, and only barely that. This is a recipe for a housing disaster, and we're witnessing the impact of this on first home prices, with more and more Australians being locked out of the market. Young Australians are telling me it's like the ladder has been pulled up behind them. It's a concern that's been raised by many Victorians that I have heard from during my community surveys. Nothing illustrates this more than the story of Julia, a 27-year-old lawyer, who wrote to me to share her story.

Julia and her husband, an electrician, both work full time. They grew up believing that, if they got a job, worked hard, saved their money and lived sensibly and frugally, one day they would have a home of their own in which to raise their family, and that's exactly what they've tried to do. They don't want anything extravagant, just a modest three-bedroom home and maybe a second bathroom. The first home they bought was an apartment in 2021, and they did that through a government scheme. While they want that next home to build their family, they can't do it. Despite those two solid incomes, they're completely priced out. To get something even close to suitable for a young family would cost them nearly $1 million. Julia and her husband know that they will not be able to give their children the upbringing that they had, and that is entirely unfair. Her husband describes the situation as a betrayal, and I think that's entirely accurate.

Young Australians are robbed of their aspiration and opportunity. The great Australian dream is becoming further and further out of reach. But it's clearly not enough of a concern to those opposite. At the same time as this government has presided over the collapse of Australian housing construction, Australia is experiencing the largest population surge in our history. Labor is giving us more people but fewer homes, and that is unsustainable. Labor's $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund has delivered just 17—I'll repeat that: 17—houses in two years. The promise of 1.2 million new homes has already been walked back, not just by those in front of the camera but by those in the department as well. Now, that's a real concern. Instead of cutting red tape, Labor has introduced 5,000 new regulations. These have smothered builders, councils and homeowners in paperwork, bureaucracy and compliance. Under Labor, everything takes longer and costs more.

Australians deserve better. We must keep the dream of homeownership alive for the next generation of Australians. We must keep it attainable, and we must keep it accessible, particularly for young Australians. That's why I'm introducing the Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 into the Senate this week. This bill will make it easier for older Australians to downsize their home, freeing up much-needed family homes for younger families. It's not the only solution to the problem, but it is one solution. It's easy; it's there. It's a simple and effective way to get more family homes onto the market, and I hope it will receive support from right across the chamber. This bill can remove some of those intractable barriers and unlock supply. These are homes people like Julia and her husband desperately want and need. There is no one way to tackle the housing crisis, but, certainly, overpromising and underdelivering from a government won't do it. My message to young Australians is this: the Liberal Party is on your side. You deserve a chance to build a life, a family and a home of your own, and we will always fight for policies that will allow you to do exactly that.

I rise tonight to speak on the escalating humanitarian and security crisis in Sudan and to honour the voices of the Sudanese Australian community leaders who met with me recently. The Head of Mission of the Sudanese Embassy, Ahmed Abdelatif, and community representatives in Perth, Mohamed Ibrahim and Yakub Yusuf.

Sudan has endured unimaginable suffering since April 2023, when conflict erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces militia. Since then, the RSF has seized control of one of Darfur's five states, committing acts of ethnic cleansing, mass displacement, sexual violence and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. More than 12 million people have been forced from their homes, the largest displacement crisis in the world today. Recent ABC reporting confirms that the United Nations found credible evidence that the United Arab Emirates have been arming the RSF, the very militia accused of genocide in Sudan. International investigations, including from the Wall Street Journal, have also revealed financial and military support flowing to the RSF through Libya and Chad, forming part of a wider effort to divide Sudan and exploit its resources.

Australia has contributed more than $60 million in humanitarian support since 2023, and, while this aid is welcome, it falls short of the scale of this crisis. Only 20 per cent of Sudan's global humanitarian needs have been met. Yet, at the same time, Australia continues to export arms to the UAE—nearly $300 million in weapons and ammunitions over the past five years, including components for lethal F-35 fighter jets. This continues despite the UAE's alleged role in fuelling the genocide in Sudan. It's a contradiction we must confront and one that demands far greater transparency and accountability from this government. The Australian public deserve to know.

The community leaders I met with made four very clear requests: for Australia to formally condemn the RSF, to apply diplomatic pressure on the UAE, who is enabling this violence, to strengthen and redirect humanitarian assistance through trusted NGOs and to lift the humanitarian visa ban to allow families to reunite. They reiterated that Sudan must not be forgotten in this parliament. I gave them my word—and I give it again tonight—that I'll continue to advocate for these actions.

Let's move on to another matter of urgency. The race to the bottom on the EPBC reforms is on. The environment minister has said:

We will be passion these reforms next week, in the final sitting week of the year.

This has been accompanied by the standard media backgrounding designed to pressure the opposition and the Greens into locking down a deal. It was not so long ago that the minister spoke without using absolutes. When the Senate was debating how long the EPBC reform bill should be referred to committee for, at the end of the last month, the minister's words were:

We should get on with it.

That's 'should', not 'will'. The Senate opted for a more thorough inquiry. Senator Hanson-Young said in a vigorous defence of the Senate's role as a house of review:

We are going to move to make sure that this chamber has the ability to do it its job. If they expect the Senate just to roll over, rubberstamp this and ram it through, they've got another thing coming.

Senator Duniam, in a similar Bartonian fashion noted:

Senator Watt tells us the business community are sending strong messages. If you talk to business community, they say they want time to scrutinise this as well because it's all been rushed.

If the government get their way, which they probably will, at least one of these quotations will have aged quite poorly by the end of this week. We do need to move to update the EPBC Act to better protect the environment, but, if the solution is rushed, we may find ourselves here again in a few years time with the same problem. An outcome that prioritises politics over policy, regardless of who strikes the deal, is not what Australians have sent us here to do. They sent us here to ensure that the EPBC reforms would protect the environment not primary— (Time expired)

I rise today to recognise World Prematurity Day, marked each year on 17 November, and to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Australia's researchers, particularly those in my home state of South Australia, who are leading the world in both the prevention of, and improving outcomes for, preterm birth through their research.

Each year, 15 million babies are born prematurely worldwide. More than one million of these babies won't survive. Many face lifelong health and developmental challenges. In Australia, up to 25,000 babies are born preterm every single year. Babies born too soon are more likely to spend weeks or months in hospital and face ongoing health challenges with their respiratory, immune and digestive systems. They're at greater risk of difficulties with speech, learning and behaviour. And, globally, complications from preterm birth remain the leading cause of death in children under five. We simply must be doing more to support preterm babies and their families and to prevent preterm births from happening in the first place. And awareness matters too, but only when it leads to change.

Today I want to acknowledge the extraordinary researchers in my home state who are at the forefront of driving this change. In particular, I want to acknowledge the incredible team at SAHMRI, whose landmark research has shown that targeted omega-3 supplementation can reduce early preterm births. This has led to the development and implementation of the Omega-3 Test-and-Treat Program, delivered in partnership with SA Pathology, where, as part of routine prenatal care in South Australia, pregnant women can have their omega-3 levels tested before 20-weeks gestation. Of the thousands of women who have been tested, around 17 per cent have been identified as having low omega-3 levels and may benefit from supplementation. This intervention is simple, cost effective and safe for bub and mum, and it's the first program of its kind anywhere in the world. More than 32,000 women in South Australia have accessed this program. Just imagine the impact it could have if we were to scale it to a national level or, indeed, to an international level.

I also want to shout-out the Centre of Research Excellence in Human Milk Nutrition for Preterm Infants and Alice Rumbold, in particular, who recently briefed me on their work. This national program focuses on improving breastfeeding outcomes and donor milk use for the most vulnerable newborns. Their research shows that even small increases in breast milk intake during neonatal hospitalisation can improve cognitive outcomes later in childhood. I know not every mum has the option to breastfeed, but, for those who can or for those who can access a supply of donor breast milk, we know human milk feeding has an enduring impact on the lives of children born preterm. The CRE is developing new resources for families and clinicians, conducting world-class trials and supporting a new generation of researchers who are dedicating their lives to the lives of preterm babies. None of this would be possible, of course, without support from the NHMRC and the Medical Research Future Fund.

As a South Australian, I am so proud of these researchers, clinicians, nurses and all of those families who are part of this effort. Their dedication is saving lives, and this research and this work has the potential to do so much more good across Australia and our world. On World Prematurity Day and every day, we honour the babies born too soon, the families who walk this journey with strength and courage and the researchers who devote their professional lives to ensuring that babies arrive safely and to ensuring that babies can thrive.

To honourable senators I recommend the publication titled Returning to our roots: how conservative environmentalism can win hearts and minds. I was favoured by the editors and invited to contribute a chapter, but my humble contribution is not what I wish to speak about this evening.

Rather, I wish to draw your attention to the foreword by Lord Gove. He writes:

The Conservative Promise is rooted in nature. To be a Conservative is to understand human nature, to shape politics in accordance with the impulses of the human heart, and to appreciate the beauty, wonder and importance of the natural world.

We South Australians understand the importance of nature in sustaining our lives. We rely on a healthy River Murray for our very existence. Like all peoples that live at the end of a river, we are always anxious about how those upstream treat the river and its precious water as it flows down to us. Now we fear our seas may be barren of life, suffocated or poisoned by the algal bloom. There are even suggestions that Goyder's Line, which has long advised where you can sustainably farm, is dropping lower and lower as a result of climate change.

More disheartening is that my side of politics has now abandoned seeking to reduce emissions by aspiring to reach a target. In stark contrast, the government is more willing to hold itself to account to a very public target. The unwillingness of so many to have a target—any target—is hard to comprehend, as it's the most conservative of practices to set an objective and measure your progress against it. None of the arguments and protestations can disguise that simple fact. There is no basis to argue that the youth of today are brainwashed to believe in climate action. There is no credibility to claim that there is another way or to suggest Australia should not be a leader. The Australian people and their talent should not be diminished in this way. Opposition policy has now broken the promise it once made to the world on emissions reduction and has abandoned traditional conservatism.

I acknowledge the road ahead will not be without difficulty. In transforming our economy, we must transform the way we derive our energy, manufacture goods and nurture our land. My preference is to embrace the challenge rather than run away with glib promises to possibly act in the future. Civilisation is a compact between the past, present and future generations. Conservatives have a sacred duty to keep this contract by handing over a more healthy world to the next generation. I renew my commitment to keeping this compact. In Genesis it is written:

The Lord God took man and put them in the garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

All religions of the world echo this sacred call to action. Real conservatives hear it.

This speech was written by an Aboriginal person who advocates for our kids in out-of-home care. It's truth-telling of the devastating experience of a young Aboriginal girl currently residing in residential care in Victoria:

Imagine living in a house where the furniture is bolted to the floor and the TV is locked up. You live there alone. The house is staffed 24/7, but the youth workers usually do 8-12-hour shifts. They spend time watching you on cameras, ready to lock themselves in the office if you get upset. You're told this is your home, but it's nothing like the one you were taken from.

You can't have privacy. Even your bedroom, the only space that feels like yours, isn't really safe. Workers can come in whenever they want, read your poetry, your journals, your pain.

You can't cook, use glass, or use cutlery. You are considered dangerous and out of control, you're told you're high-risk but it's never explained what this means. You feel so alone—no friends; denied connection to culture and family.

You were twelve when you were removed, placed straight into residential care. You had been self-harming, struggling with your mental health, and didn't know how to express what you were feeling. You needed help, your mum was doing her best to support you, but at the time, it wasn't enough. She asked the system for help; she didn't get it.

Instead, you got taken away. You haven't been to school since Year 6. You wanted to, but there was never a stable placement. Moved from town to town, house to house.

You were reminded daily that you were the problem, too challenging, too broken, too hard.

In one placement, you met older girls who introduced you to drugs and to men who promised attention in exchange for photos, gifts, your body. You were exploited, assaulted, and ignored. You told workers, child protection, and even the police, but nothing changed, and no one was caught.

Sometimes, you get exploited up to 10 times a day; sometimes these men hit you, steal from you, and one even pushed you down the stairs, breaking your leg. You feel worthless, and like this is the closest to love you will ever get.

You have overdosed more times than you can count and your mental health gets worse every day, but you don't know how to address it, so your drug use gets worse—you feel so alone and sometimes think about taking your own life, because it seems like the only way out.

The system that was meant to protect you became the place where harm continued, hidden behind paperwork and policies.

This isn't an isolated story; it's one of many.

In 2016 the Commission for Children and Young People identified that child sexual exploitation in residential care isn't rare; it's happening everywhere. It's happening to the very children the state has promised to protect. It's happening in places that are state run and state funded, where traumatised children are placed because they need protecting and safe alternatives to their family's home. There are no Aboriginal-specific sexual assault services in this country, and currently two services in Victoria provide direct services to victims of child sexual exploitation. One is grossly underfunded, and one is not suitable for young people in residential care.

According to the Yoorrook Justice Commission, in 2023 there were 2,867 Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in Victoria. They are 21.7 times more likely to be placed in care than non-Aboriginal children. At the Aboriginal Children's Forum this year, we heard that 146 Aboriginal children are currenting living in residential care. This is just Victoria. These numbers tell us the system is broken. Residential care has become the default, not the last resort. These children are denied culture, education, stability and hope. They are growing up without the basic human rights every child deserves. Governments are pouring millions into a model that harms the very children it claims to help. We cannot afford to ignore this any longer. How many more children must be exploited in state care before children matter?

Tonight I'd like to join my colleagues alongside the SDA and TWU unions and workers in the lead-up to Make Amazon Pay day on 28 November, a global day of action that coincides with Black Friday. Workers and unions have for some time raised concerns about employment practices in parts of Amazon's operations worldwide, including the use of casual, labour hire and gig-style arrangements as well as the pressure created by high performance targets and monitoring systems. I also note the rallies held by these unions across several states last week. There is ongoing discussion about the tax practices of multinationals and the impact these can have on Australian businesses that meet their full obligations. The Albanese government's workplace reforms and our new procurement rule preventing union-busting practices in government contracts are an important step forward. Every company should treat their workers fairly and contribute responsibly, and no company should profit at the expense of their workers. That is why I am part of the Make Amazon Pay campaign.

On another note this evening, as we enter the summer months and the bushfire season it's important to recognise the vital role the Australian forestry industry plays in protecting our communities and its ongoing efforts in bushfire prevention, mitigation and response. Every year Australia's forestry sector invests more than $100 million directly into preventing and fighting bushfires. Recent survey work by the Australian Forest Products Association provides a detailed picture of how industry supports bushfire prevention and emergency response, working with government agencies, volunteer brigades and landholders. The survey found that forestry businesses maintain 137 fire towers staffed and equipped with detection cameras, an investment worth around $8 million; create fire breaks and roads, and conduct prescribed burning and other mitigation practices, worth almost $65 million; and provide over 1,200 response appliances such as tankers, bulk water carriers and command units as well as 1,500 trained personnel, delivering nearly $30 million in frontline capability. These figures demonstrate how critical the forestry sector is in protecting our regional and rural communities across Australia by reducing fuel loads and strengthening our collective emergency response.

As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Forestry, Timber and Paper Products, I am proud to highlight the industry's essential work not only in protecting communities and the environment but also in supporting resilient supply chains that deliver timber, paper and other forest products to households and businesses across Australia. The industry supports around 180,000 direct and indirect jobs and contributes around $24 billion to the national economy each year, including $5.2 billion in my home state of Victoria.

The Albanese government is committed to a strong, sustainable forestry sector. We are investing $300 million to strengthen and support the industry now and into the future. Earlier this month the government announced almost $11 million for seven new plantation projects under the Support Plantation Establishment program. These new projects will establish around 5,500 hectares of new hardwood and softwood plantations across New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. The initiative supports private industry, First Nations businesses, farm foresters and state forestry bodies, helping to meet domestic timber demand, reduce emissions and create jobs across the country. Total government funding under the program now exceeds $57 million, supporting more than 30,000 hectares of new plantations nationwide. This investment delivers on key priorities of the Timber Fibre Strategy, which maps a pathway to strengthen the entire supply chain from growers to processors to manufacturers.

I was also deeply disappointed by last week's announcement of the closure of the Associated Kiln Driers sawmill in Gippsland. The loss of 73 jobs will have a profound impact on workers, families and the wider community, especially so close to Christmas. I acknowledge the work of the Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union in supporting those affected.

Australia's forestry industry is essential not only for our economy and regional communities but also to meet challenges such as housing, climate change and the building of a future made here in Australia. Its contribution to bushfire prevention, emissions reduction and the materials that we so desperately need for new homes is absolutely clear, and that is why the government will continue to back the forestry sector to ensure that it remains strong, sustainable and ready for the challenges ahead.

This week the Prime Minister posted to social media, 'Our 20 per cent cut to your student debt has started rolling out,' but with government debt of around $1 trillion it's disingenuous and misleading to say that this debt has been cut. We must never forget that the government has no way of paying its bills or settling its debts without using your money. For every $1 billion this government spends, that is close to $100 out of your household budget. For every $10 billion of government debt, that is nearly $1,000 on your household's credit card. When the government decides to cut $16 billion in student debt, we must remember it costs every household, on average, over $1,500 to fund that promise.

If you're a member of an inner-city student share house then I wish you well in your pursuit of wisdom and truth. But almost half of all Australians don't have tertiary or vocational qualifications, and less than 12 per cent of Australians have a HELP debt. What most Australian households do have is daily worries about how to put food on their table and clothes on their children. The average working family struggles to pay for the costs associated with their own children's education. Why should they be paying the tuition fees of university students?

I absolutely understand the struggles that students are facing, and there's not much else for young people to be excited about, financially, under this government, but pursuing higher education is a personal choice. It is a good choice, because studies have shown that higher education levels correlate to higher lifetime earnings. But this half-baked policy—if you can even call it policy—is the only socialist initiative I have heard of that subsidises higher income households. The Labor Party has always pitched itself as the party of the worker, but it is clear that the Labor Party has become the party for inner-city elites. The $16 billion will be added to the Albanese government's growing debt pile, and there will be interest on that, which the government will pay using your taxes. To all the students who are celebrating the wiping of $16 billion of student debt: it has not been wiped. It's just been shifted, and it will be recovered in the future with higher taxes that you will pay for the rest of your working life.

We must remember that this government is not getting smaller; it is getting bigger. This government is not getting more efficient; it is getting more costly, and the burden of that cost is borne by you. We should be less concerned about how the government can give more to us and more concerned with how the government can take less from us. Announcements of big spending should not be treated as a triumphant government initiative. This is the most blatant political bribe in Australia's history—a government that takes money from working families to subsidise the academic pursuits of university students.

The last election saw the most announcements of electoral spending in the history of this country. It may be exciting to hear that your local footy or cricket club is getting new change rooms or about a new grant for your multicultural festival market square. A billion here, $10 billion there—everyone gets a billion dollars towards something they're interested in. Announcements of big spending should be treated as a cautious warning that families will have to make sacrifices in their homes to pay for the ideas of desperate politicians that will not hesitate to take your money to save their careers.

It's time this parliament had an honest conversation with the Australian people, especially with Australian young people. When asked about the HECS debt in question time today, the Labor Minister for Youth, Jess Walsh, said that Labor is 'supporting young Australians with higher wages and lower taxes' so they can 'earn more and keep more of what they earn'. Well, guess what? The young people of Australia were sold a lemon. Three million Australians were promised an immediate cost-of-living measure, but they will pay more for it in the long term. The first tranche of emails and texts to the lucky recipients were sent out last weekend, saying their HECS debt had been wiped. On average, $5½ thousand was wiped, paid for by the rest of the taxpaying nation, the size of which is about five times more than those with a HECS debt. Where's the text to the rest of us who are going to have to pay for their education bill? Just remember: when Labor spends, you pay.

Earlier this month, the people of New York City elected a new mayor, who supports a radical swing towards socialism. You can't really expect that young people in this country wouldn't fall for the sweet siren song of the left, though. Here in Australia, we've got to urgently take heed of these lessons, because, if you're under 35 and you're living in one of our capital cities or any regional centre, you're staring down the barrel of a million-dollar starter home and a HECS debt that grows faster than your wage, and you've probably been brainwashed into thinking the climate's on fire. If you're one of those people, it's not unreasonable to think that the left's pitch sounds a bit seductive. They promise to burn the whole system down and then rebuild it—free everything, seize the mansions of the rich and turn them into co-ops. It's not hard to see why that lands like oxygen in a room full of smoke.

The left, of course, are selling a cure which is much, much worse than the disease, but here's the part that no-one on the right wants to say out loud: we're the ones letting young people down. Where's the vision that says, 'We see your anger, and we have a better answer—one that doesn't burn down the house just to fix the plumbing'? There has to be a proper plan delivered that marries free markets with real opportunity—a pitch to the 28-year-old that says, 'I'm not here to defend the corporate sector; I'm here to make sure you can become rich too, if you want, without needing a rich parent.'

Instead, too many on the right have run from the fight and allowed the far left to own the language of kindness and the language of fairness, because we've been too busy trying to be more like the enemy to notice that the housing crisis was radicalising the young generation. Young people aren't stupid; they're rational. When one side says, 'Burn it down,' and the other side says, 'No, cook it slowly,' guess which megaphone gets the retweets. Surely this has to be a wake-up call.

To the far left: your revolution's going to deliver queues, corruption and a new elite wearing Che Guevara shirts. Venezuela tried your playbook, by the way, and so did every other socialist experiment that promised paradise and delivered poverty with better slogans. Wealth isn't a fixed pie to be sliced up; it's a garden to grow. You can't redistribute your way to prosperity when the pie stops expanding.

To the right: stop hiding. We've got to offer a principled alternative. Champion markets that work for everyone, not just the top one per cent. Back policies that reward risk, punish rent seeking and make homeownership possible before someone's 40th birthday. Talk about wealth creation and be the adults who say that they'll fix the system without torching the village.

To the young people listening: you're right to be angry, but don't let the anger hand your future to ideologues who've never run a business, balanced a budget or met a payroll. Ask the left, 'Where's the money going to come from when the rich leave and the jobs all dry up?' and ask the right, 'What's your plan to make sure the next generation isn't permanently locked out?' The right of politics is down, but it's not out. It needs reform, not revolution, it needs courage, not cosplay, and it needs you—not as drones of the far left or collateral damage for the complacent right but as the generation that demands a fair go and the generation that demands a system that actually delivers for them.

Over a year ago, I stood here and urged Labor to save Windsor Community Children's Centre. It's a beloved community-run early learning centre in my home city of Melbourne. After huge pressure from the centre, from the Greens and from the community, Labor promised to save it. They made an election commitment to work with the local council to buy the site from Swinburne University. But, six months on, Windsor is again on the brink. Eighty families and 30 educators could be out by the end of December. Yes, Swinburne needs to accept the offer, but Labor made the promise and must keep it. Labor need to step up, keep their word and stop forcing anxious families back into a fight that they should never have needed to restart. Labor, we are calling on you to work with Swinburne to deliver the solution that you promised. Our community cannot afford another broken commitment.

I rise to speak on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Violence against women and girls is not just a crisis; it is one of the most pervasive and devastating human rights violations in the world. Here, in Australia, the reality is devastating. One woman is killed every single week as a result of domestic and family violence. These aren't numbers; they are lives stolen, families shattered and communities grieving. They are a reminder of how far we still have to go.

Violence against women doesn't stop at our borders. It is global, it is entrenched and it is escalating. Members of the Hazara community in Melbourne tell me that in Afghanistan millions of women are living under a regime determined to erase them—their education denied, movement restricted and dignity stripped. Every day without freedom is another day of violence.

Today I met with members of the Sudanese community, who described the horrors unfolding in el-Fasher in the midst of a horrific humanitarian crisis and ongoing proxy war. We are hearing widespread reports of systematic sexual and gender based violence being perpetrated by the RSF. These are crimes against humanity committed in real time while the world looks away. The message is clear: the fight to eliminate violence against women isn't symbolic; it is urgent, it is global and it demands action, not words.

The Australian government must do more. As a first step, we must fully fund violence prevention and frontline services; deliver culturally safe and community led support for women; and centre the rights, safety and self-determination of women and girls in every international development program that we fund. We owe it to women here, and we owe it to every girl growing up in a world that still treats her safety as optional. We must work towards a world where no woman anywhere is silenced, subjugated or erased and where freedom from violence is not an aspiration but a guarantee.

Earlier this month, I spent time on beautiful Murujuga country in Karratha with Raelene Cooper and Aunty Esther. Murujuga is a place of staggering natural beauty. There are red cliff ledges cascading across the landscape with ancient stories etched into stone. It is a living gallery of the world's oldest rock art. Standing among engravings that have watched over this land for more than 40,000 years is indescribable. Every line carries culture, ceremony and identity—lores of a people who have cared for this country since time immemorial. Yet beyond that breathtaking landscape a very different story unfolds. The gas, fertiliser and chemical expansions of Woodside, Perdaman and Yara now loom over this sacred place. Their chimneys and flare stacks rise beyond the ancient art like a dystopian backdrop, a jarring contrast between the deep time of First Nations culture and the reckless greed of the fossil fuel industry.

The truth is devastating. Gas cartels are destroying sacred country, their toxic emissions are eroding the rock art. Their industrial footprint scars the land and poisons waterways that have sustained life and culture for tens of thousands of years. Their climate pollution hits First Nations communities first and hardest. We learn from Save our Songlines, whose extraordinary determination makes one thing clear: we need to stand with them, match their strength and build a movement powerful enough to protect Murujuga's survival. I want to thank Raelene and Aunty Esther. Your strength is extraordinary and we stand with you in your fight against the fossil fuel cartels.

As we speak, the oil tanker Proteus Bohemia is steaming its way to Australia. It left the port of Jamnagar in India on 8 November. It's currently off the southern coast of Western Australia, due to arrive at Botany in five days time.

This ship is carrying 78,000 tonnes, or thereabouts, of petroleum products that are destined for Australian cars, and those products have come from Russia. The refinery at Jamnagar takes about 47 per cent of its crude oil from Russia, which means the Proteus Bohemia's products are about 47 per cent Russian crude oil. It means that once that ship arrives early next week and these petroleum products come ashore in Australia, they will be finding their way into Australian cars with Australians paying, in effect, to fund Russia's ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine.

Australia imposed sanctions on the direct importation of Russian oil, and rightly so, soon after the invasion of Ukraine. But since 2023, we have been importing a simply massive amount of Russian crude that is refined in third countries, predominantly India, Turkiye and, to a lesser degree, Singapore. We have effectively been evading, flouting or denying the main purpose of those sanctions, which is to stop hard currency going to fund Russia's war machine.

Since 2023, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, we've imported more than three million tonnes of Russian origin oil product. According to the same centre, that makes us the biggest importer of Russian crude products refined in third countries. Australia, not a large country, not a large petroleum consumer, is now the largest importer of Russian crude products refined in third countries.

According to these estimates, Australia has now contributed about $2 billion to the Russian government treasury through these importations. Over the same period, we have given about $1½ billion to support Ukraine's defence against this war of aggression. So here we are buying refined Russian oil products and contributing $2 billion to Russia's war effort. In the meantime, we have been consistently slipping down the league of contributors to Ukraine, so we are now in a situation where Australian taxpayers are effectively giving more to the Russian side in this war than the Ukrainian side.

Our allies have got the message. The US has imposed comprehensive sanctions against Rosneft and Lukoil, two of Russia's major oil producers, in recent weeks and Europe will ban the importation of petroleum products from third countries that are produced using Russian crude from 21 January 2026. Australia needs to be doing the same.

The war in Ukraine is now entering its fourth year—fifth year, in fact. It's in its fourth year; it will be entering its fifth year from early next year. This has become an attritional conflict. Russia has the bulk of the manpower. Ukraine is fighting valiantly in its own defence, but the predominance of Russian manpower, plus the Russian treasury, is what is allowing Russia to continue to wage this war.

About 25 per cent of Russian government revenue comes from oil and refined oil products, so it is instrumental—it is material—in funding Russia's war effort, and Australia should be playing no part in supporting that effort. Senator Wong, the Foreign minister, was in India last week, and I know she did discuss this issue. She said while she was there that the war in Ukraine is both 'illegal and immoral' and contrary to global interests and contrary to our national interest. I agree with that sentiment entirely, which is why Australia should be taking steps to make sure that Australian taxpayers, Australian consumers and Australian households are no longer supporting Russia's war effort.

I call on the Australian government to close this loophole. Stop Australia from unwittingly funding against Ukraine's war effort. I call on the Australian government to get in step with our allies, support Ukraine in its defence of its own people and its own home land and not contribute a further cent, a further dollar, to Russia's illegal and immoral war of aggression against Ukraine.

I rise tonight to welcome the announcement from Eva Copper about their financial investment decision, which was just made yesterday. This is incredibly important in the north-west minerals province of North West Queensland. This is the sort of project that we know needs to come forward to build Australia's national security and national prosperity, and it will produce, on average, 65,000 tonnes of copper and 19,000 tonnes of gold per annum over the life of the mine. This is a well-known brownfield development. The north-west is the place that will be well supported by the CopperString project. This is the kind of investment that northern Australia needs to see, not just to develop its critical minerals and central minerals but also to see defence and community supported in the north, as well as our great agricultural industry in the region. This has been well received by the community, and I'm just delighted to see that this investment has taken a $2½ billion investment on average.

This takes real capital. We should welcome it and the fact that this business has invested in Australia and not in one of the many offshore competition. It will generate around $17 billion for Queensland and for Australia. This is the kind of project that builds real prosperity and real jobs and builds the prosperity of the nation. It just reminds us, though, why it is so important that we be investing in the right infrastructure and the right development, not just for the mines but also for the community that supports it and for the families that go to work in copper mines, as well as for the small businesses in the Cloncurry region that will support it. So I am really delighted to welcome this investment and to support the investment, both for the mining company and for the entire region that will drive Queensland's prosperity into the future. Well done, Eva Copper.

I turn now to a really important topic, of Australian butcher shops. This is the ultimate small business. These are the sorts of people that not only provide you with the best protein and the best meat for your family but will tell you how to cook it and give you a wink and a smile at the same time. This is an incredible part of our northern economy, and so it was shocking to see the Australian government do a review that excludes butcher shops from Centrepay payments. I know of a small butcher shop in North Queensland that supplies Indigenous community members who come in from the cape and the surrounds of Cairns. They come in to buy good-quality protein for their families and for their communities so that they can cook it because they don't have access to local fresh protein in their own communities. But, under Services Australia, they've made the decision to exclude only butcher shops. Of course, you can still buy meat from the supermarket. I think that's outrageous. This is the sort of small business that employs apprentices and that makes sure that Indigenous communities and other vulnerable and disadvantaged people are able to use their Centrepay card to buy real food. But butchers have been excluded.

So we will be fighting hard to make sure that there is more equity and more equality both for communities who want to be able to access a small business that provides a real apprenticeship opportunity to young people from those communities and for customers who want to come in and be able to cook real food for their families. I think that Services Australia has made a really big mistake in this decision. I think the minister needs to go back and have a look at what is the sort of bureaucracy that is making decisions about how disadvantaged people can spend the money that Australian taxpayers have given to them and why they can't spend it in a small business that is singularly focused on providing protein and good-quality food to communities. I think this is a shocking moment to discover that this is yet another example of Canberra not understanding how regional communities work, not understanding how real people operate and not understanding the quality of protein that is grown by Australian farmers and supplied through small businesses. It is a real missed opportunity for the government to support local businesses and not big supermarkets—another Canberra fail.

Tonight I want to shine a light on a Tasmanian organisation that has quietly held our community together for generations: St.Giles. Many in the chamber will know the name because St.Giles is Tasmania's longest-serving disability support provider. They've been standing with Tasmanians living with disability since 1937. That's nearly nine decades of showing up day after day for the people who need them most.

St.Giles operates right across the state, and every year it works with thousands of Tasmanians. Most of those it supports are young children aged from nought to seven. In the last financial year alone, their therapists saw over 3,000 individual children. To put that into perspective, that's just over 10 per cent of the under-18 population in Tasmania. With numbers like that, it's no wonder almost every Tasmanian family has a St.Giles story. If they haven't used the service themselves, they know someone who has. St.Giles's therapists help toddlers learn to crawl, help school-aged kids build the skills to keep up with their peers and help teenagers get the confidence they need as they take their first steps into adulthood. St.Giles delivers the full suite of allied health therapies: physio, speech, occupational therapy, psychology, dietetics and more. They provide assistive technology, from powered wheelchairs to communication systems for people who need extra support to be heard. And, importantly, they provide NDIS support in homes and communities right across Tasmania. Many of the participants they work with have the highest and most complex support needs—people living with overlapping diagnoses, significant health challenges and enormous daily barriers. St Giles doesn't shy away from this work. In fact, in the sector, they're often referred to as a provider of last resort. They work at the narrow end of the wedge, exactly where the NDIS was meant to make the biggest difference when it was created in 2013.

You really grasp their impact when you hear the stories from their staff. One example stuck with me. We all know what a physiotherapist does, right? We think of them helping someone to move better or regain strength. But sometimes their work literally saves a life. Recently, a St.Giles physio received a referral for a seven-month-old baby who wasn't rolling as they should be at that age. Instead of just ticking a box and moving on, this physio dug deeper. They spotted other warning signs and worked with the family's GP to organise an urgent MRI. Because of that decision, that tiny baby received life-changing neurosurgery, and I'm very glad to say that the child is now recovering well. That is the value of high-quality, face-to-face, hands-on therapy.

But right now, like many other NDIS providers, St.Giles is facing a perfect storm of pressures that are undermining its ability to keep supporting the people who rely on it. Years of NDIS price freezes on allied health services have taken a toll. The scheme has also failed to fully pass on the Fair Work age increases for staff, despite everyone knowing you can't run a service without paying your workers properly. On top of that, there are longstanding flaws in the NDIS pricing model itself—assumptions that simply don't reflect the real cost of working with clients who have complex needs, especially in a rural state like Tasmania. This year's NDIS price guide has made things even harder. The steep cuts to travel rates for rural and regional providers hit states like ours the hardest. For an organisation with staff driving across long distances to see clients, that change isn't just inconvenient; it's financially damaging.

All these pressures have eroded St.Giles's financial services and forced them to make some tough calls. Last month they announced they were cancelling their redevelopment of a multipurpose hub and hydrotherapy pool, despite having secured $7½ million in government funding. Let me be clear: it's not because those services aren't needed. They are desperately needed. I'm told the simple truth is this: St.Giles is no longer in a position to absorb the cost overruns or the expected losses during construction. That's how thin the margins have become.

And they're not alone. Providers across Australia, especially not-for-profit organisations, are facing the same pressures. Many have decades of history, deep community trust and the highest standards of care, yet they are struggling to stay afloat. While I think we can all agree that the NDIS needs reform—serious, sensible reform—if governments don't step in soon, we risk losing exactly the kinds of providers the scheme was built to support. Tasmanians living with disability cannot afford to lose them. Let's make sure St.Giles remains a strong, steady beacon of hope in the Tasmanian disability landscape for decades to come.

When I was elected as a senator for our great country earlier this year, I was honoured to represent Australians in the chamber. Yesterday I witnessed our Senate censure, gag and suspend our leader, Senator Hanson, for seven days. Senator Hanson was denied the introduction of a bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of the Burqa and Other Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2025, in the Senate. The bill bans the wearing of a burqa in a public place in Australia.

In a move of absolute hypocrisy, the Senate decided that Senator Hanson would be denied her right to speak to the bill—in effect, stopping debate and gagging Senator Hanson. To bring attention to this complete and utter hypocrisy, Senator Hanson wore the burqa into the chamber. The Senate descended into chaos and suspended proceedings. Senator Hanson was again denied her right to speak when she was named for wearing the burqa.

The Senate today decided that Senator Hanson would be suspended for seven days, denying her the right to represent the people of Australia—the people she was elected to represent. The leader of One Nation was denied her right to hold this government to account. It is apparent that freedom of speech does not apply in this chamber. If you think—

Really? Yes. If you think we have problems with our current government, well, just imagine for a moment how bad they would be without Senator Hanson, my colleagues Senator Roberts and Senator Bell and me to question the governance of Australian people.

Consider for a minute how the rules of the Senate are being applied by the Senate. Senator Faruqi was wearing a keffiyeh in the Senate the same morning, yesterday morning. The keffiyeh has a history of being an internationally recognised insignia and symbol of racist and violent jihad that openly calls for the murder and genocide of an entire demographic of people based on their religious beliefs. I would bring to the attention the President the state of this chamber yesterday morning. Given the violent, genocidal significance of this keffiyeh, Senator Faruqi was wearing this very symbol of hatred in her own stunt to bring political props into the Senate.

Senator Whitten, can you take your seat. Senator Shoebridge.

I'm loath to take a point of order in an adjournment speech, but this member is now making—

Senator Shoebridge, do you have a point of order?

I do, if you'll let me articulate it. This member is now making repeated slurs, assertions and personal attacks against Senator Faruqi. They are clearly out of order, in gross breach of the standing orders, and I'd ask that you draw his attention to that and ask him to withdraw those attacks on Senator Faruqi—to withdraw them unconditionally.

I've just had some advice from the Clerk. Senator Whitten, the remarks in relation to what a senator was wearing are not in breach of the standing orders. I would ask that you keep your commentary in relation to other senators in this place in a parliamentary, safe way, in the goodwill of this chamber, but my ruling is that it is not impugning a senator. Please take your seat, Senator Shoebridge. I have ruled already on your point of order.

And what did the Senate do about this?

I have a further point of order.

Senator Shoebridge, you do not call out to the acting deputy president while you are on your feet. You are well aware of the rules here in the Senate. If you would like to raise a point of order, that is different from the ruling that I have just presented to the Senate. Senator Whitten, please take your seat. If it is on this same ruling, I am not entertaining that.

It is in relation to the same ruling, as is my right—

Please take your seat. I have ruled on that point of order already.

 to refer your ruling to the President for review given, on my reading of what Senator Whitten said, he made clear and distinct slurs against Senator Faruqi. I ask you to refer your ruling to the President for review.

No, I will not refer my ruling to the President of the Senate. Please take your seat, Senator Shoebridge.

I think you are required to.

No, I'm not, because I have sought advice from the clerk, and that was the advice that I was given.

I have asked you to refer—

That's right. You can ask, and I can refuse.

It is within my rights, and you can't silence me like this.

Please take your seat. We're moving on.

Senator Scarr, I haven't allocated the call, but would you like to raise a point of order?

The point of order is on continual interruptions, interjections and debating with the acting deputy president, which I think is inappropriate. I think your ruling was quite clear, Acting Deputy President, and I think all senators should respect that ruling.

Thank you very much, Senator Scarr. I will remind senators that seeking advice from the clerk in relation to making rulings is within the standing orders and is normal practice of acting deputy presidents or temporary chairs in this place and also of the President and Deputy President. I thank Senator Scarr for his support. The ruling was made based on the advice from the clerk. I allocate the call back to Senator Whitten.

And what did the Senate do about this? Was Senator Faruqi censured, gagged and suspended from the Senate for seven days? No. She wasn't asked to leave the chamber. She wasn't censured. She wasn't denied the right to speak. She wasn't suspended for seven sitting days. But Senator Hanson was. The suspension and the violent antics that we saw from the Senate yesterday could only be described as premeditated bullying and intimidation of the very kind that the liars and the hypocrites in this place claim to want to stamp out. Many of the members in this Senate are in fact—

Senator Whitten—please take your seat, Senator Shoebridge—I did issue a warning in relation to impugning other motives and senators within this place and containing your language to ensure that it is parliamentary, so can you please follow that ruling and, I think, in the goodwill of the chamber, withdraw your comments that may have been taken in that tone.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

Many of the members in this Senate are in fact perpetrators of the very crimes that they claim to oppose. This is a classic example of when it is okay to use the crimes of Senate sanctioned intimidation and violence when it is convenient to do so. What mess has our Australian Senate descended into? The question of why the Senate is scared to let Senator Hanson represent the people of Australia has to be asked.

One Nation has the preview event tonight for our animated movie on political life, ASuper Progressive Movie, booked at the Parliament House theatre since 16 October. This afternoon, just hours before the event, we were advised that the screening was cancelled owing to the risk of offensive material in the trailer. People have flown from all around the country to attend this event. The administration of Parliament House and its venues must be beyond reproach. One Nation has every right to consider this was a political decision. If it was not, they would have simply asked to see the trailer. One Nation would like to now know who was behind the decision.

The labour practices of Amazon, one of the world's largest and most influential corporations, can only be described as infamous. In 2025, Amazon's relentless pursuit of profit continues to come at a staggering cost to workers' rights, dignity and privacy across the United States, Canada, Europe and here in Australia. As the company expands its reach into every facet of our economies and lives, the need for public accountability, ethical procurement and fair compensation for working people has never been more crucial.

Amazon's opposition to unionisation or an organised workforce is neither isolated nor accidental. The company's aggressive tactics to stifle collective bargaining are well documented. Take the Amazon warehouse in Staten Island, in New York, where workers made history by successfully forming a union. Instead of respecting this democratic decision, Amazon engaged in relentless union busting, refusing to bargain in good faith and inundating workers with anti-union propaganda. At Whole Foods in Philadelphia, a similar pattern emerged. Workers attempting to advocate for their rights faced intimidation, surveillance and a refusal from management to recognise their union or negotiate terms.

This pattern is not confined to the US. Across Amazon's global operations, we see repeated efforts to undermine union organising, whether it be through targeted firings, shifting workers' schedules to disrupt organising efforts or exploiting legal loopholes to avoid collective bargaining. These actions reveal a corporate strategy to silence workers' voices and deny them the basic rights to organise, to bargain and to advocate for fair conditions.

In Canada, Amazon's anti-union playbook has taken a particularly destructive turn. In Quebec the company closed multiple warehouse facilities shortly after workers began unionising drives. Despite official statements citing operational reasons, the timing and pattern of these closures are unmistakable. They serve as a very clear warning to workers elsewhere: attempt to organise and your livelihoods will be put at risk. The response from Canadian governments and labour advocates has been firm but insufficient. While some provincial authorities have launched inquiries and called for greater oversight, Amazon's actions highlight the urgent need for stronger protections for organising workers, clear penalties for these retaliatory closures and mechanisms to ensure that multinational corporations cannot simply pack up and leave when faced with demands for fairness.

Here in Australia, Amazon's approach to union representation has been marked by resistance, delays and, at times, outright hostility. Workers have reported being denied the right to meet with union representation onsite. Disputes over pay, safety and rostering are frequently met with legal manoeuvring and public relations campaigns aimed at undermining solidarity. When workers speak out, the company's response is often to silence dissent using non-disclosure agreements and threats of legal action or by simply refusing to negotiate. These tactics are not just anti-union; they are antidemocratic. They undermine the very principles that underpin our workplaces and our society: the right to have a fair go, a safe workplace and a voice in decisions that affect our lives and our livelihoods.

In a remarkable move, the European Parliament has banned Amazon lobbyists from its corridors. This action was taken after Amazon repeatedly refused to engage with official inquiries into its labour practices and treatment of workers. The ban is unprecedented. It's a clear signal from European lawmakers that companies that flout transparency, dodge accountability and disregard democratic processes will not be given a seat at the table. This is a watershed moment. It demonstrates that powerful institutions can and must hold even the largest corporations accountable. The message is clear: ethical business is not optional, and the right to influence public policy must be earned through transparency and respect for fundamental rights.

Amazon's obsession with control extends into the surveillance of its workers. In France and across Europe, Amazon have been caught using sophisticated monitoring technologies to track workers' movements, measure productivity and identify those perceived as troublemakers. These tactics create a climate of fear, stress and constant scrutiny when even a brief pause can be flagged as time theft. It brings back those horrible images of the Australian waterfront.

Now, we know how important it is for workers to have unions representing them and giving a voice to those who can't or don't have the skills to speak. Collectively, that voice is so much stronger. We know how important it is that the TWU and the SDA are taking on Amazon. They will take on corporations who don't play by the rules. Australians expect to have a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. They don't expect and won't accept surveillance of their lives. They won't be intimidated, and that's why the SDA and the TWU are running the campaign: Amazon and the way they behave is not going to be acceptable here in Australia. Make Amazon Pay is a campaign that I strongly support.

That's what this Labor government has done since we came into office: during the last term, we put at the forefront of the Australian people our belief in workers' rights. We raised the low-income wages of Australians who work in our essential services. Whether you work in aged care, in disability, in retail and hospitality or in a warehouse, you go to work and you expect a safe environment. You expect to have the right to join a union, if that is your choice. We know how easy it is to have those rights taken away from you. We know what has happened under previous Liberal governments. I don't think I'll ever forget seeing on television the sights of the blockades on our waterfronts. There were dogs and balaclavas. There was thuggery undertaken at the direction of previous Liberal governments. That's why the Australian people know that they can't trust the Liberals and Nationals when they're in government to actually support Australian workers.

It's not just Amazon; although, in this campaign, they're a target because of their bad practices—the fact that they will take advantage of their workers, will close up shop and will threaten people's livelihoods if they feel under threat by an organised workforce with strong representation. We know, over the decades upon decades, how important unions have been in this country. They are there for only one reason: to protect workers' rights and to support those who need that protection and to give them a strong voice. I commend this campaign, along with so many other colleagues who have made a contribution, and I'm sure that there'll be more who will make a contribution on this.

It is fundamental to what the Labor Party is. We were born out of the union movement. We believe in collective bargaining and we believe, as I said, in the basic right to have a safe working environment and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. That's why we have legislated to ensure people are paid their superannuation when they get paid. We know that there have been so many employers—and I can name so many from my hometown—who didn't pay. Not only did they not pay for three or six or 12 months; they weren't paying workers' superannuation and were caught more than once not paying. They repeatedly didn't pay in the hope that they'd get away with it. That's unacceptable in Australia, and I support this campaign.

It's always a joy to follow Senator Polley, who made another great contribution.

On 7 November 2023, I rose in this place to call for a public health inquiry into the impact of odours from waste facilities on the people of Ipswich. My Senate office is based in the Greater Ipswich region, and Ipswich has a number of waste facilities that were generating odours that have been causing misery to the people of Ipswich for years. In that speech I quoted the experiences of two great Ipswich residents Michelle Filippi and Tracey Butler, who have been personally and devastatingly impacted by these odours.

The Labor state government refused to convene a public health inquiry. Despite the people of Ipswich wanting a public health inquiry, the Labor Party abandoned the people of Ipswich. I commend Teresa Harding, the mayor of Ipswich, and other members of council for calling for a public health inquiry. I also commend Georgia Toft, who was the LNP candidate for Ipswich West, and Mr Carl Mutzelburg, who was the candidate for Bundamba, for also calling for a public health inquiry before the last state election. I especially commend the Crisafulli Liberal National Party government for actually convening the public health inquiry.

What did the public health inquiry find? The inquiry's final report said:

The findings presented … concluded that odour from the Swanbank and New Chum industrial areas … are impacting the community's health.

That's what the inquiry found. There were eight findings. Finding 1 was that thousands of Ipswich residents experience symptoms they attribute to odour from industrial areas. Finding 2 was that the most common symptoms include respiratory, ear-nose-throat, neurological, gastrointestinal, skin and mental health symptoms. The report went on. Finding 3 was that the symptoms experienced are consistent with those described in the medical literature. Finding 4 was that the odour is highly offensive and impacting the wellbeing of residents. Finding 5 covered issues with respect to exposure of these odours to the people of Ipswich. Finding 6 was that odorous chemicals in the air do not need to be at toxic levels for them to impact human health. Finding 7 was that there are certain types of waste which are highly odorous and play a significant role in causing the health effects being experienced by those living in close proximity to the industrial areas. It goes on and on and on. It talks about the mental health of the people of Ipswich.

The Crisafulli LNP government has now implemented all eight recommendations of that public health inquiry. It is a great result for the people of Ipswich—no thanks to the Labor Party in Ipswich.

On 19 November 2025, I attended a commemoration for the victims of election-related violence in Tanzania, and I rise today to stand in solidarity with the Tanzanian Australian community. There were horrendous actions undertaken by the security forces in Tanzania against those who were protesting against unfair elections in Tanzania. At the commemoration, I received a letter from the Tanzanian Association of Queensland. It called for a number of things. First, it asked that we raise our voices to address the ongoing issues, to ensure that people can demonstrate safely in Tanzania, and called upon the Australian government to access all multinational forums to advocate in that regard. Secondly, it called upon the Australian government to exercise heightened caution when providing financial assistance to Tanzanian state institutions, especially given the actions of their security forces. I've written in those terms to Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, our minister for foreign affairs, and I trust that Senator Wong, as she always does, will carefully consider the request from our Tanzanian community. I stand in solidarity with our wonderful Tanzanian Australian community.

Last Saturday, I was extremely pleased to meet with the wonderful Kurdish Australian community in Adelaide. This is a wonderful community. They fled persecution, particularly in Iran, found safety here in Australia and have built wonderful lives in South Australia and, indeed, across Australia. I was so impressed by the businesses they've started, including painting businesses, carpentry businesses and hospitality businesses. I was so impressed by their entrepreneurial endeavour. I was so impressed by their community engagement and the quality of the activities being undertaken by our wonderful Kurdish Australian community in Adelaide. They are making outstanding Australians, representing the very, very best of Australian values, and it's an absolute blessing that our Kurdish Australian community found safety here in Australia.

One point which they asked me to raise and which I raise now is the issue with respect to our humanitarian program finding places for those members of the Kurdish community, especially those who have fled Iran and are in Iraq, and accommodating people of Kurdish background living in those very difficult circumstances—people who have close family connections in Australia—and I call for the Australian government to consider their representations in this regard.

Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of visiting Dandenong, and I was so impressed by the positive impact the Hazara community has had on Dandenong. I met so many members of the Hazara community who came to Australia as refugees and have built their lives here in Australia. I had lunch at one restaurant. I was talking to the owner. I asked him about his restaurant, and he advised me that not only did he own the restaurant but he owned four or five additional small businesses in Dandenong. I met a fantastic gentleman who came to this country as a refugee in the late nineties and who had nothing, absolutely nothing, and he's effectively started a supermarket chain. That is absolutely incredible—the entrepreneurial spirit and the contribution to our beautiful country and the community values of the Hazara community in Dandenong. I would like to place on record my great respect for the Hazara community across Australia, but, in particular, in Dandenong.

In that context, it is tragic that I need to rise today to speak and give my commiserations to the Hazara community in Dandenong with respect to the passing of Fariba Hussainzada and her 6-year-old son Farzad who tragically lost their lives in Dandenong Creek, and this is an absolute tragedy. Fariba was a devoted mother of three. Her little boy slipped into the swollen creek, and Fariba did what any loving parent would do—she went in after him. And, in that moment, her courage and love were absolute, but the waters were unforgiving, and both Fariba and Farzad were swept away and both lost their lives—a family shattered, children left without their mother and a community grieving. I wanted to place on the Senate Hansard my sympathies—I'm sure they are shared by all senators in this place—for Fariba and Farzad's family and also for the Hazara community in Dandenong, and say that we are with them at this time and our thoughts and prayers are with you.

The wall of secrecy around Australia's cruel and corrupt offshore detention arrangements with Nauru must be torn down. Any system based on intentional and deliberate cruelty inevitably attracts corruption, and Australia's offshore detention regime is no exception. For over a decade, report after report has shown that refugees on Nauru have been subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. This has included hundreds of children. To allow this to happen, Labor and the coalition have led a process of moral disengagement from the pain and suffering of people who have been sent to Nauru, engaging in self-deception strategies that deny the reality of the abuse, always putting politics and three-word slogans over human decency and basic morality.

However, it turns out, when you choose that morally corrupt path, you inevitably choose a financially corrupt path too. This is where the money comes in. Canstruct is an Australian corporation that contracted with the Australian government for offshore detention in Nauru between 2012 and 2022. The largest of the Nauru contracts Canstruct had was for operating Nauru's detention facilities. According to AusTender, the contract ran from September 2017 to September 2022, during which time it expanded from an initial $8.2 million to over $1.8 billion. This contract was won without tender by a company that had no experience in detention facilities and was nominally an engineering company.

The cost to Australian taxpayers has been eye watering. According to official government figures, the cost to hold a single refugee in Nauru in 2021 was more $4.3 million a year. It should come as no surprise that Canstruct has been investigated for gross misuse of public money spent on insuring luxury vehicles, jewellery and investment properties. But this has already been made public, and I want to address something else tonight.

To deliver services on Nauru, Canstruct, like Broadspectrum before them, had a series of subcontracts with local companies, and every contract that exceeded $50,000 was actively approved by Home Affairs. One of their contracts was with the neatly named 1402 LRC Car Rentals and Constructions—remember that name, because AUSTRAC, Australia's leading government financial intelligence agency, has had them and a whole bunch of senior politicians in Nauru in their sights. An until-now secret information report by AUSTRAC that was produced sometime before September 2022 details a series of suspicious transactions involving the then president and now speaker of the Parliament of Nauru, Lionel Aingimea; his wife, Ingrid Aingimea; and the then MP now president, David Adeang. Here's what it says, and what I say are direct quotes taken from the secret AUSTRAC briefing:

OFFICIAL: Sensitive

Information Report

President of Nauru, Lionel Rouwen AINGIMEA, and associates' suspicious financial activity

…   …   …

Information summary

Suspicious matter reports (SMRs) submitted by the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited's customer service agency in Nauru, reported suspicious financial transactions by the President of Nauru, his family and associates. These transactions involve the movement of funds between personal and business accounts, transactions on behalf of others and activity indicative of money laundering and corruption. These suspicious transactions occurred over a 9 month period from January to September 2020 in Nauru, totalling over $2 million in combined credits and over $1 million dollars in combined debits.

President of Nauru, Lionel Rouwen AINGIMEA … First Lady Ingrid Jacinta INGIMEA … brother of the President David AINGIMEA … and Member of Parliament David ADEANG … are linked to the reported suspicious activity.

…   …   …

Background

This Information Report relates to three suspicious matter reports (SMRs) submitted by the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited (Bendigo Bank) customer service agency in Nauru. Currently there is no AML/CTF legislation in Nauru requiring a financial institution physically located in Nauru to report suspicious matters to the Nauru financial intelligence unit (FIU). As a result, Bendigo Bank reports to AUSTRAC. AUSTRAC is under no obligation to share these reports with the Nauru FIU but has responded positively to specific requests in the past. The SMRs mentioned in this Information Report have not been shared by with the Nauru FIU.

The financial activity reported in these SMRs identifies suspicious transactional activity from Nauru accounts by Nauruan politically exposed persons (PEP), including of the President, his family and his associates.

…   …   …

SMR 1280982006 submitted on 7 September 2020, relates to rapid movement of large volume and value of funds by David ADEANG … forming a suspicion of corruption and money laundering. ADEANG has received funds from '1402 LRC Car Rentals and Construction', the company associated with the President's wife, I AINGIMEA.

ADEANG is member of the national legislature of Nauru and is the son of another politically exposed person, Kennan Ranibok ADEANG. He hold a transaction account and is also listed an additional cardholder for business account 'Global Procurement Incorporated' in Bendigo Bank.

World check database shows ADEANG has held multiple positions in Narau government since 2004. He was investigated in 2015 by Australian Federal Police (AFP) for alleged bribery in relation to phosphate mining in Nauru.

Bendigo Bank's review of ADEANG'S account from January to September 2020 details the following transactions …

I won't name some, but I'll pick out some highlights: 15 Osko payments, three of those from '1402 LRC Car Rentals and Construction', linked to I Aingimea, totalling $113,797; 462 transactions associated with building and construction reference of payment, totalling $248,886; 140 ATM withdrawals, totalling $68,840; and one branch withdrawal of $700.

The report says:

SMR 1285310345 submitted on 16 September 2020, relates to suspicious account activity recorded against personal and business accounts held by Nauru's President Lionel Rouwen AINGIMEA … and first lady, Ingrid Jacinta AINGIMEA … over the period of nine months, from the beginning of 2020. …

I AINGIMEA is recorded with regular credits from the Government of Nauru into both her personal and business accounts. These government payments are subsequently on-transferred to third parties, with beneficiaries including her husband L AINGIMEA. …

For her business account in the name of '1402 LRC Car Rentals and Construction', I AIGIMEA has received a total of $580,277 from the Nauru Government and has transferred $425,200 of this to her husband L AINGIMEA. These payments are described as "fee" or "legal fee". This business account is also held with Cherrilyn SILK … a Nauruan national. …

In total and including her personal and business bank accounts for the first nine months of 2020, I AINGIMEA has received over $830,000 from the Nauruan Government with $462,500 being transferred to her husband President L AINGIMEA and over $144,000 withdrawn in cash. …

…   …   …

Dissemination list

Until now, this secret information report by AUSTRAC that was produced sometime before September 2022 has been secret. What it shows is that a bunch of this money was likely sourced from Canstruct. Still more came from the Nauru government, a government that Australia has had multibillion-dollar dealings with, stretching over a decade. Australia knew about all these corrupt payments, including to now president Adeang, when the Albanese Labor government entered into a fresh $2½ billion secret deal with his government this year. They are still hiding the MOU that underpins that agreement, hiding the payments that they are making and refusing to say where the Australian taxpayers' money is going.

Is it any wonder they have cut a secret $2.5 billion deal with a government that is not just rumoured to be corrupt; it's a government that they know and knew to be corrupt? Remember that Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were copied into that AUSTRAC report two years before they negotiated the latest multibillion-dollar deal with Nauru and its government. Let me put this clearly. The Australian government has at all times known that the current Nauruan president and key members of his government are seriously corrupt, and they still signed a $2½ billion deal with him. There is a reason that this is all happening like this. Corruption follows cruelty, and it breeds in secrecy. And that's the Nauru deal and offshore detention all over. We must stop the rorts, stop the cruelty, stop the corruption and end this toxic deal.

The Tamil national heroes remembrance day is one of the most significant events in the Tamil calendar. It's a day of profound remembrance for those who gave their lives in the struggle for dignity, justice and human rights. The fact that Tamils everywhere pause at precisely 5.45 pm to remember together is a powerful expression of unity. My thoughts and those of the Australian Greens are with the Tamil community across Australia and around the world who are marking this solemn occasion together. I say these words now in the Australian Senate, ensuring that this Tamil day of remembrance is acknowledged in our nation's parliament: to the New South Wales and Australian Tamil community who have gathered together today, we acknowledge the sacrifice. We will speak honestly about the past and commit to work together in peace and solidarity.

I rise today to pay tribute to a prince of Australian literature. Earlier this year, Peter Rose retired as the editor of the Australian Book Review after 24 years at that helm. During his tenure, Peter edited nearly 250 issues of the magazine, and more than 1,500 writers have benefited from his deep understanding of culture and language as well as his vision for Australia's literary landscape. As Professor Frank Bongiorno has observed:

If we think of Australia in imaginative, cultural, and creative terms … Peter's stewardship of ABR must be considered a formidable national contribution.

One of Peter's most important attributes as an editor was his deftness in crafting and shaping language. He brought—to borrow some of his words—a poet's attention to language to the job of editor. Unshowy and humble in outlook, Peter had a light and improving editorial touch. Literary critic and Yale professor Harold Bloom, in his book How to Read and Why, observed:

Literary criticism, as I have learned to understand it, ought to be experiential and pragmatic, rather than theoretical. The critics who are my masters—Dr. Samuel Johnson and William Hazlitt in particular—practice their art in order to make what is implicit in a book finely explicit.

'Fine' is an apposite word for Peter, reflected in the precision of his editorial incisions and grafts, the gentle manner of his delivery of this guidance, and the space that he created for writers, particularly new and young writers, to find and write in their own style and voice.

I had the privilege of writing for the ABR under Peter's guidance. I remember with fondness the hint of a wry grin that would form on Peter's face when I pitched him a bad idea. It would then disappear, just before he guided me away from folly—gently, of course. I have lost count of the number of emails I have received from Peter with some variation of these words: 'Dear Varun. Thanks for a good review. Here's my light edit. Regards, Peter.' What joy! His style of editing gave me the confidence to take risks with my writing at times, and he always made my copy better, editing with that generous and minimalist spirit. I'm sure countless other Australian writers have had similar experiences and have benefited likewise.

Another of Peter's attributes is that he loves literary criticism. Book reviewing is often an unloved art, yet, with nuance and care and occasional riposte, Peter supported, defended and celebrated the place of critical writing and critical writers in Australia. As Peter observed in an interview:

I think the great critics are as immediately distinctive and recognisable as say a jazz singer or a trumpeter or a great opera singer … the critics who excite me and whom I certainly look for at ABR are the ones with an individual voice, individual phrasing.

He could also be intolerant of those who sought to take cheap shots at Australian critics, describing one such diatribe in these terms:

What a cliched, ungenerous and discreditable overview of book reviewing in this country, with its sentimental and predictable coda about mythic Manhattan standards … They—

Australian critics—

do not deserve to be derided in such an idle and pusillanimous fashion.

Of course, editing a literary magazine is not easy. In his 1946 essay, 'Confessions of a book reviewer', George Orwell noted the challenges of editing magazines:

Nearly every book is capable of arousing passionate feeling, if it is only a passionate dislike, in some or other reader, whose ideas about it would surely be worth more than those of a bored professional. But, unfortunately, as every editor knows, that kind of thing is very difficult to organize.

It is a credit to Peter that he took the responsibility to organise it seriously. He created opportunities for and supported Australian writers, particularly young writers. Money is important for young writers, particularly in Australia, where arts funding remains too low and where writers are paid too little for their work. Peter was exercised by this.

Deploying his astute financial sense and nuanced understanding of human nature, he set about seeking private funds to increase ABR's rates for writers and to expand the scope of the magazine and thus give it capacity to give young creatives more space to flourish. The additional funding, alloyed to Peter's audacity and imagination, has seen the magazine expand from its literary foundations to broader cultural pursuits. ABR Arts now offers critical pieces on music, theatre and other creative fields.

ABR is also home to generous prizes and programs, including the Calibre Essay Prize, the Peter Porter Poetry Prize, the Elizabeth Jolley Short Story Prize, and writing and editorial fellowships. Each of these initiatives creates opportunities for writers today, and, under Peter's stewardship, the magazine has actively sought to discover and promote new Australian talent, not just relying on or rewarding established or existing writers.

Adjacent to the edifice that Peter built at ABR sits Peter's own creative work, which includes five poetry collections, two novels, a memoir and countless reviews. His memoir, Rose Boys, won the National Biography Award in 2003, and is centred around his family. Peter's father, Bob Rose, played football for Collingwood, and was a legend as a player and a coach at the mighty Magpies. He was inducted into the Australian Football Hall of Fame in 1996, and, at Collingwood, the Most Courageous Player award, which was created in 1991, is named in Rose's honour. Four of Bob's brothers also played for Collingwood.

Peter's brother Robert showed promise as a cricketer and as a footballer, until a car accident left him a quadriplegic at age 22. Rose Boys describes the jarring impact of the accident and its aftermath on the Rose family. By turns sentimental, observant and unsparing, the book details the challenges of a family dealing with a young man whose spinal injury changed the nature of his life and of the lives of his partner, his parents and his brother. The book also explores the experience of a young and successful sportsman, part of a family with a rich sporting history, who had significant aspects of his identity and future suddenly taken away. With characteristic perception, Peter examines not only the enormity of what had been lost, but also the value and the poignancy of what was left. Describing a reunion of Robert and his Collingwood teammates, Peter wrote:

I was struck, as always, by their invincible camaraderie. Nothing had changed over the decades: the tales and tunes, the harmony and hyperbole. How sane they were, and affable. I thought what an extraordinary boon it had been for them joining Collingwood in their teens, instantly forming dozens of friendships, and retaining them for the rest of their lives. … there was something profoundly innocent, even boyish, about these men as they poured late beers and slapped each other on the back, I felt they knew something about kinship and contentment that poets didn't.

For all his attributes in prose, Peter is foremost a poet. I am not qualified to comment on his poetry, but it tickled me that his first collection of poems, titled The House of Vitriol, upset his parents because they thought the title referred to Peter's childhood home. It actually referred to the parliament. I close on two passages from his poem 'Different voices' that seem appropriate both to that title and to this place. The first is:

Do not doubt

that somewhere in heaven

feeble-minded bureaucrats

remember our trespasses fondly.

The second is:

Cynicism came to dinner the other night.

Exquisite manners; no appetite.

(Drinks like a fish!)

Thank you, Peter, for your contribution to Australian literature and for your many kindnesses to me.

I did enjoy that contribution.

I rise to talk about a significant new building in South Australia: South Australia's first skyscraper, 38 storeys high, which is planned to be built a few metres from our South Australian parliament, on our precious public parklands in our city. It's called Walker tower 2. It's the child of a rich-listed property developer, Walker Corporation, a multibillion-dollar enterprise. It is a huge building of 38 storeys, alongside Walker tower 1, which is a mere 28 storeys. Approval of the first Walker tower was on the basis that it was offset and set back from Parliament House, that it didn't obscure the view of our beautiful parliament building from the north and that it didn't disrupt the sight-lines of this very important South Australian monument, and with the agreement that only three storeys would be built next door to Walker tower 1—the place where we now see a proposal for a building of 38 storeys.

On 11 June this year, the South Australian State Planning Commission assessment panel granted planning consent for this building. Since then, over 125 eminent South Australians and many others—and this group included former premier the Hon. Reverend Dr Lynn Arnold AO, former president of the Legislative Council the Hon. Anne Levy AO and so many others—have signed an open letter calling on the Premier and the South Australian parliament to stop the construction of Walker Tower 2 to protect our Festival Plaza as open civic space and retain it as public land.

The construction of Walker Tower 2 would incur a major loss of open civic space and negatively impact really vital heritage values of our Parliament House complex and our beautiful Adelaide parklands. These are two of South Australia's National Heritage listings. We have nine, but these are two of our National Heritage listings. If you've visited South Australia, you will have admired the beautiful green spaces, internationally famous, like Central Park in New York, for being the lungs of our city, beautifully planned by Colonel Light and a prized aspect of living in our city. You will also, I hope, have strolled down the boulevard of North Terrace, a cultural precinct of enormous historical significance in our city. These are the two heritage sites, nationally listed, which are at risk of serious compromise by this building proposal.

As my colleague in South Australia's upper house Mr Rob Simms said in the South Australian parliament yesterday, the South Australian government should intervene to prevent the construction of Walker Tower 2, and so should the federal government, using its EPBC powers to call in this project, assess its heritage impact and make a full and open assessment, with the consultation of South Australians, about its impact on our heritage. So many South Australians care about the character and heritage of our city, and they've contacted me and protested at what is proposed for this site—many planners, architects, ordinary citizens, trade unionists and people in our churches. I want to especially acknowledge Robert Farnan, convener of the Save Festival Plaza Alliance, and Elizabeth Vines, architect, who have kept me informed about what's going on at Walker Corporation 2.

The skyscraper that's being proposed will overshadow North Terrace and our Parliament House and obscure the view for the public. It'll prevent the public from being able to enjoy Festival Plaza, which is iconic civil space. This 160-metre-tall skyscraper will be the tallest commercial building in Adelaide, and it'll include commercial office space on most of its floors. The South Australian planning minister has said that the plaza will be a vibrant space once the tower is finished, but just how many office workers will be there isn't clear. We don't need another 38 storeys of commercial space in South Australia, with a 20 per cent occupancy for commercial space at present. So why are we building yet another enormous office tower when what we really need in our city, and in every other city and regional town in our country, is housing for citizens who can't afford a house and can't get a rental, leading to increasing rates of homelessness?

This skyscraper risks turning one of Adelaide's most iconic public spaces into just another soulless commercial precinct, wrecking two critical National Heritage sites. There are lots of other spots where you can put very tall buildings. I'm not opposed to tall buildings, but they should be in our CBD, not set on our beautiful river and compromising our beautiful parklands. You don't put a skyscraper right next to Parliament House. Imagine if we did it here in the Parliamentary Triangle. It's like putting a commercial skyscraper right next to the Opera House or plonking one down in the middle of Federation Square. Parliaments internationally don't put 38-storey buildings next to their public parliament houses. No-one does that, especially where it compromises historic heritage values.

What we see here in this building is a massive change in the use of space, and—wait for it—it is charging the Walker Corporation, a multibillion-dollar enterprise, a ground lease of just $1 per year for 100 years. We're turning over, for commercial space, a prime civic spot, massively significant in heritage terms, to a multibillion-dollar operation which will lease it for commercial purposes. If this goes ahead, South Australians are going to have two giant towers overshadowing the people's place, the people's house, reminding all Australians and South Australians who runs the show and robbing us of our beautiful civic space and national heritage. It's outrageous that Walker Corporation was granted exclusive use of this parkland site for their first tower. It is even more outrageous that we see a second one, which was initially agreed to be only three storeys high, now a towering 38-storey monstrosity.

The South Australian government's own heritage agency, Heritage SA, has raised really significant issues about the impact of this tower on our heritage, and many South Australians are protesting its shape and impact. We know that the South Australian code amendment which changed the zoning law was rushed through without proper consultation, walking all over the government's own community engagement commitments or charter without a proper planning process. There has not been a proper consultation with the citizens of our state. This is such a significant project which has not had the public attention and conversation it deserves.

There is also a role here for the federal government through the EPBC Act. Minister Watt has the powers to call in this project under the provisions of this act. The act states that a corporation must not take an action that will have a significant impact on the national heritage values of a national heritage place. The guidelines in that act state that, if an action is adjacent to or within important sight lines and if it has a significant impact, the proponent must not take the action without prior approval from the minister. Yet, here in South Australia, we have the cement foundations already poured for this building without proper consideration of the heritage compromises that are implicit in this project.

The EPBC Act gives the powers for rigorous assessment, including a 10-day public consultation period should the minister decide to call it in. We, South Australians say, to Minister Watt: call this project in. We want a say about what this means, and we want a proper heritage assessment. We have to see a full assessment of these impacts. We want to see the legislative protections for urban national heritage places. Otherwise, our EPBC Act and the notion of heritage listing is meaningless. Other factors, like financial deals, politics, pressure for development, jobs, bureaucracy—all of these, in this example, are trumping the voice, views and heritage of South Australians. We must protect our significant values and our significant heritage. It's time to listen to South Australians, citizens, not billionaire developers. Minister Watt has the power to do this. South Australians want to see the EPBC powers used to enable proper consultation, and we cannot sacrifice the brilliant historical heritage values of our state to corporate interests and commercial deals which don't stack up.

This month, 55,000 carpetbaggers, technocrats and enablers gathered in the shadow of the Amazon rainforest to breathe life into the greatest climate change scam for one more year. The United Nations conference of the parties, COP, COP30, in Belem, Brazil, has ended in failure. In this speech, I'm not being critical of the good people of Brazil, for whom One Nation has tremendous respect; I am being critical of elitist politicians, bureaucrats, parasites and thieves sucking on energy subsidies who are blind to their own hypocrisy, incompetence and dishonesty—hypocrisy such as building a highway through the Amazon rainforest to improve access to the conference venue, which turned into another 'look the other way' moment for the world press, still using climate change as a boogieman to scare people into continuing to read their rubbish. This highway bisects an environmental protection area and cuts through wetlands and dense secondary Amazon rainforest. The highway allows easy access for illegal logging, disrupts water and food supply for native inhabitants and actually increases the flooding risk in Belem. In other words, it's just another day at the office for the hypocritical, incompetent, dishonest climate change zealots. Actual environmental groups and satellite monitoring from Imazon have tracked secondary deforestation already sprouting along the new corridor, in the classic fishbone pattern that often follows Amazon road building. An accurate estimate for the number of trees felled is 30,000—gone! This eliminated 10,000 tonnes of national carbon dioxide sequestration necessary for oxygen production.

This is something you've heard before from One Nation. Australia is already at net zero. Every year our extensive forests, natural and planted, absorb more carbon dioxide than Australia produces. Any talk of UN carbon dioxide reduction, as inhuman and nonsensical as that is, must acknowledge the essential role of planting and preserving trees and forests. Instead, in Australia we're seeing large-scale deforestation, blowing the tops off entire mountains to locate massive wind turbines, and building access roads and easements for electricity transmission lines through the bush and national parks.

The environmental damage of UN COP30 doesn't stop at rainforests. Only four per cent of Belem's sewage is treated, and the rest gets dumped into waterways and, from there, into the sea. Attendees at the conference were billeted on luxury cruise ships in the harbour in Belem. Attendees were able to look over the side and see raw sewage from the conference floating past. How fitting is that? What a perfect metaphor for the excretable, failed theory of climate change.

I haven't finished on the hypocrisy. Tarmac space limited the number of private planes arriving to 250, requiring the conversion of 14 local airports into parking lots for crony capitalists to park their jets whilst lecturing us on our carbon dioxide footprint. Domestic and international flights added another 50,000 seats, so I wonder how many people bothered to use the new highway through the Amazon. Perhaps the highway was for the workers, whilst the elites flew. I thought flying was a crime against mother earth, but the rules don't apply to the people who make them. I was especially amused to see those same people who flew to Belem support an agenda item for a tax on airline flights to raise US$6 billion towards fighting themselves.

The final communique was a complete failure, a collection of weasel words and platitudes. UN COP30 turned into a cop-out. UN climate chief Simon Stiell hailed the communique as proof that climate cooperation is 'alive', and that their goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius was still 'within reach'—a furtive plea if ever I heard one! Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek, from the Labor government, emphasised new hope for the 1.5-degree Celsius alignment. New hope? No, Minister, there is no chance and no hope the world will ever meet the Paris targets. There's no scientific reason why they should. A stronger initial communique was rejected, with only 30 of the 194 delegates in support. The final cop-out communique only recommitted to the Paris accord and a voluntary global plan for eventual phase-out of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. Spot the weasel words: 'voluntary' and 'eventual'. UN COP30 said the quiet part out loud. This is not going to happen.

The truth is that most countries have realised climate change science is wrong; net zero measures are ruinous; and hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, are essential for maintaining living standards and for lifting underdeveloped nations out of poverty. This is about humanity. This is probably why Australia's Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has accepted a thankyou job with the United Nations in acknowledgement of his service to the UN's crooked cause.

Senator Roberts, just a reminder to refer to those from the other place by their correct titles.

Minister Chris Bowen. That means using the pretence of global warming to facilitate the transfer of income, wealth and opportunity from everyday Australians into the pockets of the world's richest crony capitalists and their communist Chinese allies. His appointment has been criticised, but, from my perspective, the less this bloke is in Australia the less damage and hurt he can inflict on Australians.

Events like the conference of parties and Davos are not just talkfests, as one attendee told me. They have two purposes. One is to see what the billionaires that pull the world's collective strings can get away with this year. The second is so that these predatory billionaires can steer world events to increase their own wealth and power. As an example, BlackRock Inc spent $10 million attending UN COP30 to advocate for a worldwide carbon dioxide tax and trading system so their executives can buy carbon dioxide credits and then live the same lives of plenty they live now. This isn't speculation. They actually said that. The videos are online.

On the other hand, working Australians are increasingly being herded into smaller and smaller homes, smaller lives and smaller families, centred around train stations, which will ultimately become 15-minute cities. It will be a world of people working from their tiny apartments, stacked up in human filing cabinets. The latest approvals are now for 38 storeys—hundreds of families in an area that used to house four families and their backyards.

Do you remember backyards? There's no place for personal space in this new globalist world of mass migration. You'll be kept in this virtual prison by your personal carbon dioxide allowance, which will prevent car ownership, prevent travel, prevent meat—and no pets which eat meat. New clothes will be limited to three purchases a year, and there will be no air conditioning. There's no provision for air conditioning in the platinum energy standard being advanced by the Greens and the teals. And that code includes sealing a home so tightly to reduce energy loss that air flow will be restricted and condensation will lead to an ongoing problem with mould. Try that one in Queensland!

If you think, 'I will not comply,' you will have no choice. Your bank is already preparing to help you limit your daily carbon dioxide output and, in 2030, will start denying transactions above your allowance. It's a system that works only if cash is eliminated, which the Treasurer, the Labor treasurer, is trying to do now with new anticash regulations.

When I first talked about these things nine years ago, nearly a decade, the internet laughed. Well, the internet is laughing much less now, as this agenda starts to affect them personally. Everyday more and more Australians are realising One Nation was right about everything. This will be your future under the Liberal-Labor-Greens-teal globalist uniparty. In fact, this future is why the teals were invented: to take over from the Greens, who are moving into the lunatic fringe of politics, and to take over from the Liberals, who are starting to baulk at committing this crime against humanity.

Recent Liberal Party leadership changes at state level installed leaders who have signed onto the UN nightmare agenda. These leadership changes were designed to ensure that, if the federal party does change direction, those pro-Australia policies will be blocked at state level. There's really no hope for the Liberal Party while it's under Michael Photios's control.

And don't think you'll be able to attend a protest rally or speak out in dissent. The Labor Party have colluded with the Greens and teal-like senators to hold a sham, show trial into freedom of speech, which they call 'misinformation'. Not surprisingly, in this bias sham trial, freedom of speech is losing, as intended. The outcome will be misinformation laws that allow the government to suppress criticism and evidence of their failures, in the same way that the Keir Starmer's regime has in the UK and Mark Carney in Canada. This trial, combined with schooling to year 12, university education for all high-school graduates and the under-16 social media and search ban, will ensure your children will not know what truth is. They will only know what the government wants them to know.

In June, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for states to 'defossilise knowledge' through the criminalisation of what she defines as misinformation as well as criminalising media that amplify it. Defossilising knowledge—knowledge!—that is terrifying. Morgera wants criminal sanctions for those deemed to have obstructed climate action. The United Nation is out of control and so is this Labor government, with its Greens allies.

One Nation has all the answers to stop this. We will withdraw from the UN, the UN World Health Organization and the UN Paris Agreement and stop net zero.

Senate adjourned at 21:38