If there is no objection, the meetings are so authorised.

by leave—I move:

That the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 be considered at the time for private senators' bills today.

Question agreed to.

Firstly, I have some housekeeping. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 has been amended to update the question to be proposed in the plebiscite. It was necessary to reintroduce this bill and then amend it to overcome drafting delays due to inappropriate staffing levels in parliamentary support services, thanks to the Labor government. It's a constraint the government has not inflicted on itself, given the thousands of pages of legislation before the Senate this week alone. Some technical amendments have been circulated to update section references.

The intent of the bill, though, is the same as on the previous occasions One Nation has brought this bill before the Senate. It's time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite: how much immigration is enough? That is a question for the people. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the MP's masters—the people. I'll say that again. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of every parliamentary representative is to listen to the members of parliament's masters—the people. The remainder of the bill sets out the provisions necessary to conduct the plebiscite. That section of the bill closely follows the provisions of the gay marriage plebiscite. Just as One Nation respected the wishes of the Australian people in that outcome, we would expect all members of parliament and senators to respect the outcome of this plebiscite.

This bill will pose the question, 'Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?' It's a very simple, straightforward question. 'Zero net' simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave—zero net migration; net migration, zero. This brings to an end the era of massive population growth and mass migration started under John Howard's prime ministership. That will ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport and infrastructure and provide space for the assimilation for the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government. Five years is enough for that process to work through, especially the construction of housing and infrastructure.

And One Nation would police existing immigration laws. There are an estimated 200,000 people here illegally, meaning people who have deliberately breached their visa conditions, which is illegal. These people should be deported—remigration back to where they came from. That provision is not in this bill. We should not need a bill to make the government police the laws it already has. One Nation does not oppose immigration. We oppose mass migration, which—for the deliberately ignorant or unaware, unconscious and uncaring left-wing commentariat—can be defined as new migration from all sources which exceeds the housing construction rate after accommodating natural population increase. Pretty simply, build the home before the person arrives. This is not rocket science—build the home before the person arrives. I speak as a migrant and as an Australian citizen.

For a generation, the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties have had this simple concept backward—bring a migrant to Australia and, once they're here, build them a home. In the meantime, they're homeless. Eventually build them a home—no rush! This backwards approach to immigration has caused the worst housing crisis in Australian peacetime history—record homelessness and growing. New migrants coming in here are homeless. Australians are homeless. The elderly, unemployed and working poor are being priced out of the housing market as new arrivals increase demand. That drives up rents and home prices.

The government has then stepped in and created schemes to make it easier to afford one's home, supposedly, usually through low-deposit mortgages and first home buyer grants. All these do is drive up the price of the house, so the young person is back where they started, needing an unaffordable deposit and a higher income to cover repayments on a home that should, at their asking price, be made of gold. Other speakers, I'm sure, will point out how the Albanese government's latest confidence trick on young home buyers, the low deposit housing scheme, has had exactly this effect—driving up prices so that young buyers are no better off.

You will hear an opposing argument that the housing crisis is not about population growth; it's about housing construction. In recent days, the Labor Party has once again stood in front of cameras in their high-vis gear, complete with hard hat, all borrowed from the wardrobe department, to announce more money is to be spent on housing. What comes of these announcements? Nothing. People cannot build with what we don't have. There is a lack of approved land, equipment, materials and experienced construction labour. It's an outrageous thing to say all we need to do is to bring in more tradies. To begin with, more new arrivals is the cause of the problem. I'm mindful that sitting right behind me is someone who's in the construction industry from Western Australia, Senator Tyron Whitten, and he will be speaking later. Secondly, homes are not making it to the tradie stage fast enough to justify more tradies.

This is all a smokescreen anyway. The reality is that the ALP doesn't want more tradies, having only brought in 6,000 new tradies in their entire first term. That's less than one per cent, a fraction of one per cent, of the government's mass migration intake—less than one per cent building houses for the other more than 99 per cent, as well as the pent-up demand from the past. The government wants a labour shortage so their union boss mates can demand ludicrous wage rises. I've heard of stop/go attendants earning $140,000 per year and, in some areas, $200,000 a year. What does that do to the cost of houses? What does that do to the profit and viability of builders? Construction companies are going under. We can see that.

What do material shortages do to their profit? This epidemic of mass migration is happening around the world, a global push from globalists setting the agenda in BlackRock Inc. and then moving into the housing market with benefits given to them by the Labor government only in recent weeks. In the absence of Australian production of building materials, Australia is a price taker. We are competing with literally the entire world to get building materials to Australia. Local councils are flat out processing development applications. Everyone in the housing chain is juggling red tape, green tape and blue UN tape to somehow manage to get homes built. More tradies won't fix that problem; reduced housing demand and fewer new arrivals will fix that problem.

Consider this question: more arrivals increase home prices and cause homelessness, so what does reducing new arrivals do? There's no need to guess at the answer. Our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have answered the question for us. New Zealand has woken up. Immigration numbers were reduced from 70,000 in 2024 to just 13,000 in 2025. As a result, new home prices fell and rents stabilised after just one year of reduced migration. Look at Canada. The same has happened in Canada. In contrast, Australia keeps bringing in more new arrivals than we have houses. And guess what? House prices and rents keep going up and up and up. Go figure. It's pretty simple. Australia is already building more new homes per capita than any other country in the world, yet record homelessness continues growing.

An entire generation of young Australians is being disenfranchised. I talk to these fine young Australians every day. They tell me that they're giving up on ever owning their own home—giving up! Giving up on their own country. Scott Challen, a builder in Brisbane, tells me that, daily, young people are being disenfranchised. That is dangerous for the future of our country. These young people speak of their frustration, of their betrayal, at the hands of the governing Liberal-Labor uniparty. These are children that have done everything society has asked of them. They've studied hard, stayed out of trouble and achieved a trade or university degree. They are working in a good job—or two jobs, or for some of them three jobs, to make ends meet—and they find that, despite this dedication and sacrifice, they're struggling to pay rent, let alone save for a home deposit. Even if they can save a deposit, where can they afford to buy? Sydney? The average home price is above $1.5 million. No young person can afford that, yet Sydney is where the jobs are. Why is Sydney so dear? Well, new arrivals—that's the answer. Analysis of average home prices, average rents and immigration numbers in Sydney in the last five years shows a simple fact: the higher the immigration intake, the larger the increase in rents and home prices—full stop, end of story. Conversely, the lower the intake, the lower the prices.

How many people are currently in Australia who aren't Australian citizens? Good question. After a bit of digging, I believe the answer is around 3.7 million people, made up of 2.5 million temporary visa holders and 1.2 million permanent residents, plus 380,000 tourists and short-stay crew. That makes four million people plus, when including tourists, here in this country who are not citizens. Migration statistics are opaque and confusing. They are deliberately opaque and confusing. There are lots of traps when adding different types of data together, and it's an area where we're prone to get fact-checked, misreported and misrepresented. This allows the champions of mass migration to understate the intake and then deflect away from migration to blame other factors, like a lack of tradies. Don't fall for it. It's rubbish.

If you are in this country and not a citizen, you need to be on a visa. We know how many visa holders are in the country right now. As at July 2025 there were 2.5 million temporary visa holders, not including tourists. There were 1.5 million permanent visa holders, and four million noncitizens—four million non-Australians—all of whom need a home in which to live. The effect this is having on the housing market can be seen in a simple statistic: 43 per cent of the population of Greater Sydney and 41 per cent of the population of Greater Melbourne were born overseas. That isn't migration; that's mass migration. It's invasion. It's part of a globalist agenda across many woke Western nations, and Australians are shouting this in the streets now.

In every nation, it is the government's duty to design immigration policy for the benefit of citizens already in the country, not for the benefit of those outside wanting to come into the country. Immigration policy, just as a side point, has four broad aspects in my view. The first is numbers of people allowed—no, invited—into the country. The second is the quality of people allowed in, their skills, whether they will be put straight to work and contribute productively, safety and security, the quality of people and the culture. The third is: will the people coming in assimilate and integrate into the identity of the country? The fourth is: will Australia's identity be preserved? Multiculturalism, introduced by Bob Hawke and reinforced by John Howard, undermines assimilation and integration and destroys Australian identity.

Stop it and restore Australian identity. This bill, though, is only about numbers. The question of how much immigration is too much has never been put to the Australian people. It's time. As a migrant and as a citizen, I value our country and say: it's time.

I rise to speak in relation to the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 and say at the outset that the coalition will be opposing this bill. The issue of immigration is extraordinarily complicated. Whilst I note that Senator Roberts said that the question to be put to the Australian people has been amended since the previous iteration of this bill, the fact of the matter is that a plebiscite process—in the context of such a complicated, multifaceted issue where we need to consider the needs of our cities and metropolitan areas, our regional centres, our rural communities and our remote communities—is simply inappropriate.

It's an impossible process to undertake in order to deliver a meaningful policy outcome that would be in the national interest. I think it's gravely mistaken. To be clear, the coalition believes that the current rate of immigration is too high. There's no question about that. The coalition believes that. I can give you a few benchmarks in that regard. Up to 31 March 2025, the net overseas migration rate on an annual basis was approximately 316,000. That's 100,000 higher than the 10-year average before the COVID-19 pandemic. It's about 90,000 higher than what the government is forecasting—and I emphasise 'forecasting'—for the three years after the current financial year, and it is also about 80,000 higher than what the Centre for Population within Treasury is forecasting on a long-term basis.

So, even though the net overseas migration rate has come down from that huge 500,000-plus figure in the first year of the Albanese government—via the 400,000-plus figure to over 300,000—it is still too high. There is no question about that. The rate of immigration is a matter of grave concern to the Australian people, and the coalition is working on policy principles to address this issue. We will do that. We will do it in the national interest so that Australia, under a coalition government, will have an immigration policy that is in the national interest and meets the requirements of Australia and all Australians—Australians living in our metropolitan areas, our regional areas, our rural areas and our remote areas. We are committed to that policy framework.

In relation to the issue of housing supply—and I note that, within Senator Roberts' team, there is someone with on-the-ground building capacity—I give you this figure. Have a look at appendix E in the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's State of the housing system 2025 report on housing supply. Please have a look at this figure. It's shocking. In the 2018-19 year—and your member may well have been building houses, contributing to this figure, then—the number of dwelling completions in Australia was approximately 215,000. That was back in 2018-19. Fast forward to 2023-24, and the figure was 176,000. So we actually completed 215,000 dwellings in 2018-19, but we could complete only 177,000 so many years later when the population had grown. So there's no doubt there's a supply issue. Of course demand needs to be considered as well, but there is a supply issue. Those figures are appalling.

There are a number of issues which feed into that. They include the fact that we don't have enough tradies. I've met with the housing institute of Australia and Master Builders. Just in our own home state of Queensland, Senator Roberts, there's a shortage of 7,000 plumbers. There are serious questions to ask as to how we got ourselves into this position, but it is a reality.

It is also a reality that people in the building industry, in property development, are being strangled by red tape, and the cost to build a house or an apartment, a dwelling, is exacerbated by hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of all the regulatory red tape. So that's an issue. Where my office is located, in Springfield—and Senator Roberts will know where Springfield is—there is vacant land already zoned for high density housing. But it is impossible at the moment to build dwellings—even with the current housing supply shortage—at a cost, with a margin, to make it profitable. So we have a housing construction issue, a housing supply issue—there is no doubt about that—and it needs to be addressed.

In relation to that report I referred to, I do suggest that colleagues have a look at section 5.5 of that National Housing Supply and Affordability Council report on the state of housing supply in Australia, because it deals with three different scenarios. In one scenario, population growth—and I'm talking about the rates of population growth—increases by more than 15 per cent above the current baseline, and we will have a housing supply shortage at the end of the National Housing Accord period. It analyses the baseline growth in population. If we continue on the baseline population growth, we will have a housing supply shortage at the end of the housing accord period. The only scenario which has been contemplated by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council under which there is a surplus of housing supply—and this is based on their independent model—is one where the rate of population growth falls by 15 per cent. That is the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's own analysis, and that needs to be carefully considered. I recommend that all colleagues look at that.

I want to make some comments in relation to the concept, theory or principle that we can have net zero overseas migration. Net overseas migration is the difference between arrivals and departures. That may sound like a pretty obvious statement—I appreciate that—and I'm not seeking to overly simplify it. You've got to look at both sides of the equation: arrivals and departures. We are not North Korea. If someone wants to leave this country at any stage, they can leave this country. We don't have control with respect to people who are here lawfully, including Australian citizens, deciding to leave the country. We do have control—and Senator Roberts touched upon this—in terms of dealing with people who don't have a lawful right to be here. But every year there are tens of thousands of Australian citizens who decide to go overseas to work, or for whatever reason, and there are permanent residents and temporary visa holders who leave. We don't have control over that.

There are also elements relating to arrivals where we have either no control or very limited control, or it's questionable as to what control we should have. I'll go through a number of categories. There's the family reunion scheme. I believe strongly in the family unit. I believe strongly that the family unit is the foundation stone of Australian society. I also believe if an Australian citizen has gone overseas, has worked, has fallen in love and has had children then they should be able to bring their family back to Australia. In fact, under our Migration Act they have a right to bring their family back to Australia. The only condition is that it is a genuine relationship. Of course, that should be administered. But are we saying we're going to put in a cap or in some way prevent Australians from reuniting with their family in Australia? Is that being proposed? Tens of thousands of arrivals each year fall into that category of partners and children of Australian citizens, so if that's not being proposed I'm not sure how you are going to influence that number. I believe those families should have the right to be reunited.

The second category I want to talk about are New Zealand citizens who comprise over 700,000 of the figure of temporary visa holders in Australia that Senator Roberts referred to. They are categorised that way. At the moment, we have a trans-Tasman agreement under which New Zealanders have the right to come to Australia and Australians have the right to go to New Zealand. The research indicates that when the job market is soft in New Zealand, which it currently is, there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who come to Australia for higher wages and to get work. That's under the trans-Tasman agreement. Australians have reciprocal rights to go to New Zealand, but of course if the labour market is soft in New Zealand then not as many Australian are going to go to New Zealand as New Zealanders are going to come to Australia. In recent years, that has made a substantial contribution to net overseas migration. What is proposed with respect to New Zealand-Australia immigration? We have no answer to that.

Governments of both persuasions have also entered into various treaties with countries all over the world which provide for work and holiday visas and other visas which provide opportunities for Australians and people within those countries to spend time in each other's country, to build people-to-people links and to build relationships between our country and other countries. They are treaty obligations. Most of them have limited caps. These treaties have been entered into over the years on a very regular basis, so that is an issue in terms of looking at those treaty obligations and what can and can't be managed.

In terms of skills, we have enduring skills shortages in a number of key areas. We have shortages in particular in our regional and rural communities. When I've been speaking to stakeholders across all industries, they plead with me: 'Please don't prevent us from getting the skills we need in order to keep our agricultural operations running. Don't prevents us from getting the skills we need to run our businesses and generate wealth and prosperity for the Australian people.' This is a complicated issue.

Finally, I want to make some points with respect to how the Labor government has managed this issue. I think it is absolutely appalling that when I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship what his target was with respect to net overseas migration, or the permanent-migration program beyond the current year, they gave no answer. All we have at the moment in the budget are forecasts provided by the Centre for Population within the Department of the Treasury, which even the Department of Home Affairs, who implement the visa settings, won't confirm they agree with. It's totally dysfunctional. There is no long-term planning, there is no medium-term planning, there is no liaison with the states and territories around Australia, there is no coherent explanation as to how the government is taking into account the housing pressures, infrastructure pressures and pressure on government services. We're getting nothing, absolutely nothing.

When the government released its permanent-migration program numbers for the current year, it did so in a media release with three sentences and fewer than 100 words. That's all we got. It was only through questions that we asked in Senate estimates that we found out the government had abandoned multi-year planning in relation to the permanent-migration program. The review that was taken into the migration strategy in 2023 called for multi-year planning, called for long-term planning that took into account that the time line to develop major infrastructure is approximately 10 years. They've abandoned that medium-term planning, they've abandoned that long-term planning. There is no planning because the minister says he wants to be flexible. It's not good enough, and this is one of the reasons why surveys, including the most recent survey from the Scanlon Foundation, which does a mapping social cohesion report every year, have found in their most recent surveys that there is such a high rate of dissatisfaction amongst the Australian people with respect to the rate of immigration.

In summary, the coalition believes that net overseas migration is too high. When you look at a number of benchmarks, it's clearly too high. We believe there needs to be longer term planning, but we need to also be cognisant of how complicated the issue is.

This is not my first speech. That will come later today. This bill is very simple. It's simply to give Australians a say in determining the level of immigration we want into this country, and One Nation is simply respecting all Australians in proposing we give them a voice. The reason we need to ask this question, and the reason we need answers, is because the other parties in this place have stopped listening. They have stopped listening to the people, and the people have had enough. They want to be heard.

The Albanese government, along with the Liberals and the Nationals—take your pick—have waved through, year after year, mass immigration, and they have done it while ignoring every warning sign. And One Nation has been warning them for a very long time. They have ignored every stressed neighbourhood, every congested highway, every family priced out of a home, every hospital bed shortage and every Australian pushed to the back of the queue. One Nation sees you and we hear you. You have been ignored for too long. We have been raising the alarm time and time again, and we do so again today. The other parties have ignored the concerns and the pleas for help from everyday Australians struggling against mass immigration and the pressure it puts on this country. It is time that it stops.

This debate is about how many people should come to this country. This debate is about the manner in which they come to this country, the levels in which they come. We have proposed a net zero pause for five years. That is a reasonable suggestion, and it is a reasonable question to put to the Australian people so as to give them a voice. The fact is our population, driven by mass immigration, is surging far too quickly for our infrastructure, our hospitals, our schools, our roads and our wages to keep up.

Let's talk about a truth that the government doesn't like to talk about. These mass migration policies that they have supported have led to one of the longest periods of GDP-per-capita recession in our nation's history. One Nation have said it before, and we'll say it again: this mass immigration agenda by the Albanese government has been done to artificially pump up headline GDP, and without it we'll be staring at negative growth, quarter after quarter. This immigration policy, pushed by the Albanese government, is to hide their economic mismanagement. They know that without it they would be blamed for a recession that their poor economic management would have caused. So, instead of fixing the economy, instead of dealing with some of the underlying issues within the economy, they are pulling the mass immigration lever to fix what is essentially numbers on a page at the expense of the standard of living of Australians in this country. The consequences of mass immigration are everywhere. The people of Australia see them every single day—congested roads and overloaded infrastructure. Even Infrastructure Australia, a government body, have admitted that lags in infrastructure investment as they struggle to keep up with a surging population driven by mass immigration are damaging the economy and negatively impacting the quality of life of Australians. This is what millions of Australians live with daily.

Housing affordability is at breaking point, and it is breaking their hearts. Every Australian knows someone who cannot get into the housing market—their sons, their daughters, their family and friends. They know people who cannot find a rental because we've reached a national vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent, with some capital cities as low as 0.6 per cent. That is unacceptable. And it is caused by mass immigration pushed by the Albanese Labor government and the Liberals and the Nationals and the Greens. So why are we not seriously looking at immigration levels and putting Australians first?

All that is before we even consider stagnant wages and job competition. We have approximately 670,000 unemployed Australians in this country and nearly a million more who want additional hours. We are dealing with a labour market flooded by foreign visa holders, and we know that the big businesses, the multinationals, love this. Why wouldn't they? More workers artificially flooded into the market mean lower wages for Aussie workers and fewer jobs for Aussie workers. Australians at the lower end of the jobs market are left behind, and we will see much more of this unless the mass immigration tap is not turned off. The suffering will continue. Our services will continue to be strained.

Australia has grown by five million people since 2007, a 25 per cent increase. More than 60 per cent of that growth has come from immigration. This is not manageable; it is reckless. The worst part about it is that it has been deliberate. Now, we no longer have the services and infrastructure to match our population, because these were not delivered by the government.

So this bill is to give people a say on this. Do they want what we've had to continue—the reckless mass immigration agenda—or do we try something different? This bill will give the people a say, and that is something that politicians in this place seem terrified of. Why shouldn't Australians have the right to vote on whether immigration levels are too high? Politicians know the answer; they know the answer they will get. They know the Australian people will overwhelmingly reject the mass immigration agenda pushed on them by the major parties.

It was very interesting listening to some contributions in this place. I listened very carefully to Senator Scarr, from the Liberals. One of the things he said was that the question of immigration is far too complicated for the Australian people to address. It's far too complicated, and they can't be trusted to come up with an adequate policy solution. That notion that everyday Australians should be denied the right to have a say on a question because 'it's too complicated for them' goes to one of the fundamental differences between One Nation and the Liberal Party: we actually believe that the Australian people are smart enough to understand these problems, that they do understand these problems and that they've been demanding solutions. They've been demanding things like a net zero immigration pause.

Some of those matters that Senator Scarr raised in relation to family reunion visas and things like that would not be difficult to resolve. Government have forward projections. They understand how many people come in through the system via those categories and they could take that into account. They could make allowances in the number of people coming into the country. To raise that as a particular issue—it is simply not something that should stand in the way of a sensible policy that would end mass migration, and a proposal for net zero migration.

One Nation was the first political party pushing this idea, long before others even muttered the words, because we believe, genuinely and unapologetically, in giving the Australian people a voice. We will always ask for you to have a voice. That is why we're asking a simple question: should Australia adopt a policy of zero net migration for a period of five years—yes or no? It's a simple question. We know Australians want a say because mass immigration is affecting every aspect of our economy and quality of life. Australians deserve the respect of being asked and being given a say. If we do not give them their voice we are telling them that their voice does not matter—that we do not care about their concerns and that we do not care to adequately represent the views of the people.

I recall another point that was brought up by Senator Scarr. He said that one of the reasons that we couldn't implement a zero net migration policy is that we've signed some international treaties. We have signed some international treaties and therefore other countries get to have a say in our immigration rate. Other countries get to decide how many people come here, but the Australian people don't have the right to a say. They have been superseded by demands from foreign countries. I think that gets to the heart of this matter: we are listening to everyone but the Australian people.

I say again: the Australian people deserve a voice. They deserve to have their concerns heard. One Nation hears them. We will always give you a voice, and we will always put Australians first.

Well, days after reheating a stunt from 2017, the spirit of Senator Hanson now reheats a bill from 2018. With all the talk about One Nation poaching Barnaby Joyce, I'd perhaps be keeping an eye on the Greens. The amount of recycling that's happening in One Nation these days is genuinely impressive. This bill has already been voted down twice—once in 2019 and once last year—and yet here we are. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis and a climate crisis, this is the grand solution being put forward by One Nation: a non-binding plebiscite. Nothing says 'serious policymaking' like asking Australians to vote on a question that won't actually change a single law.

Let me be absolutely clear here: Senator Hanson—through you, Chair—has every right to move whatever bill she believes is in the national interest. That's one of the beautiful things about this country and that's one of the most beautiful things about our democracy. Every senator in this place has the right to put a bill forward that they're interested in or that they think their constituents are interested in. But, just as immigrants must uphold Australian values such as respect, equality and freedom of expression—the very values that explicitly reject racial discrimination and religious intolerance—every member of this chamber should also uphold them. The Australian values statement is unequivocal, and it says:

People in Australia are free to follow any religion they choose.

…   …   …

Religious intolerance is not acceptable in Australian society.

Every immigrant signs this, including me, including Senator Roberts and including Senator Babet. It's unfortunate that the bill before us today suggests that Senator Hanson herself would perhaps fail this values test.

This bill is not about migration levels. It's not about planning or infrastructure or economics. It's about fear. It's about division. It's about distracting struggling Australians, who are having a hard time putting food on the table, paying the next bill, ensuring that their kids have the best shot at life and that there's a roof over their heads, who have these real reasons for life becoming harder and harder. But, in fact, this whole bill is distracting everyone from the core issues that need to be dealt with here.

Let's deal with the myths calmly, factually and with evidence, not with slogans and not with fearmongering. Myth No. 1—population growth is out of control. A senior economist—not me, not Senator Roberts, not anyone else here—from the Australia Institute, Matt Grudnoff, has laid out the facts very clearly. During COVID, population growth fell to historic lows for about 18 months. The population even went backwards as international students and temporary workers left. When borders reopened, the so-called surge was simply people returning home, and, since 2024, population growth has fallen back to pre-COVID levels. Here's the key point: if the population had grown at normal pre-COVID rates, Australia today would have way more people, not fewer. The bounce-back hasn't even caught up to where we would have been if COVID had never happened. So the idea that we're facing some unprecedented population explosion simply isn't true.

Myth No. 2—migration caused the housing crisis. Let's test that claim using the best natural experiment that we've ever had: the COVID border closure. During COVID, population growth collapsed, yet house prices skyrocketed. Why would that be the case? It's because the Reserve Bank slashed interest rates and speculative investors flooded the market. As Matt Grudnoff says, if migration drove housing prices, 2020 should have been the cheapest time to buy in 20 years. Instead, prices surged. Here is the data government after government refuse to acknowledge. Over the past 10 years the population grew by 16 per cent but the number of dwellings grew by 19 per cent. We're building homes faster than the population is growing. That's what the numbers are saying. It's not me. It's not Senator Roberts. It's no-one else here. It's the numbers. It's the facts. Over the longer 20-year period, capturing the entire modern housing crisis, the population grew by 34 per cent and dwellings grew by 39 per cent. The housing crisis exists despite immigration, not because of it. It exists because governments protected investor loopholes like negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts, ignored the supply issue and all the planning and infrastructure that goes into it, and handed housing over to the property market. Again, immigrants didn't create this crisis. Politicians—or rather, bad policies—did.

Myth No. 3—immigrants don't share Australian values. Immigrants are the only group in this country required to prove their loyalty through tests, paperwork, declarations and character assessments. They sign up to values that many politicians themselves don't model. What value is more Australian than working super hard, contributing to society and giving our kids a better future?

Myth No. 4—immigrants are taking jobs or straining services. I mean, come on—they run the services. If we stopped migration tomorrow, hospitals would collapse, construction would grind to a halt, servos would shut, mines would close and the aged-care sector would fall over completely. There'd be nobody to care for your granny when she soils herself. Immigration is not breaking the system; it is holding it together.

Myth No. 5—migrants are a security threat. This fear is being imported directly from Mar-a-Lago. Through you, Acting Deputy President Sterle, Senator Hanson has returned from a Halloween party with Gina Rinehart and her new best buddy Donald Trump, whose administration is now bizarrely ordering the US embassy in Canberra to collect migrant crime data to fuel a global culture war that we're seeing run rampant around the world. Astonishingly, One Nation is happy to bring Trump's playbook into this chamber and do his bidding for him. If you ever want to know who a politician is truly working for, look at who they spend most of their time with. While working Australians were wondering how to pay their next bill, Senator Hanson was busy chasing selfies with foreign billionaires.

Has Senator Hanson ever introduced a bill to crack down on supermarket price gouging or cost-of-living pressures? Has she introduced a bill to tackle negative gearing or capital gains tax discount, or a bill to force the wealthy—you know, her billionaire friends—to pay their fair share? She's always ready to target migrants, Muslims and multicultural communities.

Senator Bell, you have a point of order?

I just ask that Senator Payman address her comments to the chair when she's speaking about Senator Hanson.

Senator Bell, I see no point of order. The senator has referred through the chair on a number of occasions.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I think I struck a nerve there. Anyway, back to this bill. This bill is not designed to fix problems. As I have outlined through those facts, very calmly and factually, it is designed to distract Australians from addressing those who are actually causing this problem and who are responsible. The moment Australians direct their anger upwards to the billionaires and all the vested interests who actually created this mess, politicians who serve those billionaires would have a serious problem. Working people, whether they look like me or whether they wear high-vis, a hard hat or a business shirt, have a lot more in common with each other than with the billionaires who bankroll these fear campaigns. Immigrants didn't privatise public assets. They didn't sell off social housing. They didn't freeze wages. Blaming migrants won't lower your rent, put food on your table or put a roof over your head.

Decent Australians deserve better than fear campaigns like this, dressed up as policy that somehow miraculously changes systemic problems without the actual reforms that we need to tackle. This bill is divisive, it's very misleading and it's entirely disconnected from economic reality. Once again, it should be rejected. I implore all my Senate colleagues to think very carefully, to look at what modern day Australia looks like, to reflect on who you're representing in your constituencies and to reject this bill as it should be rejected.

I've watched the fabric of Australian life stretch and tear under the weight of Labor's disastrous mass immigration policies, policies the Australian people no longer stand behind. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 represents a beacon of democracy in an era where the voices of everyday Australians are being drowned out. One Nation has been asking for this since 2018, and it remains as relevant as ever, calling for a simple question to be put to the Australian people. Should Australia adopt a policy of zero net migration for a period of five years?

How it has come to this is beyond me. Look about our cities. Rentals have a hundred people showing up, scrambling for shelter. Australians are suffering. Why not let Australians decide what they want for the future of their country? Let the young decide, as they stare down million-dollar mortgages for a dog box 30 kilometres from town. Let the families decide, as both parents have to work full time or work two jobs and are forced to put their babies into day care just to afford a family home.

This chamber has shamefully voted down this plebiscite twice already, with Labor and the coalition turning their backs on the very people they claim to represent. As Senator Hanson herself said when she first asked for a plebiscite all the way back in 2018, this bill is simply saying: give Australians a say. That's all we want. We want to listen to the people, but listening seems to be the last thing this government is willing to do. In my home state of Western Australia, I see the shattered lives left in the wake of mass immigration—the people and families living in tents or in the cars or on the streets. These people are not abstract statistics; they are Australians that have had their dreams crushed. With rental vacancies at a dismal one per cent in Western Australia, families are forced to compete fiercely for shelter against the waves of mass immigration unleashed by Labor. Rents have skyrocketed by 43.8 per cent in five years, adding thousands to annual costs for struggling families.

This is no accident. It is the direct consequence of Labor's reckless policies, flooding the market with record net overseas migration while ignoring the iron laws of supply and demand. In the 12 months to September 2025, we saw net long-term arrivals of over 468,000—the equivalent of adding the population of Hobart to the country twice. Labor have stuck their heads in the sand, fabricating narratives about how record demand isn't fuelling the housing explosion—that you need this sky-high immigration. They would have you believe that we need more skilled workers to build the houses we desperately need, despite their immigration plan being found to include only 12 per cent of genuinely skilled migrants. That 12 per cent is all skilled migrants, not just construction. The actual numbers in construction are minuscule. I have a background in construction, and I can assure you tradies are not sitting around waiting for a phone call from the Labor government. This government will spin the truth like a top. They're happy to gaslight their own citizens to avoid asking this simple question we are proposing. Productivity suffers too, as low skilled workers outpace capital investment, depriving the workers of the Australia of the investment they need to be productive, leading to the real wages of Australians falling back to 2011 levels.

Our kids are no longer doing as well as generations that came before them, but we are told time and time again by Labor how much they care and how much they are doing for young people. So why would they not pull the single most important lever to kids their future back? The reasons they pump immigration are glaringly obvious. Polling from Redbridge Group showed that immigrants overwhelmingly support Labor. Knowing that, they'll keep the taps on. They are happy to burn down the country we love and rule over the ashes. This plebiscite would cut through the political fog. It will leave no doubt over what the Australian people want to see from their elected members of parliament. The members of this chamber need to remember that they are here to carry out the will of the people. If you are sick of hearing us speak on immigration numbers, support this plebiscite. If Australians agree with your policies, support this plebiscite. When we get the answer that Australians are done with mass immigration, cease and desist your economic and cultural suicide.

This plebiscite is not just a vote; it is a reclamation of sovereignty, a chance for the people to demand accountability from the government that has long since forgotten who is in charge here. It doesn't matter what experts or economists think or say. It doesn't matter what politicians in here say. Heck, it doesn't matter what I say. It matters what the Australian public says. One Nation is committed to this fight, because when Australians speak we listen.

The Greens oppose the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 . It's a bill that is, in its initial drafting, embarrassingly nonsensical. I think it's the third time they've brought this legislation forward to get knocked on the head, and they didn't even have the wit to redraft the question that they initially put in their 2018 draft. So what's the question that One Nation wanted to put to the Australian public on migration? They wanted to put this:

From December 2005 to December 2016 Australia's population grew from 20.5 million to 24.4 million; 62% of this growth was from net overseas migration. Do you think the current rate of immigration to Australia is too high?

They are giving us figures from a decade ago. We're going to send that out to every Australian and then ask, 'Well, do you think the current rate of immigration is too high?' You couldn't make up the stuff that comes from this cowboy Ma and Pa Kettle outfit that calls itself One Nation.

Maybe they were desperate and embarrassed because their leader has been so utterly nationally shamed for coming in here, in that grossly disrespectful, racist, appalling, divisive way, wearing a burqa. Maybe they were so embarrassed by that that they just wanted to rush any kind of reheated vomit up, bring it in and put it into this chamber again. That's what this is: it's the reheated One Nation vomit of division, anti-immigration and Islamophobia. That's what this is. Let's not pretend it's anything else.

They want to have a plebiscite, and they say they believe in the Australian people, but what's the outcome of their plebiscite? Absolutely bloody nothing. They want to have a big national plebiscite, the end result of which is that nothing happens. That's One Nation all over, isn't it? In the shadow of their leader's appalling burqa fiasco in here, they bring a reheated 2018 bill, they don't even bother changing the wording of it, and then the end result of the plebiscite is absolutely bloody nothing. It has no binding effect. These guys are just a bunch of amateur performance racists who come in here. That's who One Nation is: amateur performance racists.

Senator Bell on a point of order?

Point of order: that's clearly an improper personal reflection on the One Nation senators. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Yes. I think, Senator Shoebridge, you should withdraw that comment and be mindful of your language.

I withdraw it.

Thank you.

This legislation is an amateur racist attempt to divide Australia. That's what this legislation is. It comes from a bunch of cowboys who play on Islamophobia and division. Do you want to know why we've got a housing crisis in this country? Do you want to know why, as the coalition says, there aren't enough tradespeople to build houses? I'll tell you why there aren't enough tradespeople to build houses: because Labor and the coalition privatised TAFE across the country, destroyed TAFEs across the country and destroyed the pipeline of public TAFEs providing skilled trades to the country. That's why we've got a shortage of trades: because Labor and the coalition, in their neoliberal push to privatise anything that's not nailed down, privatised TAFE and screwed the Australian future. Not only that—the coalition and Labor between them have sacked pretty much every apprentice from every public department in the country. They don't employ apprentices, they don't have public TAFE, and then they come in and wonder why there aren't any tradespeople to build houses. It's because of their neoliberal privatisation crap.

And then One Nation, the Nationals and Labor want to blame the housing shortage on migration. They privatise TAFE and destroy the pipeline for tradespeople, and then they come in here and dog-whistle on migration. Labor and the coalition want to talk about a housing crisis. Even in the answers that Labor gives to the inevitable racist questions that come from One Nation about migration—linking migration to a housing crisis and talking about record migration—they validate One Nation's racist attack on migration, because they never challenge the attack on migration. Labor always comes in here says, 'Oh, we've got a housing crisis—we know that—and we're reducing net migration.' Well, I call rubbish to that, because the reason we've got a housing crisis is that Labor and the coalition refuse to build public housing. The reason we've got a housing crisis is that Labor and the coalition think the answer to the housing crisis and young people having no homes is to give discounts and tax credits to the property industry, to try to manipulate the capital gains tax system and to reduce the home deposit to five per cent and balloon out housing prices. They will do everything they possibly can in the face of a housing crisis—and we know we've got a record housing crisis—except for what the Greens and young people have been calling for for years now, which is to build public houses, build public TAFE, train tradespeople, give people a home, invest in hospitals and transport, give people a future they can believe in, pass environmental laws that give young people a hope that their future will be protected, and reject the racist dog whistling from One Nation. That's the answer—build public housing, build public infrastructure, build public institutions, train people in public TAFE, tackle the climate crisis, fight racism and put the racist rhetoric from One Nation in the bin, where it belongs.

We're surrounded by noise, a deafening drumbeat of division and fear about who belongs here and how many are too many. It's a national debate fuelled by mainland rhetoric, but, on our vibrant little island, we have a clear eyed perspective. Our future, our comfort and our very ability to function depend on a simple, often unseen truth.

I want to share a story about a perfectly ordinary day to illustrate this point. Take a look around you and imagine this very realistic scenario: you're unwell, perhaps on your own at home, and you need to go to the hospital. You can't drive, so you call a rideshare service. Your Uber driver picks you up, navigating the winding roads quickly and safely, and drops you off right at the door of the emergency department. You arrive at A&E to be greeted by the triage nurse. Your symptoms concern the nurse, and she expedites your care to visit the onsite GP, who runs the necessary checks. Fortunately, you check out okay and are sent home. Exhausted, you grab a taxi waiting out the front of the hospital, who takes you home. You arrive, too tired to cook but hungry enough to eat a horse and chase the jockey, so you order a takeaway. It's delivered to your door by a friendly delivery rider, allowing you to curl up for the night for a recovery at home.

What do you think the profound point I'm trying to make here is? It's pretty obvious, isn't it? Every single person I mentioned in that story was a migrant, and their roles, from the essential frontline health staff to the people ensuring your transport and sustenance, are vital to the smooth running of your life and mine. This reliance on migrants, both skilled and unskilled, is not a coincidence. It's the backbone of our community and our economy, yet we still hear the tiresome base-level arguments. The angle peddled by some is simple and, frankly, lazy. 'We don't want this one; we want that one.' 'We don't want this many; we want no-one.' This is not how a modern economy works, and it is certainly not how we build a strong, compassionate society in Tasmania. It's time the banging of the anti-mass-migration drum was drowned out by the sound of construction, enterprise and care.

We don't need to waste taxpayer dollars on a plebiscite. They tried to introduce this bill, the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill, in 2018, and its message is still falling flat. It's no question that migrants add to our one nation and don't detract from it. In my experience—and, I believe, in the experience of most Tasmanians—the work ethic, the commitment to family and the profound desire to engage and interact shown by migrants who have chosen to settle in Tasmania are both admirable and deeply patriotic. They are not taking jobs; they are filling gaps, creating new markets and sustaining our entire service economy.

Tasmania has a crucial choice. We can choose isolation, fear and stagnation, or we can choose growth, prosperity and, above all, kindness. Our aging demographic means we are critically dependent on new blood and new skills. Every migrant who arrives here is an investment in our future. To every new Tasmanian—to the doctors, the drivers, the delivery drivers, the small-business owners and the factory workers—I say: I and many of my fellow Tasmanians appreciate you, we value your services and you are welcome in our island state. Let us commit to leading the nation, not in division but in radical, necessary inclusion.

If you travel around our great country, you cannot help but be confronted by the increasing number of tent cities and people living rough—Australians sleeping in cars, workers living in tents in public parks and whole families relying on public facilities for their shower and toilet. It is true that some of these people are stricken with substance abuse, which is another terrible blight on society and has its own enormous challenges, but many more of these people living in tents are not people disengaged from society. Many are working. A lot of those kids are trying to get to school every day. They simply can't find a rental that they can afford. You inflict rapid immigration on a country, you have a foreign student intake that, per capita, is the highest in the world, and the results are entirely predictable.

The mismanagement of immigration from this Labor government over the past three years has arguably been their worst. Over the past few years, Australia has added approximately one million migrants in its first two years of the Labor government. We have former students on bridging and post-study visas included, and it's widely understood international students are close to 800,000. Bob Birrell and his colleagues from the Australian Population Research Institute put out a paper this month that goes into the details around how temporary entry migration is driving Australia's net overseas migration surge, whether the size of the migrant growth has been exaggerated or not and if a populist agenda will alienate most voters.

The bill we are debating today seeks to give Australians a say on the high, unsustainable level of migration under the Labor Party government. Australians want to have a say. They have taken to the streets in their tens of thousands to say enough is enough. But a plebiscite model is not the pathway to do that, and so we won't be voting for this bill. But I absolutely support the need to give Australians say in what a sustainable level of migration and what isn't.

Debate adjourned.

(Quorum formed)

The committee is considering the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, moved by Senator Allman-Payne.

I believe that, when we got interrupted by the hard marker in the last committee stage, the question that I had asked the minister was: How long will people have to wait? What is the timeline for the introduction of the six-year limit on debt recovery?

I can't give a timeframe. I'm sorry, Senator Allman-Payne. But work will be undertaken by the Minister for Social Services, and once that is finalised, if there are any further amendments that are required, it would have to come here via legislation. I would say that we are trying to do a lot in the social security space, including on debt reform, which is contained in this bill—the first big stages of that—which is, I think, a serious and genuine attempt by the government to address some of these problems that have been longstanding.

If it suits the convenience of the chamber, I would propose that I ask questions on some other amendments that I will foreshadow I'll be moving so that we can consider each of those amendments as a block towards the end of the questions.

Sure.

In that case, I want to foreshadow that I'll also be moving an amendment on sheet 3490. This relates to the timeframe for which the resolution scheme will apply. At the moment, the resolution scheme in the bill limits eligibility for debts impacted from 2003 onwards. However, in November 2024, officials from the Department of Social Services advised the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee that the unlawful use of income apportionment predates 2003 amendments, and it actually dates back to at least 1991. So my question to the minister is: why is the government refusing to provide compensation for those impacted prior to 2003?

The changes that have since been found to be unlawful were made in September 2003. It's clear from this date that income apportionment was unlawful for most payment types. Prior to 2003, the use of income apportionment and its legal status is less clear, so the scheme is open to debts accrued after 2003.

Minister, many Labor senators in their second reading speeches in relation to this bill promised that this bill was a bill of fairness and dignity. Does the government believe that it's fair to prevent the 1.6 million people with debts impacted by income apportionment between 1 July 1991 to 19 September 2003 from accessing resolution payments?

The view of the government is that, prior to those changes being made in September 2003, the legal status of the application or the use of income apportionment is less clear. I should say that decisions from pre-2003 can also still be reviewed. If a decision affected by income apportionment is reviewed in the future, it will be reviewed in line with the method in this bill.

I foreshadow that I'll be moving an amendment on sheet 3498 which relates to the duration of the resolution scheme. Minister, when we spoke with advocates such as Economic Justice Australia, they raised significant concerns that the timeframe for the scheme being only 12 months is insufficient. They talked about the fact that this scheme will overlap with compensation arrangements for robodebt and that for many people this will potentially cause confusion. They've also talked about the fact that, because somebody who accesses a resolution payment is waiving future liability or their future claims, they will require legal advice in relation to this. Therefore, they have indicated that limiting the scheme to only one year means that many people will potentially not be able to access it, and that they—despite the fact that there's been talk of additional funding—will not necessarily have the capacity to advise the number of people that will require legal advice.

Minister, given that unlawful income apportionment took place over decades, why is the government limiting access to the scheme to one year? I note that this is in circumstances where the department is still able to raise debts back to whenever. We're not introducing a six-year limit on debt recovery. We have a scheme that has gone on over decades unlawfully, and yet, for people to get a resolution payment, we're saying that you have to get it in 12 months or you miss out. Minister, why are you limiting the scheme to only 12 months?

The government's view on this—and we will be opposing this amendment, Senator Allman-Payne, when you move it—is that the extension of the scheme for another two years would come at significant administrative costs, and those costs are not insubstantial.

We are going to support ACOSS and Economic Justice Australia financially. Both will be given $400,000 each to ensure that the messages about the scheme and people's eligibility for it is widely disseminated. Services Australia will also write to everyone affected by income-apportionment-related debt recovery pauses to notify them that their debt activity is recommencing and let them know about the resolution of the scheme and the system that we're putting in place.

I'm sure, and I know this from working with Services Australia, that they do try to be as flexible as they can within the parameters that have been set for the policy. But I'm sure that in the situation that someone's disadvantaged by income apportionment—not everybody was, so let's be clear about that. We think it's about a third that might have had a negative debt raised, and that will certainly be the focus of the scheme. We think one year provides the right time for that. We're expecting the scheme to commence in January 2026, and all applications made within that one year—it's not that it's all got to be resolved—so January 2026 to January 2027 is the appropriate amount of time.

Minister, the fact that some people, due to income apportionment, would have paid a debt that was less than what was owed is often referred to in giving the reasons for why this scheme needs to be limited. But sampling has shown that at least two-thirds of people actually paid more than was required. That was the evidence we heard in the inquiry.

The second point I want to make is about this idea that it's going to be at significant administrative cost. Why it is that every single time we talk about welfare and income support, we're always prioritising cost to the government over the cost to people who are subject to unlawful practices? We know that some people have paid thousands more than they should have and that has catastrophic impacts on people, and it's unlawful. So why is it that the government continually uses the excuse that it's a cost to government when it is people on income support, the most vulnerable people in our communities, who continually pay the price for government and department unlawful conduct?

My response to that is—and ministers did have detailed discussions about this—we would prefer that the money available that we have provided under both debt reform and the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme went to people and wasn't chewed up in administrative and other costs. Part of this is wiping the debts, which is a cost to the government. It is a cost to the budget, even though I accept it has an individual impact. We have to account for the costs because it's required under the rules around how we put budgets together. We have looked at this. I want more of it to go there, just like in robodebt. I wanted more to go there than went to some of the legal processes around robodebt. That's what the government is trying to do here. We want to minimise administrative and running costs and maximise repayments to individuals.

But Minister, isn't it the case that rather than tackle the hard things like making one in three big corporations who pay no tax, pay tax—rather than having the courage to stand up to them and make them pay their fair share so that there's more money in the bucket to pay the people who have unlawfully made overpayments, and as I said, there are people who paid thousands more than they should have—the resolution scheme caps at $600. Why is the government always taking the easy out and making the most vulnerable in our country either get less compensation or pay more, rather than tackling the hard stuff? Why don't you tax the one in three big corporations who aren't paying any so that you've more in the tin, to make sure that everybody gets the help and the compensation they deserve?

I take that as a comment. This is a constant area of discussion we have across this chamber. They're unrelated. This is about a scheme that stopped in 2020, and the government is trying to make it right through the passage of this bill, through setting up a resolution scheme and through the small debt waivers. We are trying to make a difference to exactly the people you are talking about.

Minister, I don't accept that it's unrelated, because, when budgetary constraints are put forward as reasons, then it's legitimate to ask the question: why don't you seek the money elsewhere? But, given that, I'll move on. I also want to foreshadow that I'm going to be moving amendments on sheet 3486, which seeks to increase the threshold for debt waivers from $250 to $440. The reason for this amendment is because, as ACOSS and other stakeholders have submitted, had CPI indexation of the $200 threshold been in place when it was introduced, it would be over $440 now. Minister, why has the government only increased the debt waiver to $250 when, as ACOSS and others have said, CPI increases would mean that, if you were going to keep up with inflation, it would be at $440 now?

We have a disagreement with the Greens on this one. Your amendment would increase the small debt waiver to $440 rather than $250. From the government's point of view, this would result in many cost-effective debts not being recovered, and it would significantly increase the overall costs of the bill to the budget. The existing small debt waiver thresholds are $50 and $200, depending on payment type and whether the person is currently receiving a payment. The $50 and $200 thresholds were set in the 1990s and reflected what the parliament considered to be cost effective at that time, so they haven't been adjusted since. By setting the new threshold at $250, the government believes we can get the balance right, recognising people generally engage with the social security system in good faith and ensuring good, responsible fiscal management to the budget overall. The new threshold of $250 reflects a more up-to-date understanding of what is cost effective to recover and simplifies the existing two-threshold systems. Of course, at this part of the bill, the debt reform and waivers do come with a forward estimates impact of $166.7 million. Importantly, the new amount will be indexed against the CPI each year to maintain its relative value.

I'm also foreshadowing that I'm going to move an amendment on sheet 3489. This amendment seeks to remove the phrases 'knowingly' and 'justified' in relation to the debt waivers for debts caused by instances of domestic violence and financial coercion. This is off the back of advice received from Economic Justice Australia and other advocates. They have significant concerns about the inclusion, particularly, of the phrase 'justified in the circumstances'. To take from Economic Justice Australia's submission in relation to this bill, they say:

The concept of an action being "justified" is not common within the social security law, so there is very little Our concern is that this will, in time and with relevant jurisprudence, become an additional hurdle for victim-survivors attempting to access waiver in circumstances of family and domestic violence, contrary to the intention of these reforms.

Economic Justice Australia recommends repealing paragraph A from each of the special circumstances waiver provisions. They say:

… repealing paragraph (a) would not likely lead to debts being waived in circumstances of fraud or other dishonesty. While waiver may be a legally available option in those circumstances, a decision maker would still be required to weigh the circumstances as a whole, and a finding of fraud is likely to significantly weigh against the exercise of a waiver. Guidance to this effect could be provided in policy documents, including the Social Security Guide.

In their submission to the Senate inquiry, Economic Justice Australia gave case studies of where the inclusion of these phrases, 'knowingly' and 'justified' could in fact lead to adverse outcomes for people experiencing family and domestic violence.

So my question to the minister is this: given that Economic Justice Australia, single-parent advocates and others have highlighted their serious concerns about this aspect of those debt waiver provisions, will the government agree to this amendment to make sure that there are no potential adverse outcomes for women seeking debt waivers who are experiencing family and domestic violence?

The government won't be supporting this amendment. The amendment would remove the requirement for decision-makers to consider the circumstances that gave rise to the debt when applying the special circumstances waiver. It would allow debts to be waived under the special circumstances waiver, even in the cases of clear fraud, and protecting against fraud is a longstanding feature of the special circumstances waiver. Parliament has never intended for the special circumstances waiver to be available where a person sets out to mislead or defraud the government, and removing the false statement requirement from the special circumstances waiver would allow future decision-makers to apply the waiver in this way. It is important that the provision is clear in its intent that this should not happen. The government believes the bill, as drafted, balances the need for decision-makers to have greater flexibility in applying the waiver in complex circumstances like the ones that you talk about, Senator Allman-Payne, like financial abuse and coercion, while recognising the need to prevent debt waivers from being exploited.

In relation to the use of the language 'justified in the circumstances' in the bill and why that has been used, the government believes that the test of 'justified' is more appropriate in the context of this legislation, as the decision around the waiver should be based on the subjective experiences of the individual—particularly in circumstances that you outline, Senator Allman-Payne. It matches the subjective test of whether special circumstances exist, and the interpretation of 'justified', for the purposes of the special circumstances waiver, will be supported by detail in the explanatory memorandum, the guides to social policy law and, as you say, Services Australia's operational guidance.

I'm seeking the guidance of the chamber and the chair. Would it suit the chamber for me to just go through and move each of the Greens' further amendments, so that the chair can then put each question?

We do still have a question before the chair, which is on the amendments that you moved, (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, so it might be best if we deal with that one first, and then, if you want to seek the chamber's approval to move other ones subsequent to that, either separately or together, we can do that. There being no further contributions on the current question before the chair, I will put that question. The question before the chair is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3487, moved by Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 22 (lines 6 to 29), omit the item, substitute:

1 Paragraph 101(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 23 (lines 2 to 25), omit the item, substitute:

2 Paragraph 199(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 23 (line 27) to page 24 (line 19), omit the item, substitute:

3 Paragraph 1237AAD(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 21) to page 25 (line 7), omit the item, substitute:

4 Paragraph 43F(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

The question is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 3489 be agreed to.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3486 together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 26 (line 13), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 26 (line 27), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(3) Schedule 2, item 11, page 28 (line 3), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(4) Schedule 2, item 12, page 28 (line 21), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

(5) Schedule 2, item 14, page 29 (line 5), omit "$250", substitute "$440".

The question is that amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 3486 be agreed to.

I move:

(1) Schedule 3, item 2, page 31 (line 21), omit "20 September 2003", substitute "1 July 1991".

Statement pursuant to the order of   the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the period during which debts may relate for resolution payments under the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme. This expands eligibility for resolution payments, in turn increasing expenditure under the appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation proposed by Schedule 4 to the bill, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

The question is that the Greens request for an amendment on sheet 3490 be agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3498:

(1) Schedule 3, item 3, page 35 (after line 29), at the end of the item, add:

Limits on determination

(5) The determination must not have the effect of preventing an application under the scheme being made merely because the application is made on or after a particular day that occurs within 3 years after the commencement of this subitem.

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3498 be agreed to.

by leave–I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 3497 together:

(1) Schedule 5, item 10, page 40 (line 21), at the end of subsection 38MA(3), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(2) Schedule 5, page 41 (after line 3), after item 12, insert:

12A At the end of subsection 38N(2)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (3)(b).

(3) Schedule 5, item 38, page 45 (line 30), at the end of subsection 57GIA(4), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (5)(b).

(4) Schedule 5, page 46 (after line 10), after item 40, insert:

40A At the end of subsection 57GJ(3)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(5) Schedule 5, item 63, page 50 (line 19), at the end of subsection 278BA(3), add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the AFP Minister is informed under paragraph (4)(b).

(6) Schedule 5, page 50 (after line 31), after item 65, insert:

65A At the end of subsection 278C(2)

Add:

; (c) the advice of the Human Services Secretary of which the ASIO Minister is informed under paragraph (3)(b).

These amendments reflect something fairly basic, that the minister should actually read the advice they have sought from Services Australia before they make a decision about whether to cut someone's social security. This matter is just too important to leave to chance. What's at stake is the welfare of that person's children and dependents. The government will argue that there is a principle in administrative law that the minister take into account all relevant considerations before it makes a decision. In this case, they will argue that since the minister requests information about a person's dependents, they would have to consider it before a decision is made.

But how is that going to be enforced? There is literally no avenue for a merits review in this bill. A person cannot ask for a merits review. They can't make an application to the ART. The only recourse would be to take the Commonwealth to the Federal Court if a person feels the minister does not take into account all relevant considerations before the decision to strip that person of their social security benefits. I think we can probably all agree that someone on income support will not be taking the Commonwealth to the Federal Court on behalf of their dependents.

It's better that we just outline the relevant considerations in this schedule so that we can be assured that when the minister exercises this power, then we know they have not only requested information but they have also read it and considered it. And even if this amendment were accepted, I would still have significant reservations about the entirety of the schedule. For one, Services Australia may not know about a person's dependents. We heard from Senator Thorpe yesterday that in First Nations communities, where this new power will no doubt be used, 'dependents' covers a broad range of relationships. The range of dependents is just not going to be known by Services Australia, and I think it's unreasonable to expect officers of the agency to be aware of all the dependents of someone.

I maintain that schedule 5, the schedule that was drafted between the end of the inquiry and this bill passing through the House, should actually go to an inquiry. But I ask the government to nonetheless accept this very basic safeguard and ensure that the minister cannot make a decision that could potentially put the welfare of children at risk without having considered information from Services Australia.

Minister, can I please take you to something you said yesterday. You said that once a person is no longer on the run, that once they are caught and issues are resolved, that the person's payment resumes. Can you point me to this clause in the bill? All I can see is that the payment is cancelled—not suspended, cancelled—and I understand there is a big difference between suspension and cancellation. That is according to advice provided to me by Economic Justice Australia. Please can you clarify for the Senate what the situation is: whether the affected person would, following cancellation, have to reapply for the payment they were on, or is it that the payment is just restored, as you say?

I think I used the words 'eligibility for the payment' when I was talking, I think with Senator Shoebridge. An individual in this set of circumstances, once the benefit restriction notice had ended in that they were in touch with the authorities and there was no outstanding warrant, would be eligible to reapply for that payment. That's core work for Services Australia.

I will just touch on a couple of other issues that Senator Pocock touched on in moving his amendment. We won't be supporting the amendment, and that's because everything that Senator Pocock seeks, notwithstanding his general opposition to schedule 5, is covered in the bill. Before the minister makes a determination, the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs must seek advice from Services Australia, and, in seeking that advice, would identify any dependants. I can't think of a situation where someone on an income support payment—that it wouldn't be known to Services Australia that there were dependants. That would be part of the eligibility to get on the payment in the first place, because dependants are a critical factor to consider about what the payment type is and the level of the payment.

It's not just dependants; it's whole families.

Can I just deal with this, Senator Thorpe. I know people are trying to make it about a population of individuals more generally. As I've said, this is a very specific set of circumstances that would trigger the benefit restriction notice. What Senator Pocock says he wants to achieve with this amendment is already provided for in the bill. Administrative law requires the home affairs minister to take all relevant considerations into account when considering the likely effect of cancellation, including on a person's dependants. This includes the advice home affairs is required to seek from Services Australia.

I also provided, the other day, that, if there was an issuing of a benefit restriction notice on a particular individual, Services Australia, through that, would of course allow payments to go to another family member in that situation if there were dependants that would be impacted by that. I would also say, if a person who is accused of a serious violent or sexual crime is evading arrest and receiving a payment for their children, there would be other ways for Services Australia—and other concerns, I imagine, from the authorities—to make sure that the children and dependants are cared for and provided for.

In relation to the merit review, when looking at it in relation to the benefit restriction notice regime, this is a decision obviously made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs as part of the executive government, not government officials. This is consistent with the seriousness of these decisions, but there is also a practical consideration to this decision. It would be hard to imagine an example where a person who is evading arrest would be able to seek a merit review of that decision without turning themselves in or the authorities becoming aware of where that person was. That is a practical consideration here. I understand that there's concern around schedule 5, but they would be the points I would raise in relation to Senator Pocock's amendment.

Thank you, Minister. From discussions yesterday, we learnt that schedule 5 was concocted over a few days between the committee report, which didn't get to look at anything in schedule 5, and this being introduced and swiftly passed by the other place. As you can hear, the crossbench has a lot of questions about the impact of these laws and the ability of the minister to essentially determine that someone is guilty before they are put before a court. We've heard many from the government try and say: 'Those on the crossbench are on the side of rapists and murderers. They are standing in the way of this very sensible move'—that has had no scrutiny.

You point the question at us, but we're listening to the experts. We're listening to the Law Council of Australia. We're listening to ACOSS. We're listening to Aboriginal Women's Legal Services, who have very serious concerns and questions about schedule 5. What a way to make laws—rushing something through and pointing the finger at those who dare question these provisions that have been roundly slammed by legal experts and by frontline service organisations across this country.Over 100 of them signed an open letter saying: 'Hang on. This needs more scrutiny. This is not the precedent we want to set.'

At the same time, we can't even understand what sort of problem you're trying to solve here. I'm no expert in this space, but you'd think, if someone is on the run, you'd probably want them to be withdrawing money so you can see where they are. You're looking for them, but you're going to cut off their money. This makes no sense. You surely want them to be going to an ATM. I just do not understand what the Labor Party is trying to do here. These are the sorts of things you railed against in opposition and said you wouldn't touch. Now you're in government and it's full steam ahead with them.

Minister, given the very real concerns raised by stakeholders who have skin in the game, who know their stuff and who are working on the front lines or are legal experts and are worried about the precedent that this sets, will you, after this passes the Senate—because I think we're under no illusion that it won't pass—at least allow a Senate committee to look at schedule 5 and to inquire into it after its passing or at least ensure the human rights committee can look at this? We live in a country with no overarching human rights act. We know that. We know that there's a very strong case for one. But surely the Albanese Labor government is not too scared of scrutiny from a Senate committee or the human rights committee. Minister, can you commit to at least offering schedule 5 some scrutiny and allowing these stakeholders to have their say post this bill passing the Senate?

The issue of whether or not there's a committee inquiry is a matter for the chamber. The government won't be supporting your amendment. We think all of these issues can be examined through existing processes—for example, estimates. There is nothing to stop someone coming in and saying, 'How many times has this power been used?' and examining that question or the concerns that you and others have raised. I'm not aware of who's been pointing the finger. I certainly have not been accusing anyone who is opposing this bill of those—

An honourable senator: The minister has.

Well, I have not been, and I think the debate in here has been very civilised. I have been trying to assure those with the concerns that the government has an answer for them, and I have been very clear about the intent and use of this particular power.

Senator Pocock raises the concerns about being able to track somebody by the use of ATMs. This has been informed by AFP, of course. We take their advice in this. They are the ones who undertake and would be undertaking this, through having an outstanding warrant and looking for the people. We are taking their advice with this, and we are taking the advice of other agencies that it has been a gap identified in the social security legislation that needed to be addressed. It is an extremely rare set of circumstances that would find this power being used, because it has taken until this point for this problem to be identified. That can give you an indication that, in the history of the relevant social security legislation, it has only been identified this year that this issue needed to be addressed by legislation.

I have sought to address the majority of the concerns that have been raised here through the committee process. I accept that there are others, including the crossbench and organisations, that have concerns about it, but this is something that would be used in the most exceptional circumstances, for the reasons I have read into the Hansard: where people have been charged with violent and/or sexual offences for which, if found guilty, they would serve an imprisonment period of seven years or more. I've gone through the list of offences that would qualify for that. I accept that people are trying to make it about something it isn't, but I'm standing here today to tell you about exactly the set of circumstances in which this would apply. They are exceptional and rare, and we are acting on the advice of all of the agencies that brief us. Yes, we are listening to the concerns that are raised, which is why we have sought the involvement of those organisations in helping shape some of the guidance around the particular use of this power, as a genuine sign of goodwill that we want to work with those and address the concerns that they have raised.

Thank you, Minister, for that explanation; that is helpful. If it was informed by the AFP and other relevant stakeholders, could you please just explain to the Senate again why this was drafted and put into motion in the week between the committee reporting—who had never heard anything about this potential schedule 5—and it being introduced and passed in the House within a couple of days. What's up with the timing there, if this is actually something that seems to have had some sort of consultation and a recommendation from law enforcement? We know that those processes do take time. So I'm just curious. Could you explain the timing to the Senate. The committee reports on a bill that doesn't contain schedule 5; in a week, the government somehow gets schedule 5 drafted and attached to the bill; it passes the lower house; you want no further scrutiny.

I've answered this, to some degree. I certainly became aware of the problem, and discussions were had across government, in September, I think. I know you will try and build this up as some timetable that shows that the government was trying to avoid scrutiny, and it's just not true. We were trying to deal with an issue that had been identified, that had come to our attention.

Dezi Freeman—that's it!

I'm not referring to individuals. An issue was identified by agencies, including the AFP, Services Australia, the Department of Social Services and AGD, and there was Education, though I'm not sure when Education came into it. We sought advice and we had to make some decisions about that. And that does take time.

This issue didn't come to us on our request. We didn't dream something up and say, 'Oh, great; we're going to draft another schedule to that bill and get it in there, and try and avoid anything.' That's the proposition you're putting. That is simply incorrect—absolutely incorrect—because I was involved in many of those discussions. This is not something we sought out.

In government, you do occasionally have problems that land in your lap that you've got to respond to and deal with, and they do take time, and, when they cover a number of agencies, you go through the standard process. And that's what we've done.

It aligned, as it turns out. It was under consideration, at least, from my point of view, throughout September, but there wasn't agreement on how to deal with it until we were able to finalise that and take all the necessary advice from our agencies.

People should be under no illusion as to what is happening here. We've just been told that this came up in September.

No. I said that two days ago. I've been clear.

The government has told us, over the course of the debate on this bill, that this came up as an issue in September. We have had multiple weeks of either Senate sittings or time that could have been devoted to an inquiry into schedule 5 since that time. If the government realised in September, but before the original inquiry into this bill was to take place, that it needed to insert this schedule, it could have sought to send that off to an additional hearing. But that wasn't done.

That is not what I said. Don't verbal me!

The government also had the choice not to put schedule 5 in this bill and to put it in a separate bill that could have had an urgent inquiry, because that happens in this place all the time. Things come in to the parliament urgently, and, on a Friday morning after a sitting week, there's an urgent hearing, or there's a hearing at 8 am before the day starts, to inquire into something that deserves scrutiny. So the suggestion by the government that there was no time to give adequate scrutiny to schedule 5 is a furphy. It's convenient. Schedule 5 offends the rule of law. We have been told that by numerous legal experts and the Law Council of Australia. Schedule 5 infringes on people's rights. I'm sorry, but I don't think the police telling you that they need this thing is sufficient.

That is not what I said. Don't verbal me!

We got told during this debate that organisations that are critical of schedule 5 were told it was happening, and now that it is happening—and it will happen, because Labor, who loves to carry on when the Greens vote with the coalition, is about to vote with the coalition on a bill that contains provisions that offend the rule of law and trample on people's human rights, without having any inquiry or scrutiny. That is a fact. You should be ashamed of yourselves. What is the point of Labor? What are you for? You are definitely not who you used to be, and that is on full display in this bill. It is a typical example of slotting in something that is semi-good along with something that is really egregiously appalling and hoping that it'll get through.

Make no mistake: the Greens will be voting against this bill. We will stand against trampling on people's human rights and we will stand against passing laws that infringe the rule of law. I would implore the coalition to think very seriously about whether they want to support a bill that does those things and was not subject to sufficient scrutiny. I'll leave it there.

Schedule 5 won't find Dezi Freeman; let's face it. The cops have said: 'We're so desperate. We can't find this bloke, so let's insert this last-minute schedule to find Dezi Freeman. Forget about all the human rights of innocent people that this schedule violates. Let's just go find Dezi. We want the Labor government to put this last-minute schedule in. We don't want any scrutiny.' Scrutiny is what this Senate is meant to be for. You have a go about me breaking the rules of this place, yet the government breaks the rules by not telling us that this is even happening. I sit on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is meant to scrutinise legislation in this place to ensure that it breaches no-one's human rights. This bill breaches so many rights of people in this country—the list is so long—and the human rights committee didn't even know that this was happening, so we weren't able to scrutinise the fact that it impinges on the rights of the child, the rights of people with disability and on so other many rights.

Minister, you say that you know all about this schedule—more than over 100 human rights organisations, including legal services, Aboriginal legal services and the Antipoverty Centre. You're dismissing and disrespecting the expertise of over 100 organisations. Shame on you! The minister responsible for this piece of legislation goes on Sky News—she doesn't mention the 100 organisations condemning schedule 5 and she doesn't mention any other politician, but she throws me under the bus, telling Sky News that I support rapists and murderers. What a disgrace! Demonising me, singling me out, goes to show how low your minister and this government will go to get this through. That's how desperate this government is to violate people's human rights.

Minister, while you're having your little chat there in your little privileged position as a minister that can shut down people who are fighting for people's human rights, you know that this will affect Aboriginal women more than anybody. You know that when the cops rock up at our door when we are a victim of violence, the cops turn us into the perpetrator. When we go on the run to escape the violence of the cops, all of those payments will be cancelled, affecting not only our children but our whole family and our whole community. Those payments don't assist just the family; they assist a whole community. You are dismissing that.

Black women will be caught up in this. Black people will be caught up in this. Innocent people will be caught up in this, just because Dezi Freeman got away from the cops. Why should one man affect the human rights of all of us? Shame on you, Minister. Shame on the fact that you're not even following your own rules and allowing us to scrutinise schedule 5 so that it doesn't violate any more human rights. Shame on the opposition when your own senators are saying: 'We didn't know about schedule 5. This is really bad. We know how much this is going to affect innocent people out there.' Hypocrites! How hypocritical that you don't support just pulling out schedule 5 so that we can properly scrutinise it and have those 100-plus agencies speak to it? You're shutting down a community who want a say on the breach of human rights in this country.

That's what we're dealing with in this country—a Labor-Lib coalition. They only get together to hurt people in this country or cause harm to our land and water. That's why this place is an absolute disgrace. That's why I carry on. We need more independents and more minor parties to hold these two criminal groups to account.

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

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "and the provisions of Schedule 5 to the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 March 2026".

This amendment simply provides the Senate with the opportunity to scrutinise schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill, which, as we have learned over this week, has actually had no scrutiny from a Senate committee and no scrutiny from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Given the very serious concerns that have been raised by eminent human rights lawyers and frontline service organisations, it would be prudent for the Senate to actually say: 'The government has made the case that this is very urgent. The Senate has now passed this bill, part of which was subject to scrutiny. Schedule 5 was not. Let's at least have a look at it now as a senate.' That does not seem unreasonable to me at all.

Again, as I said earlier, we live in a country without a human rights act, without an overarching protection of people's human rights. Last term, we saw a Labor-led parliamentary inquiry in the other place recommending a human rights act. Josh Burns, now the Special Envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness, did great work on that committee. It's also in the Labor Party's platform. Yet schedule 5 of this bill, as lawyers have warned us, actually goes against people's fundamental human rights in this country and against principles of natural justice.

The government made their case as to why this bill was urgent. Fair enough. It has now passed the Senate. At least allow some scrutiny of schedule 5. At least allow a Senate committee to look at this. Labor will say: 'Well, we are transparent. We've got nothing to hide.' Yet, when they're presented with the opportunity, they often vote against scrutiny. You've got to start walking the talk on this. You can't just turn around and attack groups like the Centre for Public Integrity. We need to see a change from this government when it comes to transparency and allowing more scrutiny. So I put this amendment to colleagues.

This is something the Senate should be looking at. We are the house of review. We've heard concerns from coalition senators. We've heard concerns from the Greens and from others on the crossbench. We have the numbers to send this to a committee, and I implore you to allow the Senate to do its work and look at schedule 5 through the committee process.

I rise to speak in support of Senator Pocock's amendment, and I would urge the coalition, who have said in their speeches on the second reading that schedule 5 of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill should have had more scrutiny: this is your opportunity to get it the scrutiny it needs.

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

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The question is that this bill be read a third time.

The coalition will be supporting the unamended passage of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025. That is because, importantly, it gives effect to Australia's obligation under what is widely known as the Geelong treaty, a bilateral agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom on a key part of the AUKUS defence partnership. The treaty is also more formally known as the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Partnership and Collaboration Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The treaty was signed in Geelong on 26 July 2025 by the Australian Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, and his UK counterpart, Mr John Healey.

This bill and this treaty underpin collaboration between Australia and the UK under Pillar I of AUKUS, supporting the design, construction, operation, sustainment and regulation of nuclear powered submarines. The key purpose of this bill is to give legislative expression to article XXI of the Geelong treaty, which requires both nations to waive customs duties, excise and similar charges on goods imported or exported under this treaty. It ensures that eligible goods used as part of the redesign, manufacture and deployment of AUKUS submarines can move freely between Australia and the UK, without unnecessary financial barriers. At a technical level, its key changes are to insert item 58A into schedule 4 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995, providing a duty-free rate for qualifying goods for use under the Geelong treaty; to define 'Geelong treaty' into law; and to apply concessions to both future and certain unprocessed past imports when the treaty enters into force.

The coalition supports this bill for a number of reasons, including, fundamentally, that it helps to deliver on Australia's AUKUS commitments. Passage of the bill would mark a technical but significant step toward full implementation of the AUKUS submarine program. Importantly, it also facilitates deeper industrial and technological integration with the UK, one of our two AUKUS partners, alongside the United States. It deliberately has focused and targeted application. The new trade concessions apply only to goods for use under the treaty, safeguarding against any misuse or unintended benefit for importers or exporters trading in unrelated imports. It is therefore limited to defence related goods under government-to-government or authorised contractor arrangements. It also has minimal budgetary implications, with customs duties forgone in Australia largely expected to be offset by reciprocal measures in the UK. In addition, there'll be no widescale new administrative burdens for business, as the treaty applies only to approved defence related imports. The legislation has also already been endorsed by the coalition representatives on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and we should maintain this stance in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Overall, the bill is straightforward and it enables legislative measures that directly align with Australia's AUKUS commitments, enhance the Australia-UK defence partnership and, importantly, advance Australia's strategic capability under Pillar I of AUKUS.

(Quorum formed)

I rise to speak in strong support of this bill, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, which forms part of Australia's deep and enduring partnership with the United Kingdom. AUKUS represents a world renowned opportunity to uplift Australia's capability, and it strengthens our partnerships with our most trusted allies.

Australia is a respected voice on the international stage, due in no small part to the tireless work of our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Penny Wong, whose leadership has restored and enhanced Australia's standing, particularly in our region but also across the globe. Our diplomatic efforts are fortified by our security here at home. We have a capable, modern defence force that underpins our commitment to peace and deterrence. Australia stands firmly for a rules based international order. We make no apology for supporting our democratic allies, nor for backing the multilateral institutions that help resolve disputes peacefully and prevent conflict.

As the Chair of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have travelled with my fellow committee members across the country meeting with academics, industry leaders, think tanks and Defence officials. Our current inquiry, into the Defence annual report 2023-24, has revealed the scale of change now underway in our strategic posture. Australia is leveraging our natural advantages by orienting our defence capability to the north and investing in sea power, ensuring we can respond with agility and strength to potential threats.

Central to this transformation is the AUKUS partnership. The acquisition of Virginia class submarines followed by the SSN-AUKUS is pivotal to Australia's ability to deter conflict. These submarines are the apex predators of the sea—capable, stealthy and strategically decisive. Complementary littoral capabilities in the Army will strengthen this posture, giving Australia the capacity to deploy and manoeuvre rapidly across our region. One Defence leader recently put to me that the Australian Army of the future may well become the largest navy in the region. Such is the scale of the transformation before us.

Let me be absolutely clear: Australia seeks nothing but peace. All our families yearn for that, and Australians are committed to the peace of the world. If these submarines never see conflict, they will in fact have done their job. Maintaining peace requires preparation, and preparation requires vigilance. My role as Chair of the Defence Subcommittee is to ensure that the Australian Defence Force is ready, capable and accountable because every dollar spent must work hard in the national interest. Defence is in many ways our national insurance policy. We hope we never have to draw on it, but when the unexpected comes, as history tells us it can, it's an immense relief to know that we're ready.

Australia's cooperation with the United Kingdom and the United States is longstanding and deeply woven into our history. This was made starkly clear during my recent visit to Darwin, where the memory of the 1942 bombings remains alive in the community. It's a part of the collective psyche. Without the support of our allies during that dark chapter, Australia's defence would have been far more precarious.

Importantly, AUKUS is not only a defence story. It's a nation-building story. This treaty will underpin our bilateral cooperation for at least 50 years. In doing so, it will support the construction of Australia's conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines and will create around 20,000 secure, high-skill, long-term jobs.

It struck me, as the committee was undertaking its inquiry last week, that in the time since I left school we've seen an erosion of long-term employment for Australians. So many jobs have been shifting as the economy has been changing and the nature of living has been changing. With support for industry now, particularly in shipbuilding, we will arrive at a point where it will be possible for people who are going into training now to have the chance of a lifelong career building amazing ships that support the defence of our nation and the growth of our economy. This is a very significant change for Australians. For those who might be in the chamber listening to my contribution today or those across this great nation who have got the wireless tuned in to hear what's happening, this is something that should not be lost. We are able to take steps to advance this possibility of hi-tech, high-skilled engagement in an authentic way in innovation for our nation through our strategic partnership with both the US and the UK.

I know how much the Minister for Defence, who hails from Geelong, has invested in that community—and don't we all know how proud he is to be a boy from Geelong! To now have the Geelong treaty as part of our nation's history and our shared collaboration with the UK is no small thing. It is in fact a deeply significant, symbolic, practical and historic moment.

What's really great about this project is that there will be good, secure jobs. In an era when work is too often insecure and fragmented, we have the prospect of well-paid, long-term employment positions, giving people a chance to build skills, raise a family and retire with dignity. This is an opportunity we are seizing with both hands. AUKUS will certainly drive a generational uplift in Australian skills, and it will create a thriving ecosystem of local industries supporting and sustaining this capability.

Last week I had the pleasure of visiting the Henderson defence precinct, ably guided by my Western Australian colleague Senator Ellie Whiteaker. What I saw there was defence industry and maritime businesses working together, sharing expertise, pooling resources and strengthening the sovereign capability that keeps Australia safe. There is so much for us to do and so much more that can happen in this space.

I encourage all members of this chamber—and I note the agreement of the opposition in their first contribution to this debate—to support the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill as a critical part of developing the infrastructure for the ongoing renewal of our industry, the defence of our nation and the honouring of our partnerships with like-minded countries that aspire to a world at peace where the rule of law prevails.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we oppose the Customs Tariff Amendment (Geelong Treaty Implementation) Bill 2025, which follows on from the treaty signed between the UK and Australia on 26 July 2025 as part of AUKUS. If you want Australia to go and join the next US war, if you want Australia to spend billions of dollars trying to bail out the UK's failing meltdown of a nuclear submarine industry, if you want to see $375 billion of Australian taxpayers' money not spent on schools, housing, dealing with the climate catastrophe or making sure kids have enough to eat, if you want to hand over our sovereignty to decisions made in Washington, if you want to expand US bases on this continent and build the United States an $8 billion or $9 billion submarine base off of Perth, if you want to make Australia a nuclear target by expanding US bases in Pine Gap, Tindall and Stirling and building the US an east-coast submarine base in Newcastle or Wollongong—if you want those outcomes, then vote for this bill. That's what this bill does. It takes us down that path, to the beat of the drums of warmongers in Washington and the war parties here, Labor and the coalition.

If you want to go down the path of joining the next US war, with a lawless, increasingly fascist regime in Washington that has no interest in the so-called rules based order, that's selling out its allies as we speak and that is about as trustworthy as—well—Donald Trump, support this bill. That's what this bill does. This bill implements aspects of the UK-Australia agreement, specifically article 21 of the treaty, which requires the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Australia not to impose value added taxes, excise, custom duties and other similar charges on imports and exports of goods in connection with that treaty—basically, largely, AUKUS related stuff.

In one view, this doesn't really matter, because there's next to zero chance that the UK's failing industrial capacity will produce nuclear reactors or come close to producing an SSN-AUKUS submarine. Their own audit office says that their projects are in meltdown, their defence budget is in collapse, their economy is failing and their politics are fraying. Who would choose the UK as a partner for security in the Indo-Pacific now? Only someone who is ignorant of the reality of the UK's budget, economy and position in the world. So, in one view, this might not be relevant, because there's Buckley's chance of this actually coming into play. The problem is in the pretence that the UK can be a meaningful security partner for Australia in the Indo-Pacific in 2025. To remind the chamber, this isn't 1925, when they had an empire in this region, which was about as popular as a fart in an elevator. They got eventually thrown out by independence movements in our region, which wanted the UK out of the region and not to return—

Senator Shoebridge, I'll interrupt you for a moment, if you could take a seat. I'm going to commence by saying you haven't technically broken any of the rules of the Senate. With this being a week when we're trying to manage respectful practice and also respectful language, I'd just ask you to review some of the more colourful phrases that have popped into your contribution. I give you the floor again.

The British empire in our region was not only unpopular; it was antidemocratic, it was imposed by martial law, and it stole from the people of the region their wealth, their dignity and their self-determination. They traded knowingly in drugs in China, in a global opium trade, knowing the damage it caused for about a century, to destroy people's lives, millions of people's lives, in China. They did it purely for profit. When I say it's about as popular as a fart in an elevator, that is about the nicest possible term I can apply to the UK's empire in this region. When the people in our region see us wanting to bring the UK back into the region—they finally got rid of them through independence movements, and we're inviting them back—we look like some throwback to the 19th century. It's like we're trying to reimagine the Anglosphere, with a white colonial lens over our relations with the region. When our neighbours, whether it's Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Thailand or China, see us inviting the former imperial power back into the region, they say, 'Who the hell are you?' Why won't Australia realise we live in the region in the 21st century? Our neighbours in the region loathe the idea of us inviting the UK back into the region with nuclear submarines and defence plans.

If we take that cultural hit, that diplomatic hit, that people-to-people hit, what do we get in return? We get to bail out a failing meltdown of a nuclear submarine industry in the UK that pretty much every informed observer says has Buckley's chance of producing a nuclear reactor or meaningfully contributing to our defence via nuclear submarines. We're literally bailing out the sick man of Europe in 2025, inviting them back into their former empire and saying to our region: 'We don't understand that we belong in the region. We want to bring back the UK and the US as some kind of Anglosphere military domination of the region.' Our region loathes that, and that's what this treaty does. If you want to do that, if that's your plan for Australia's future, vote for this bill.

The Greens reject that future. We say we should be proudly part of our region. We should be engaging not with some fading, economically spiralling former imperial power on a modest sized island off Europe for our future; we should be engaging with our region. Our future security—our future economic relations and our future as a prosperous and positive nation—lies in our region, not in inviting Queen Bess back to ride in with a 21st century battleship to try and protect us in 2025.

This treaty sets in stone and makes clear that Australia is at the bottom rung of AUKUS as well, with the UK making all critical decisions on the design of the yet-to-be-built AUKUS nuclear submarines and Australia once again funnelling billions and billions of dollars into it. For those following along at home, we've already paid billions of dollars to the UK, and who has that money gone to? Instead of spending it on schools and hospitals and putting food on the table for Australians, the Albanese Labor government has given billions and billions of dollars to Rolls-Royce in the UK. That's who's getting the money from Labor—Rolls-Royce. That's what this bill intends to facilitate—more money going to Rolls-Royce. It's obscene!

When you read about this deal—the so-called Geelong Treaty, which is obviously some kind of ego driven term that is aimed to appease the august Deputy Prime Minister—it makes clear that Australia will be responsible for high-, low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from UK submarines in Australia. We'll take their waste. There's the limited exception of spent nuclear fuel, but all the other waste produced by UK nuclear submarines—we'll take it, for the hundreds and thousands of years that it's toxic. The deal also sees Australia waive all claims of liability on the transfer of AUKUS nuclear submarines. So they can sell us duds—they can have a meltdown in Sydney Harbour—and the UK can just whistle at us: 'Sorry, former colony; you can't get anything from us, but thanks very much for the billions. We really liked it. The executives in Rolls-Royce are very grateful.'

My colleague Senator Whish-Wilson sat on the inquiry into this treaty, and I thank him for the work that he did. The Greens also issued a dissenting report to the consideration of the treaty and this bill. The majority report from the war parties, Labor and the coalition, contained a bunch of recommendations basically proposing that we implement the bill. But it has been made abundantly clear—

Senator Shoebridge, you will be in continuation. It being 12.15, we will proceed to senators' statements.

If 2025 has proven anything, it is this: our political system is designed to fail ordinary people. Instead of fixing that broken system, the Albanese Labor government has spent the past year defending it, propping it up and polishing it. They have all this power in majority government and nothing good to show for it. This Labor government was first elected in 2022, following the climate election, with a promise to take real action on the climate crisis. What we have seen is anything but.

The climate crisis is not an accident. It is a direct result of big business seeking profit at any cost and of governments too cowardly, too compromised and too entangled with big money to stop them. This year, Labor approved Woodside's North West Shelf expansion, a disaster for the climate and for the priceless Murujuga rock art. Why did Labor approve it? It's because Woodside wanted them to, because the fossil fuel industry continues to run the show, because rampant capitalism rewards destruction and because Labor refuse to bite the hand of the carbon cartel that feeds them.

Then came the climate risk assessment, a document Labor tried to hide for months because it outlines the devastating consequences we are facing by utterly failing to tackle the climate crisis. Yet the government refuses to even acknowledge what is causing this crisis—the coal and gas projects that they continue to approve left, right and centre. Then there are the environmental reforms that Labor has proposed, which, in their current form, are a gift to environmental vandals. In its current form, it is a framework built around faster and cheaper approvals for fossil fuel corporations to bulldoze First Nations country and destroy the planet. This is corporate lobbying turned into legislation, and the planet and the climate are paying the price.

Nowhere is the sickness of our system clearer than in the Labor government's response to Israel's genocide in Palestine. Thousands and thousands of Palestinians have been killed. Gaza has been destroyed. Children have been starved, bombed and buried under the rubble, and the Albanese government has not just looked away but actively participated. The government endorsed Trump's sham peace plan, which entrenches apartheid and denies the Palestinian people self-determination and justice. Australia continues to supply parts of weapons that will murder children. Why? It's because the United States demands loyalty, because the weapons industry demands customers and because supporting genocide is, apparently, less politically risky than standing up to colonial violence. This is what happens when foreign policy is dictated by weapons manufacturers, imperialists and warmongers, not by morality.

We see the same pattern in Sudan and in the Congo, where mass slaughter, famine and displacement continue with little more than a murmur from the international community. The crisis in Sudan is not an unstoppable tragedy. It is a consequence of deliberate choices made by governments who arm dictators, who sign trade deals with tyrants and who put profit before human life. This humanitarian catastrophe demands that Australia speak up and act, and it demands that Australia commit to significantly more aid and humanitarian access. The global war machine has an endless, insatiable appetite for death, genocide and destruction, and the international system meant to restrain it has become too weak and too compromised to even try.

This year, racism has dug its claws even deeper into the world we live in. State Labor governments ramped up racist policing and passed antiprotest laws that criminalise democratic dissent. Federally, they've leaned into dog whistling, blaming migrants and international students for their own failures to address the housing crisis. It has kept communities of colour living in fear. This is not passive; this is deliberate. A system built on inequity and white supremacy relies on racism to survive. It ensures demonisation of the marginalised by hate and fear while people can't make ends meet and the billionaires feast.

This year, the big banks pocketed almost $30 billion in profit. Coles and Woolworths jacked up prices while working families skipped meals. Energy giants raked in tens of billions selling our resources back to us at inflated prices. Mining corporations made super profits off climate destruction and paid pennies in tax. If anyone still doubts that the system is not working, look no further than the obscene explosion of wealth among Australia's richest ultrawealthy people. While ordinary families line up at food banks, while renters are pushed into homelessness and while workers juggle two or three jobs to stay afloat, the wealth of the ultrarich in this country is growing at sickening, obscene rates.

Gina Rinehart's personal fortune grew by billions in a single year. The wealth of the Murdoch dynasty, of Andrew Forrest and of the tech and property barons skyrocketed, even as the living standards of everyday Australians fell. The combined wealth of Australia's richest 200 people now sits at $668 billion. It grows faster than wages and faster than GDP. This is not a quirk of the market. This is the inevitable outcome of a system that rewards hoarding, rewards endless greed and rewards exploitation. It is a system where the rich get richer because ordinary people are squeezed harder every year.

Let me be crystal clear: these billionaires are not some geniuses lifting this country up. They extract, and they exploit. Their wealth increases when someone else's hardship increases. Their gain is our loss, yet they get away scot-free. There is no super profits tax or wealth tax. There are no meaningful constraints on supermarket price gouging. The governments cut deals, offer subsidies and roll out the red carpet, because, in this system, political success is tied to appeasing the very people responsible for the suffering of millions.

Responding to this is not a matter of tweaking around the edges. The entire system is failing because it was built to fail—to fail us. We do not have the luxury of pretending that this can be fixed with mild reforms or incrementalism. We must build something different. A different future is not idealistic; it is necessary. It means public ownership of essential services operated for people, not profit. It means housing as a human right. It means a public higher education system that is debt free and independent from corporate control. It has workers at the centre with strong unions, secure jobs and fair wages. It has antiracist, anticolonial governance. It confronts white supremacy instead of feeding it. It is just and caring. This is not impossible to achieve, but we do need a bit of courage to do it.

We stand on the shoulders of movements that reshaped the world. The union movement won the eight-hour day, the health and safety of workers and even the weekend. The civil rights movement dismantled segregation. The women's liberation movement won reproductive rights and economic freedoms. The anti-apartheid movement toppled a system once considered unbreakable. But these victories were not delivered by compliant politicians. They were delivered by ordinary people who refused to accept the status quo of their time and who loudly and proudly protested for a better future.

In Australia as well, governments once dared to build big. We created Medicare, public housing, income support and free education. We have done this before. We can do this again, but only if we confront the system standing in our way, a system that feeds off exploitation and suffering. The billionaires will not save us. The banks will not save us. The corporations will not save us. The politicians who pander to them will not save us either. We will have to save ourselves through people power movements, through solidarity and through collective power. We are running out of time, but we're not running out of hope. Hope turned into action has always been the most powerful force in history. (Time expired)

Having been on the marketing side of politics in my younger days, I can say that there is nothing more we love on the marketing side than a three-word slogan. Also something we senators don't shy away from is four-word slogans. I'd like to, through you, Deputy President, suggest a truth-in-advertising slogan for those on the other side. We've seen their best. They come up with great ideas. They identify problems and come up with ideas on how to fix them, but let's have a look at what they actually do when they get to them.

They came out with a $275 price cut for electricity for everyone. That didn't happen. They said, 'We'll build 11,000 affordable homes per year to help people with the housing crisis.' That hasn't happened. 'We'll fix climate change by taxing people.' That won't happen. 'We'll give prosperity back to people by managing the economy.' With the way they do it, that can't happen. So the four-word slogan that the Labor Party of Australia should be using out there is 'didn't, haven't, can't, won't', because this is where they come from—didn't, haven't, can't, won't. All their ideas, their solutions to the problems they identify, don't work. Historically, they haven't gone through—

If you don't know, vote no!

We hear this. We hear the interjection. I'll take that interjection. That's why we vote no—because, when we hear dumb ideas for solutions to problems that they identify, we have to say no. We hear about the HAFF and the delay that this side and the Greens put on the HAFF. They delayed all this happening. We've had more than a year since that happened and billions of dollars, and it's built, what, 15 homes in New South Wales? Billions of dollars for 15 homes, not the 11,000—that's the 'can't'. That's the 'haven't'. Let's get down to this. Great ideas, rubbish execution—can't, haven't, won't, can't. This is what we get to with this side of government. That's why we come here.

But let's go further than that. Let's look further. When we get down to the axe, here we go—he cuts, you pay, because we can't cut public servants, unless we're the government, in which case we can cut $5.6 billion worth of public servants out of the economy by reprioritising. Reprioritising people out of jobs is not cutting, apparently. That is something else. This is what we got there. We hear the line 'fee-free apprentices'. Why didn't we support that? There are 100,000 less apprentices in the market now than when you took government. So fee-free TAFE—great, less apprentices in the market.

We hear, 'We're going out there on social safety—the under-16 social safety net.' It's a great idea, but we look at the policy that is to come in just next week. Will it work? No. We're not taking account of VPNs. We're not taking account of search engines that allow blurred images to come up. We're not doing enough of these things—all good things that we have to address but we don't.

Let's get to emissions reduction. What has this government done in the 3½ years since they've been there? Spent tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, not government money; put up energy bills, on average, about a thousand bucks a year; and had no emissions reduction. Not one iota of emissions reduction has been measured. So they've spent billions, cost you thousands and reduced no emissions. That takes a certain level of incompetence to be able to achieve. I'm not the greatest person ever; far from it. But even I couldn't achieve that level of incompetence, I don't think. That is really striving. That's hitting for the bridges. That's the moonshot of incompetence that these people have achieved—billions of dollars, thousands of dollars, no change. I might try harder when we go down there.

And we hear this 'cheapest form of energy'. It's a great line, but I do note that the language changed. 'Cheapest form of new energy' is now the phrase we use. We've had to modify that. There's a little asterisk in the corner now. Why? Because we see out there our metal producers, such as Tomago Aluminium, where I am, who get to access this 'cheapest form of'—asterisk—'new energy' out there, need billions of dollars of bailouts. They need billions of dollars to use the cheapest energy there is! How does that work? How do we need to bail out companies and taxpayers with energy rebates for using the cheapest energy there is? Once again, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I don't understand why we need to bail people out and give people rebates for using the cheapest energy that exists. It just doesn't make sense.

What we're seeing is great identification of issues: 'Let's pass a bill; let's have a crack at this side for not voting for it.' But why aren't we voting for it? Because they're rubbish solutions. It's as if I've got a flat tyre on my car and I take it and get the engine tuned up. That's what these people are doing here. It doesn't fix the problem. It's adjacent to the problem, but it doesn't fix the problem. We see this right across every portfolio, on every solution. We sit there and we say, 'Why don't you bring things to it?' and all we get accused of is voting against this legislation. You can't have a crack at us for identifying the incompetence. It's what we're here to do. What do you think it takes, ladies and gentlemen in the gallery? How much incompetence do you think it takes for the Greens and the Nationals to vote together to identify this? It doesn't happen very often that we see eye to eye, but, when we block, it's because we jointly see that.

The previous speaker raised immigration and the dog whistling that occurs in response to that. Immigration happens when you bring in all these people and you don't build the services, the hospitals, the houses or the roads. It causes problems for Australians who are already here when this government doesn't do the work to make sure that everyday Australians aren't put under housing pressure and cost pressure and can get into hospitals. But then this is put on the immigrant communities that come here for the right reasons—to help make a better Australia. Because the government can't do the basics, those communities suffer the consequences of this debate. That is not good enough.

Australia deserves a competent, better government, not just one that gets the slogans right. This is why we see Prime Minister Albanese have so many people in his comms team and so few people in his policy team. It is coming through all of the time. That is why there is the new job for Minister Bowen going around the world, telling everyone else how to do it, because we haven't just wrecked it. We can wreck the whole world this way. We don't have to just wreck Australia's energy policy; we can bring down the whole world if we try hard enough and get in behind this government. So I urge all of us to let Minister Bowen get out there and really hurt the rest of the world so we're on an equal basis again. Let's get down there, where Australia's competitiveness has gone. Living standards are now down to 2011 levels. People in here, people listening at home on what used to be called the wireless—I haven't heard it called the wireless for a very long time, but let's call it the wireless for today—and people driving in their cars are having the living standards of 2011 because their costs have gone up and their wages have gone down, relatively, since this.

That is why, when we were looking at our energy policy—when we were looking at different things and at every policy—we went through our three word slogan. Here it comes: cheaper, better, fairer. Everything must be those things if we are going to look for it.

It was coming. On the other side, they knew it was coming. They wanted it. They love it too. In everything they want to do, they should be living by those words: cheaper, better and fairer. If we are not here trying to make Australian policies those things, if we are looking at energy—and let's go back to this thing. Electricity is up 39 per cent and gas is up 43 per cent since they've been here. They are the real numbers when you go forward. When you look at the $1,000 extra you are paying on your bill every year, it is because we are out there with the cheapest form of new—remember that aspect—energy, not the cheapest form of existing energy. This is the way they're going forward on this. They're even being careful with that.

We talk about the emissions cuts that Australia has done. Let's be real here. Australia has reduced emissions compared to 2005 levels, under the Paris Agreement, by 28 per cent. That is double the average for OECD nations.

Point of order?

If Senator Cadell's policies are so good, why is Mr Joyce leaving the Nationals and—

This is not a point of order, Senator Farrell. Resume your seat, Senator Farrell.

I will take that interjection, because—let's face it—Mr Joyce has only been in the party room for one of two reasons: (1) because he's leader or (2) because he wants to be leader. If he's going to another party room, I think those two things will still apply.

When we get back to here, let's go through what we're doing going forward. Australia's emissions reductions are 28 per cent, more than double the OECD average to this point, and we have been doing this through the use of land. I'm a National Party senator. We have been doing it through land-use change—the LULUCF method, which they called 'the Australia clause' in the Paris Agreement. Let's be honest about that. The change in land use from productive forestry or productive agriculture to being locked up, to produce Australian carbon credit units, ACCUs—and we'll talk about the methodology of that at another time—has produced the vast majority of this.

There has been no serious work on emissions reduction in the energy area, which forms one-third of Australia's emissions. Electricity is only a third of that again.

But, as I said originally, in 3½ years, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money were spent, with zero real change in emissions. If you look at the scoreboard, that will tell you. Don't believe the hype. That was a great rap song from the eighties! We were at an eighties party last night. If I go back to the time when I think Senator Pocock might—I don't know if he played under coach Rob Dyer or not; I'm looking— (Time expired)

Well, wasn't that just a bit of entertainment for the afternoon, to brighten things up on a Wednesday!

I rise to speak on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the beginning of the 16 days of activism. In Western Australia, Deputy President Brockman, where we're both from, we call that the '16 Days in WA', and it is the annual call to action to end gendered violence. This year's message could not be clearer. It's that men are part of the solution—not as bystanders, not as commentators, but as active participants in preventing violence and challenging those attitudes that allow it to thrive. As someone who spent more than two decades working on the front line, responding to family and domestic violence, and a decade of that as a police officer in Western Australia, I know how crucial the involvement of men is in our stepping forward.

Every advocate will tell you this truth: women are carrying the burden of this crisis. Women are literally holding their families together. They are screaming out for help. They are rebuilding their lives and doing their own healing from that harm. But we women cannot end this crisis alone. Men must choose to behave differently and men must hold other men accountable.

The Albanese Labor government has recognised that ending gender based violence requires ongoing national leadership. In 2008—in my world before politics—the then minister for women, Tanya Plibersek, asked me to join the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Nearly 17 years on from that, we began that journey of ending family violence at a national level by handing down Australia's first National Plan to End Violence against Women and their Children. Today I stand here, in 2025, and we are not where we need to be, but also we are certainly not where we were back then. We used to talk about reducing violence against women and their children, but now we're actually talking about ending it. Through the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's Yearly report to parliament, we are reminded that this crisis demands a whole-of-nation response, one that listens to lived experience and acts on it. I thank Commissioner Cronin and her team, and, in particular, the Lived Experience Advisory Council for their leadership and especially their courage.

But national action must be informed by and centre itself on what communities tell us every day about what's happening on the ground. Last week I was in Bunbury with the Attorney-General, and I met with the South West Community Legal Centre and the Southern Aboriginal Corporation. Their message to us was blunt: housing pressures are trapping women in violent relationships because they can't find anywhere to go. The biggest reason women and children don't leave situations of family and domestic violence is that they don't have a safe and secure house to go to. Frontline workers told me about women sleeping in their cars with their children, about mothers returning to abusive partners because every refuge in the region was full and about women choosing between homelessness and harm. In the words of Minister Clare O'Neil from the other place, it is a reality that is simply not good enough for a country like Australia.

These conversations are exactly why our government is investing in housing and crisis accommodation as a priority matter, and they are why the Albanese Labor government is investing $172.6 million in the safe places program, which funds the renovation, building and purchasing of new crisis or emergency accommodation, to support women and children who are experiencing family and domestic violence. That is why we have invested in the Leaving Violence Program, which provides direct financial support of up to $5,000 to make sure survivors have the funds they need to make those difficult and risky choices to leave. That's why we legislated 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave, to make sure that victim-survivors don't have to worry about losing their jobs just when they're fining their feet. That's why we're also investing $2.69 million in men's helplines like MensLine Australia, the Men's Referral Service and the Brief Intervention Service.

Yesterday, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the Albanese Labor government announced another significant measure to keep people safe. We delivered an almost 40 per cent increase to funding for the 1800RESPECT line because more Australians than ever have recognised the signs of violence and are reaching out for help. Since it began in 2010, 1800RESPECT has seen a 3,000 per cent increase in contacts. Last financial year alone, the service received more than 342,000 calls, chats, texts and video calls, and demand is expected to increase. To meet that demand the government is investing in an additional $41.8 million, taking the total funding to $146.8 million until June 2027. This ensures that every person who seeks help, whether it's through a phone call, a text, an online chat or a video-counselling session, they can absolutely get it. This funding also supports the expansion of the new SMS and video-counselling service. Since the SMS line launched late last year, it has already been used more than 25,000 times. Since video counselling became available in early 2024, more than 900 people have chosen that option. These platforms are absolutely vital for people who cannot safely pick up the phone. They are the quiet lifelines. This announcement builds on the Albanese Labor government's record investment in more than $4 billion in frontline services, prevention programs, men's behaviour change programs, legal assistance and support for children, because ending violence is not just one policy, it is not one program, it is not just one announcement; it is the cumulative work of a government determined to drive change.

We also know that a one-size-fits-all approach will never meet the needs of those facing the highest risk. First Nations women are hospitalised due to family and domestic violence at 33 times the rate of non-Indigenous women, and this crisis is ever more urgent. That is why the Albanese Labor government is delivering its first standalone Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family and domestic and sexual violence plan, Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices. Earlier this year Minister McCarthy and Minister Rishworth announced a further $4.8 million in funding for First Nations crisis accommodation, taking that total funding to $32.3 million so far. This will allow more First Nations women and children to access safety close to home, not hundreds of kilometres away. These are life-saving investments, and they also ensure that a national response reaches the women who need it the most. They ensure that, when men need help to change, support is also there, too.

But taking the first step is absolutely their responsibility. Across the 16 days in WA, the campaign is calling on men to challenge disrespect and sexist jokes. It's calling out controlling behaviour. It's checking in on your mates, modelling respect to boys and young men and using your influence to shift culture in workplaces, in sporting clubs and in communities. This is not about blaming men. This is about getting them involved in a movement that demands better from one another. As a mother of two daughters and an aunty to nieces and nephews, I know the impact of strong male role models and what they can make. Boys learn from what they see, and when they see men treating women with dignity, listening without dominance and resolving conflict with care, that becomes their baseline. When they see anger, entitlement and control, that also becomes their baseline, and we can't afford to leave that one to chance.

Ending violence against women is one of the greatest national projects of our time. I believe that we can be the generation that can end violence against women and their children. It will take governments, frontline workers and communities, but it'll also take men choosing to be part of that solution. This year's 16-day campaign is a reminder that you cannot outsource cultural change. It must be lived every day in our homes, in our schools, in our clubs, in our workplaces and among our mates. The Albanese Labor government will continue to lead nationally, invest meaningfully and back community led solutions. But ending violence will also require every single one of us in this chamber to play our part because every woman deserves to live a life, to thrive and to grow old in safety—safe in their homes, safe at work, safe in their communities and safe wherever they go.

We mark the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence knowing that violence against women is not a series of isolated tragedies in our country. Statistically, the most reliable way to predict a domestic violence homicide is to actually believe the victim. When researchers in Queensland catalogued data from seven years of intimate partner killings, they found one thing in common in more than half of those cases: the victim had already expressed fear that they would be killed. Hannah Clarke had the same intuition six weeks before she was murdered in 2020. She said:

I have been unhappy and wanting to leave the relationship but I have been terrified of his reaction and what that would mean to our children.

She wrote in an affidavit seeking a domestic violence order:

I believe that Rowan is totally capable of killing himself and killing our children to get back at me. This scares me beyond words.

In the weeks before she was murdered by her partner in 2021, Kumanjayi Haywood warned police:

When I go back to Tennant Creek, he's going to stab me again, and he's going to kill me.

A few days later her partner set fire to the house where she was hiding. She died inside. She had endured decades of extreme violence at his hands, and in the days leading up to her death she and her family sought help time and time again.

In 2024 Molly Ticehurst told police that her ex-partner had laid out the precise plan by which he would kill her, including saying that he would climb through her bedroom window while she slept. She texted a friend, saying:

If I end up dead, he 100 per cent did it.

Six weeks later, he did exactly that.

These examples are real people. They are real women who were terrified. And the many others we never hear about show how far abuse can escalate before a woman is murdered by a current or former partner. Despite huge public investment, countless peak bodies and bipartisan commitment, these women still fell through the gaps. The consequences are horrific.

Women experiencing domestic violence often report responses from institutions that are slow, inadequate, culturally unsafe or flat-out dismissive. Just this week, the Guardian reported that Hannah Clarke's killer was coached by Queensland police on how to challenge a domestic violence order after he abducted their daughter. One officer said:

Talk to your friends about, you know, someone who might be willing to provide a reference …

Another police officer advised:

To say you are a good dad and … don't need any conditions.

After Hannah and her children were murdered, detectives prepared a briefing for the state coroner. The first issue listed for investigation was the veracity and motives of Hannah's allegations. I don't for a moment suggest that our police don't do a great job, or that they don't do difficult and challenging work, but these are examples of problems that still exist within the system that are a danger to women. We have to ask ourselves why being murdered is not evidence enough that a woman is a victim of domestic violence—we're talking about a brief for a coroner, where someone has already been murdered. We don't know whether those officers remain in the force, whether they were retrained, whether there were other circumstances here that we don't yet understand or whether similar failures have occurred again. The cases I mentioned should be warnings about what happens when we wait too long to intervene. They make one thing absolutely clear: if we want to stop violence before it reaches this point, prevention must be front and centre of what we are doing. Governments must shift focus upstream into prevention. Prevention is far cheaper, far safer and far more humane than crisis response.

A 2015-16 report from the DSS estimated the national cost of domestic violence was $21.7 billion a year. Adjusted for inflation, that's $33 billion today, per year. Our prevention efforts are undermined by a fragmented national data system. National bodies like AIHW and the ABS are clear that there is no single national dataset that captures all family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia and that data on things like repeat victimisation and coercive control remain incomplete and inconsistent across jurisdictions. This is because police, courts, hospitals and child protection agencies each define and record domestic violence differently and because there is no nationally consistent legislative definition of family and domestic violence. We cannot reliably frame or measure the scale of the issue at a national level.

Meanwhile, early drivers of violence are accelerating online. Nine out of 10 of our boys aged 13 to 17 have already been exposed to pornography. The median age for first exposure to pornography is 13 for our boys, and for many it occurs even earlier. The most popular pornographic categories overwhelmingly depict violence. Up to 90 per cent of mainstream pornographic content contains physical, verbal or sexual aggression towards women. That's what our boys are seeing online. Australian research shows that young people exposed to violent pornography may be more likely to hold attitudes supportive of violence against women. Seventy-two per cent of young people in a recent survey said that the porn that they are watching often shows aggression and violence against women.

Algorithmic escalation is now understood by researchers as a risk factor for harmful and violent behaviours against girls and women in adolescence and adulthood. If we're honest about the scale of gender based violence in this country then we need to be honest about this. Sixteen days of activism will never meet the moment—not when women who are murdered told police they feared they would be murdered; not when our national data can't even give us a full, accurate picture of the harm; and not when boys are growing up in online environments that normalise misogyny, degradation and violence, causing great harm to them and causing great harm to the women in their lives. We need to protect our children from the dangers of these algorithms.

Marking these 16 days matters, but it's a prompt, not a plan. The real test is what we as lawmakers do in the other 349 days of the year. Women are not dying because we lack awareness; they are dying because our systems are slow, fragmented and too often dismissive of risk. So these 16 days cannot be the peak of our effort. They must be the bare minimum, the baseline we build from, because ending gender based violence doesn't come from reflection alone. It comes from year-round evidence based discipline, proper resourcing and political will that doesn't evaporate once the campaign posters come down.

We owe every woman who has warned us, every woman who was afraid and every woman who never got the chance more than our sympathy after the fact. We owe them systems that listen, data that tells the truth and a culture that raises boys who see women as their equals, not algorithms that make them believe that women are objects. We also owe our children—our girls and our boys—a future free of the influence of harmful online algorithms that the billionaire tech giants profit from, harming our children—the tech giants and their algorithms that push violent, sexualised content and distort our children's understanding of healthy relationships. We owe our children and Australian women more.

As we reach the end of the parliamentary year, I stand to express my profound gratitude to the Canberrans and members of the Australian community who make my work possible. As a community backed Independent, I'm continually humbled by the volunteers who show up to protect and grow the independent, community-driven politics we have fought for together: Chris, Grace, Sally, Bobby, Geoff, Dolores, Robin, Jill, Warwick, Maddie, Lea, Denise, Hal and Maya, who provide invaluable support to me and my team: Laurie, Crystal, Jodie, Mel, John, Susan, Dain, Craig, Inger, Adrienne, Sue, Marianne, Alma, Margaret, Nicole, Lisa and our booth captains, whose leadership and coordination throughout the election campaign ensured every volunteer felt supported; the more than 1,000 volunteers who gave their time on pre-poll or election-day booths, assisted at events and stalls, made calls, coordinated activities, put up corflutes, doorknocked, letterboxed, wore a Team Pocock T-shirt or simply had a conversation about independent politics; and the many more Canberrans who hosted corflutes, attended an event or showed up to vote Independent.

I'd also like to thank every Canberran who gives their time, skills and energy to causes they care about, including our 2026 ACT Australians of the Year, Professor Rose McGready, Heather Reid AM, Sita Sargeant and Ben Alexander. Thank you for your service to our community. To all the essential workers who keep our community going: thank you.

Finally, I want to convey my deep gratitude and that of my team to the unsung heroes of our parliamentary community: Maria, the cleaning staff and the amazing staff who work in the grounds here and make our spaces so beautiful; the diligent Hansard staff, who are the backbone of our parliamentary record; the broadcasting staff, who exemplify open democracy; the catering staff, who keep us well fed to serve our communities; the event staff, who help us host our communities here on the hill; the security guards, for your dedication and good humour; the library staff, for your expert advice; the Parliamentary Education Office, who showcase our democracy to the next generation; the chamber attendants, clerks, secretariat staff and staff in the Procedure and Table offices, for your guidance, maintenance of order and support of the smooth operation of this place; and the Black Rod and the staff in his office, who create the environment for debate and deliberation. All of you are often unseen, but you are absolutely indispensable.

It's an honour and a privilege to represent a community I love here in the ACT. Thank you for placing your trust in me.

On the topic of trust, I want to make some brief remarks on two other key topics. The first is on the Australian Public Service. During the last election, the APS was under threat. The coalition was promising to cut 41,000 APS jobs. Labor rightly railed against this. I railed against this. We saw others on the crossbench rail against this attack on the Public Service. But now there are reports that Labor is planning to slash APS budgets by as much as five per cent in one year. Neither the Minister for Finance nor the Treasurer has outright denied these reports. Instead, they're talking about fiscal discipline. Where have we heard those words before? 'We have demonstrated fiscal discipline in this budget,' Mathias Cormann said in 2016. 'We will continue to ensure fiscal discipline,' Scott Morrison said in 2020. At the same time, despite Labor promising to reduce reliance on consultants, it seems expenditure on consultants has actually increased. According to AusTender, consultancy spend jumped by almost $200 million from 2023 to 2024-25. Whether it's through job losses or cuts to programs, I am deeply concerned about these reports of cuts to Australian Public Service budgets and call on the government to categorically rule out further harm to the Public Service, particularly to smaller agencies, who have no fat to trim and who simply cannot cope with these sorts of cuts.

Talking about harm brings me to artificial intelligence and the reports today that the government is going to adopt a light-touch approach to AI regulation and abandon plans for a national AI safety act. This flies in the face of the advice from expert groups and the year-long consultation done in the last term of parliament. It's a total departure from what countries in Europe are doing. It's poor policymaking, and it's going to leave Australians exposed. AI is going to touch every aspect of our lives; we can't afford regulatory and legislative loopholes. We need guardrails in place. We need an overarching AI safety act. The national AI safety centre announced this week in response to pressure from the crossbench—including those in the other place, such as the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney—is very welcome, but it lacks detail and does nothing to bring Australia's legislative framework up to speed to deal with AI, both the threats and the opportunities. That's why members of the crossbench, like me, like Kate Chaney and like the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, are stepping up with our own legislation to try and fill these gaps and spur the government into action.

But don't just take it from me. Listen to the experts. Geoffrey Hinton, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2024, when talking about AI, said: 'The risks include things like replacing lots of jobs and causing an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor, because, when productivity increases using AI, it's not shared equally. Some people lose their jobs, and others get rich. Another kind of risk is fake videos, where they corrupt elections. They're already doing that.' He goes on to mention cyberattacks, discrimination and bias and talks about the longer term problem about what's going to happen when we create beings more intelligent than us. Stuart Russell, professor of computer science at Berkeley, sums it up: 'We need to recognise the possibility that not only may the bus of humanity be heading towards a cliff but the steering wheel is missing and the driver is blindfolded.' I urge the Albanese government, when it comes to AI, to take the blindfold off and grab the steering wheel, because we need you to do this.

As we go into the fire season, I want to thank the many fire and emergency services across this country, who put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens and for communities across this country. Many of them are volunteers. I want to remind the parliament about our duty of care on climate. We're currently failing on that. We are failing young people and future generations, and, in fact, not that long ago, in this place, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor Party voted against a duty of care on climate. We remember Scott Morrison, when young people and students were striking, trying to raise concerns about climate change, saying:

… what we want is more learning in schools and less activism in schools.

If you turn on the news today, there are now 25 schools shut in New South Wales due to fire danger.

We have to act in this place. We have to say, 'Yes, we have a duty of care to young people and future generations.' I don't understand how the Labor Party is so out of step with their rank-and-file members and with the people across this country who voted for Labor at the last election. In polling I commissioned in WA, 90 per cent of Labor voters supported a duty of care on climate. It's so sensible. We understand that we send people here to Canberra to make decisions that are good for our futures across the country. As we head into fire season, we're seeing lives already being lost, schools being shut and infrastructure under threat. This is not the new normal. This is only going to get worse until we see the kind of action that actually aligns with a safe future, when we see the Australian government taking some leadership, having science based targets and getting onto the world stage at every opportunity. The PM didn't even bother going to COP this year. We need to be there, pushing the bigger emitters on climate. I urge my colleagues in the Senate and those in the other place: this is urgent. Let's come back next year and actually get cracking.

It is a mark of decent societies that they recognise that the market for human labour is different to other markets, because labour is not a commodity. The main objects of labour law and the trade union movement are to act as a countervailing force to counteract the inequality of bargaining power, which often inheres in employment relationships. It is with great pride today that I stand up in support of the Make Amazon Pay campaign, being led by the SDA and the TWU here in Australia. Amazon represents two or three aspects of what I've just spoken about—they represent a willingness to use human labour as a commodity, they represent a willingness to exploit bargaining power at the expense of Australian workers and workers around the world, and they represent a force which the trade union movement and this parliament need to stand against on behalf of Australian workers and workers around the world.

Last year, I spoke about the concerning reliance on algorithms and apps to create staff rosters within Amazon facilities here in Australia. That reliance on technology, which has little oversight from humans and little accountability, left employees with inconsistent and unpredictable work schedules. It left them anxious, with little time for family life, caring responsibilities and those things that make life joyful and permit human flourishing. The SDA national secretary, Gerard Dwyer, described it best when he said:

Amazon want anything to interrupt their algorithm so they try to deprive workers of a voice and representation. Basically Amazon want to treat their "humans" like they are robots too.

As time goes on, we see little changing. Reporting by the ABC this month shows how Amazon relies on applications and online systems in assigning work to drivers for parcel deliveries through Amazon Flex. The platform is pitched as offering flexibility to independent contractors, but the experience of drivers—or 'delivery partners', as they are called—is very different. Delivery shifts are released on an app, providing a fixed payment and a fixed time to deliver the packages. The competition for shifts is fierce, with some contractors engaging bots or AI agents to secure shifts instantly—a practice that notionally breaches Amazon's terms, but drivers say those terms are not enforced. If drivers fail to deliver packages on time for whatever reason, they are threatened with deactivation from the Amazon platform. There are reports of deactivation occurring as a result of unverified complaints or technical glitches. Communication with Amazon is also largely automated, so drivers feel powerless to challenge decisions or actually speak to someone about decisions that could devastate their livelihoods. That's not a good flexibility; that's a race to the bottom, and the people that pay the price are Australian workers.

This government has already acted to protect workers by providing new protections for gig economy workers in the closing loopholes legislation, which included the ability to challenge unfair deactivation. Two cases against Amazon Flex are currently before the Australian Fair Work Commission, and I commend the Transport Workers' Union for its efforts in seeking to apply the new standards and give them teeth.

Behind Amazon's glossy promise of convenience and affordability is a system that entrenches insecurity in work and entrenches inequality in our society. It takes fairness away from our marketplace. Workplaces like this lead to an increased risk of physical and psychological injury for Australian workers. Unstable income makes it harder for workers to plan, to have security in their financial futures and to participate in their community. The Amazon Flex example is just one of a number of recent examples where the business model has familiar patterns—control, excessive surveillance, restricting union activity, and scraping the work of people in order to make a higher profit. Amazon is one of the biggest companies in the world. Their power is significant. Thus it remains vital that campaigns like Make Amazon Pay and laws like the closing loopholes legislation are pursued in order to make sure that working people aren't exploited.

Amazon is expanding its footprint in Australia. That's not to say that technology doesn't have a place in commercial activity or in expanding productivity, but it is vital that the expansion or extension of those technologies doesn't come at the expense of working people. And that's why it's so important to make Amazon pay—pay its fair share of taxes; pay a liveable wage to the people who work for it, whether it classifies them as workers or contractors; and pay attention to the laws and regulations of Australia.

The Albanese Labor government, since we were re-elected in May, have continued to work in the interest of Australians. I want to take this opportunity to highlight some of the things that we've done, building on last term—and that is delivering for working people.

We delivered higher wages for low-income workers. We delivered for aged-care workers. We delivered for people working in disability and, importantly, in the early childhood education sector. And they are about to receive another increase in their salary. We know that's already having a huge impact on the retention of good people working in that sector.

We're managing to deliver on the cost of living. We've reduced the cost of medication. We're building infrastructure in regional Australia and investing in health. We have put almost $800 million into women's health, the most money that's ever been invested in women's health in our history. That's what we're doing, on top of investing in education and housing. And we have now introduced legislation so that we can meet net zero by 2050. We're just waiting on those opposite and the Greens to get onboard.

That is in stark contrast to those opposite, who have been in division. They're dysfunctional. They're not doing themselves any favours. They're an embarrassment to themselves, and they are having an impact on our great democracy, because every good government needs a good opposition. That's part of our democracy. So it's so disappointing to see that they haven't been able to come to terms with the rejection that they had at the last election. They're only interested in talking about themselves. And I know, because it's their tradition, that over Christmas they'll be eating their oysters and caviar and drinking their Dom Perignon while planning the demise of Sussan Ley, the Leader of the Opposition. That's what they'll be doing. I predict they will depose their first female leader before the first half of next year comes to fruition. It's so disappointing.

What is also disappointing is what we experienced in this place this week by Senator Hanson. Her behaviour was absolutely deplorable. Serving in this great chamber, representing the great state of Tasmania, I have never before seen the Senate suspended under those circumstances. We're not children; we're adults. And we are leaders. That's why we've been elected to this place. But, when she was directed to leave the chamber, she refused. If she thinks that this is going to get her more votes and that this is going to raise her profile—I want to quote from two local papers in Tasmania, the great Examiner in Launceston, where I live, and the Advocate. I quote the editorial:

It's a stunt most reasonable Australians would find not only extremely offensive, but completely childish and out of touch.

We expect a higher standard of our political leaders, even those with whom we may broadly disagree on most issues.

Senator Hanson's particular brand of performative protest that is designed to offend is typical of a bully who's clearly suffering from relevance deprivation.

It's tempting to ignore Senator Hanson and her ilk—to write her off as unserious and unthreatening.

But it is also worth noting that Senator Hanson has now been a feature of Australian public life for three decades, and seems to grow even more belligerent as the years go on.

Much as many of us are inclined to scoff at her predictable and childish stunts—there remains a small but devoted slab of the population who agree with every word she says, and possibly even applaud such ill-considered and unsophisticated escapades in the highest echelons of public life.

A reassuring number of federal politicians from all sides were quick to criticise Senator Hanson on Monday for her crassness, bad timing and, it must be said, stunning lack of imagination.

If anything, she reminds us of everything Australia is not, and should aspire to be better than. It's time for a new act, senator.

I think that sums up what the Australian people will take from that but, unfortunately, they will be those young women and young girls that will be bullied and abused because of her comments. Shameful! Shameful!

Acting Deputy President, I'm sure you know that, recently, Australia and the United States signed a new bilateral framework to secure supply chains in critical minerals and rare earths. It's a historic partnership to create a shared, reliable supply chain for the minerals needed for advanced defence technology and the clean energy transition. The purpose of this is really simple. It's to secure supply with trusted partners, bring more processing and value-adding onshore, reduce reliance on contracted, concentrated global supply chains and strengthen our economic resilience and national security.

Australia has what the world needs. In fact, as you also well know, Acting Deputy President, Western Australia has what the world needs. One of the very first priority projects under this framework is in my home state of Western Australia, at the Alcoa gallium refinery project in Wagerup. This is a groundbreaking project backed by real investment and concrete timelines. The refinery will recover gallium already present in the bauxite processes of Alcoa. During construction, it will support around 200 jobs in the south-west of WA, and, once operating, it will support a few dozen, ongoing, skilled, long-term jobs. When fully operational, Wagerup is expected to produce around 10 per cent of the world's gallium. I'm really thrilled that Minister Ayres is here in the chamber now, because he visited the Wagerup site last week, along with the Prime Minister, Minister King and Assistant Minister Charlton. We were very warmly welcomed by the team at Alcoa, who hosted us and showed us the very site at their plant where this work will happen.

I think Wagerup highlights WA's natural advantages in this space. We have world-leading deposits and decades of experience in responsible extraction. But the next step is really where the opportunity lies: having more processing, refining and manufacturing onshore, with workers right here. WA is well and truly on the road moving in this direction. This gallium project is a powerful signal that global partners see value in our industrial capability, not just our geology. It places Western Australia well and truly at the centre of our critical minerals strategy. Critical minerals underpin almost every technology shaping this century—batteries, semiconductors, medical devices, defence capabilities and renewable energy systems. We know the global demand is steep, but supply chains are under strain. And that's why, here in Australia and in my home state of Western Australia, we can shift that pattern by supporting and investing in onshore processing, new industries and creating long-term local jobs.

This is, of course, part of our broader plan to build a future made in Australia, and ensure our economy is competitive in the clean energy and advanced manufacturing era. For workers and families in Western Australia's south-west, this is about more than just that, though. It's about opportunity. It's about stability. And it's about continuing the long-term industries that have supported our regional communities for a long, long time. One of the things that I think is really special about that particular Alcoa Wagerup plant that we visited last week is that the vast majority of their workforce live locally. This is not a fly-in fly-out worksite. It's well and truly supporting those thriving regional communities in Western Australia's south-west.

Wagerup shows what this future can look like across regional WA and right across our country—modern processing plants backed by secure partnerships and long-term jobs in the communities that have powered Australia for generations. The Albanese government is committed to this work, creating jobs, boosting our economy and investing in a future made in Australia.

Asbestos has been found in the brake pads in the shaft of wind turbines at Cattle Hill wind farm in Tasmania. It's another catastrophe in an unregulated wind turbine industry. Goldwind is a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer and wind farm developer, which already has a history of breaching the conditions of its planning permit at the Gullen Range Wind Farm in Gurrundah, in the Southern Tablelands of New South Wales. Goldwind moved the placement of 69 of their 73 turbines, having a significant adverse effect on neighbouring properties. Goldwind doesn't have regard for our rules and regulations. Goldwind is a major supplier of wind turbines in Australia. It supplies wind turbines across New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania, including in White Rock, Gullen Range and Biala in New South Wales, Clarke Creek in Queensland and Moorabool and Stockyard Hill in Victoria. There are more than 600 turbines in operation and 120 turbines in development.

Now we have found asbestos in the brake pads in the wind turbine tower lifts at Cattle Hill. WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW confirmed on Friday that asbestos has been found in a number of wind farm sites and that investigations are underway. At Cattle Hill, the turbines have been isolated from access for maintenance and asbestos removers have been employed. How many people have been exposed to date? The question has to be raised as to how a prohibited hazardous material—asbestos, which has been banned since 2003—has been imported into our country. What steps have the Albanese government and the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, taken to stop this importation? What has the Minister for Health and Ageing had to say? I've heard nothing but crickets so far. What steps have been taken to advise people of the risks? Have neighbours to the wind farms been advised? Have rural communities been exposed? What has the Australian Border Force commissioner had to say about this? Did Border Force take samples when these Chinese wind turbine components were imported? Did Border Force know about this prohibited importation? Has the documentation been falsified by Goldwind? Border Force is required to issue a public safety notice. Have all of the states been notified of the importation of asbestos and the risk to their workers? Again, I've heard crickets.

There is no defence against the importation of prohibited hazardous materials. Unlawful importation of asbestos can be prosecuted under the relevant criminal offence provisions. The Australian Border Force issued a notice titled 'Prescription of asbestos as a tier 1 good', which stated:

From 26 March 2019, asbestos, and goods containing asbestos, are prescribed as Tier 1 Goods … of the Customs Regulation 2015 …

As a result … the unlawful importation and exportation of asbestos can be prosecuted … under subsections 233BAA(4) and (5) of the Customs Act.

These tier 1 import regulations carry penalties of five years imprisonment and 5,000 penalty units for each offence. That's a fine of $1,650,000 or 15 times the value of the goods—whichever is the greater. With over 600 turbines already imported, that penalty could, and should, be astronomical.

These components cannot be buried here. They must be safely removed and exported back out of the country. Has an order been sought to have the importer, Goldwind, dismantle and remove these components from Australia at their own cost, or will the bill be footed by Australians, who are already footing the bill of subsidising these wind turbines to the tune of a million dollars per turbine per year through their electricity bills? Notice the difference in the way this importation of asbestos has been handled compared to the recall of 23,000 Chinese cars in 2012. Where is the ACCC comment on this risk? Why aren't we hearing about this from the Albanese government? Are the unions supporting WorkSafe Victoria and SafeWork NSW in their investigations to protect the safety of workers, or are they protecting their superannuation fund investments in the wind farms? The brakes need to be put on this corrupt industry, which continues to go unregulated in their reckless pursuit of net zero. One Nation will deliver that.

There are now just 14 days until the social media ban. That world-leading reform is due to hit our screens. On bus stops and online, we're seeing a big advertising spend on this policy in the lead-up to the big holiday season. And what a summer break it'll be. The kids will be outside kicking a footy like the good old days. They definitely won't be moving from sites that they can't access, like Snapchat and TikTok, to sites that aren't captured by the ban or that do not recognise Australian law!

It was revealed at estimates last month that, alarmingly, one of the websites that is not part of the ban is 4chan. 4chan is one of the most disturbing places on the internet, where a lot of the content, including content that would be considered class 1 and class 2 material under the Online Safety Act, you don't even need an account for. Just look it up and traumatise yourself. It's that easy. I asked why 4chan wasn't considered a social media service, and the eSafety Commissioner said that, rather than being classified as social media, it is really an image board. An image board? In questions on notice, I asked: 'What is an image board? Is Instagram an image board? Is Tumblr an image board? Is Pinterest an image board? Is Reddit an image board?' It will be interesting to see the responses to those. The social media ban is only a ban on kids under 16 having accounts.

I asked whether the government had considered websites, like 4chan, that do not use an account system. The eSafety Commissioner answered, 'Not to my knowledge.' This is really the core of the problem with this policy. It has been conceived in haste, and the government is trying, very poorly, to cover up that it has been conceived in haste. It is trying to pretend that it did not rush this through the parliament at the end of 2024 in the expectation that the 47th Parliament would not sit in the new year before the election was called. It is trying to pretend that there is a reason for documents related to the ban to be withheld or redacted for reasons of commercial sensitivity. When the Senate asked, quite fairly, for an explanation of what these sensitivities were, the government froze up. A bead of sweat formed on its temple, and it adjusted its collar: 'It's commercially sensitive because—it just is, okay?' No further information is available, as per the public interest immunity claim cited under order 37. It's a joke.

This isn't about tenders for a government project. This isn't about national security or anything like that. It's about keeping young people off of social media. It's also about keeping as much information about the government's deliberations out of the public arena as possible for legal reasons. The government knows that at least one organisation, not including the mega corporations that are subject to this ban, is contemplating challenging the constitutional validity of the social media ban. Whether the government wins or loses such a case, there is no doubt that such a trial would embarrass the government by revealing the utter want of policy merit that bedevils the social media ban.

Let's be honest. Since the government's election victory, it has become arrogant. Transparency and accountability are beneath it. We heard yesterday the same speech from Senator Walsh 14 times in a row about the number of OPDs the Senate has moved. Perhaps, if the government spent more time producing documents that the representatives of the Australian people have asked for and less time carrying on about it in the Senate and wasting the Senate's time, there would be less need for all the compliance and attendance motions that are inevitably moved. The Prime Minister, in times gone by, spoke frequently in the other place of the born-to-rule attitude of the coalition parties. He has become that which he sought to destroy. It is from the top down that this attitude of superiority passes through this government, and it shows in things like this—a simple order for the production of documents that have no good reason to be withheld from the Senate and yet are. Australians want answers about how the government developed the social media ban. The flaws of this policy are plain to see, and it hasn't even begun yet. So good luck, people.

I was watching Niki Savva on the weekend talking about the challenges that are being faced by those opposite. I think it's time they turned their frowns upside down.

Senator Ayres—

I had a whole 12 minutes to go!

I think you can tell my regret at having to cut you off, but I do have to do that. It is now time for two-minute statements.

What a disappointment we missed out on that spiel from Senator Ayres! Anyway, we'll get on with the real stuff. It actually leads me into the point I want to make today, which is that Australian politics is broken, as evidenced by that. It's not broken by a lack of promises. Every election we hear promises about glossy pledges, cheaper power, a fair go for all and listening to Australians. They're always listening to Australians. Yet, once the votes are counted, we get the same timid theatre in this place.

What this building actually lacks is courage, moral clarity and a serious grasp of the forces that are reshaping this world beyond our shores. This building is entirely focused on itself. In fact, this very week the people in this building spent almost an entire sitting day lecturing an elected senator about what she was wearing in this chamber after they denied her the right to speak about her own bill, which is a common thing for this government. The people in this building speak in focus-group-style language while energy costs choke Australian households and young people inherit a nation that borrows from them in order to pay for today. This is a parliament filled with weathervanes, not compasses.

I can tell you that pointing this out from the sidelines doesn't do anything at the moment. Complaining from the pub, on talkback radio or in furious posts on social media doesn't cost anything, and it achieves less. If you're tired of watching the slow-motion decline of this country, as I am, the responsibility is actually yours. Marches are all fine, but getting involved in politics is more important, because democracy is not a spectator sport. This country was built by people who refused to accept mediocrity, and the country can be reclaimed, but it's not going to be reclaimed with you sitting on your couch at home.

On a much brighter note, it was my absolute pleasure to attend the official opening of 4 Season Company's latest supplement warehouse in Bangkok last week. 4 Season Australia has been investing in the Asian region since 2017, working with DFAT to bring new Aussie farming tech to Laos, Indonesia and Thailand. Improving food security is a key focus of 4 Season, with the introduction of locally made Aussie tech to boost production in the beef and dairy sectors in Thailand. Thailand is a major importer of Australian beef, and, with a little help from tech such as the introduction of better nutrition through 4 Season's nutrient blocks, which are produced in their supplement warehouse, local beef and dairy sectors will be able to lift production of red meat and dairy for more parts of Thai society.

Daniel and Josh Olsson, sons of my very dear friend the Australian agricultural icon Chick Olsson, have been working in the region for four years alongside DFAT and embassy teams, especially the Aussie embassy in Thailand, to open new markets for Australian-made and Thai-made products. The Thai cattle and dairy sector has approximately nine million head of cattle, with many local farmers indicating strong interest in using new supplements to boost production and on-farm wealth. More than ever, our future prosperity lies in the economies of our region. The Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, and our government are very supportive of the expansion of trade into the region, and one very successful example of this can be seen via exporting our farming know-how for locals to use.

Again, it was my absolute pleasure to be with Chick, Daniel and Josh Olsson to open the facility and see what they did. Congratulations on this magnificent milestone. To Amelia Walsh, the minister-counsellor and senior trade and investment commissioner for Thailand and Laos: it was lovely to meet you. To Chick, Josh and Daniel, your staff, your families and everyone who has helped you on this journey: congratulations.

Right now, more than 90 Tasmanians lie stranded in state hospitals. The key? They're too healthy to be there. Let me rephrase that. Right now, over 90 medically fit Tasmanians who are ready to be discharged lie stranded in state hospitals. Why, you ask? Because those Tasmanians are waiting for federally funded aged-care and NDIS support. Aged care support was supposed to be rolled out in the form of home and in-centre packages, an issue that was a key focus and a strong promise by the government earlier this year. This NDIS funding is being restricted and cut, despite experts, professionals and recipients crying out for support and reform. This failure by the federal government cost Tasmanians more than $70 million in 2024 and 2025. Tasmanians simply cannot afford this, and they shouldn't have to.

This issue is not isolated. Nationally, nearly 4,000 long-term patients are stranded in state hospitals due to a lack of aged-care or NDIS support available to transition them out of acute care. The Prime Minister is playing the blame game, telling state and territory governments to just spend less if they want government support. Well I say to the Prime Minister, maybe states wouldn't have to spend so much if your government would adequately fund aged care and stop stripping away the NDIS. You all clap your hands over inadequate hospital funding and slow aged-care package rollouts. I don't know about you, but a decline of 54 aged-care beds in Tasmania doesn't deserve any applause, and it certainly isn't anything to be proud of.

I call on the health minister to stop negotiating and start funding what we already know is needed, and bring those stranded Tasmanians out of hospital and into appropriate aged care.

Australia is in the middle of the worst housing shortage in our nation's modern history. Rents are soaring, vacancy rates have collapsed and home ownership, once a realistic goal for young Australians, is now falling further and further out of reach. Today's inflation has grown to 3.8 per cent for the year to the end of October, a further affordability blow for families.

These outcomes are the product of deliberate government decisions. Since 2022, Labor has presided over record population growth while housing construction has gone backwards. New dwelling starts are now lower than they were in the late 2010s. And the Albanese government's National Housing Accord sets an ambitious target—Labor loves a bold target, especially one it has no hope of meeting—so far into the distance that people will actually forget it before they fail to meet it.

Mr Albanese pledged 1.2 million new homes between 2024 and 2029. To get there, this means you have to build roughly 240,000 homes every year just to stay on track. To deliver those 1.2 million homes, construction needs to reach around 57,000 homes every quarter. The latest ABS figures are telling us we only got up to a little over 41,000 dwellings. We're going backwards.

Bringing forward the government's five per cent deposit scheme with no income caps has lit a fire under the investor housing market. Instead of making it easier to purchase a home, it's making it harder. That's why we have tent cities popping up right across capital cities and rural capitals. It's tragic when it's in a country as wealthy as Australia. The consequences of high migration and low housing starts are now reaching far beyond the rental market, and a generation of young Australians has been locked out. (Time expired)

I want to talk about making Amazon pay. Why is that? It's because Amazon is destroying Australian jobs and Australian businesses. In 2025, Amazon has continued its shameful record of unionbusting and corporate arrogance. It has shown time and time again it will not respect the rights of working people or the basic principles of collective bargaining. Amazon continues to try to deny Australian workers a voice at work. Whether it's failing to address issues raised by SDA members, or refusing to meet workers who insist on having SDA representation, Amazon tries to silence workers.

Disputes with Amazon, whether unfair dismissal, injured workers, discrimination or sexual harassment, all have one thing in common, and that is to silence workers. Amazon don't want anything to interrupt their algorithm, so they try to deprive workers of a voice and of union representation. Basically, Amazon want to treat their humans like they are robots, and it's time we make Amazon pay their fair share. As a consumer, just like millions of other Australians, I want to see Amazon pay fair wages to their workers. They must stop denying workers their rights. They must stop tracking every second of their workday and silencing any worker who speaks out against them. Can you imagine any other workplace doing that to their workers? Can you imagine that in your workplace? Hundreds of members of the mighty Transport Workers' Union have stood alongside the SDA and the MEAA to push for good Australian jobs and businesses, which are under existential threat.

Last week, Australians witnessed a terrifying demonstration of where our future lies under this Labor-Greens government, which implemented policy that the Morrison government initiated. It's a future that does not include the right to free speech or even the right to hold an opinion which conflicts with the government's. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah used her position as the Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy to impose her views on witnesses, the reverse of the committee process, which allows all opinions to be heard. From that testimony the truth shall emerge. The senator dismissed expert testimony from the Institute of Public Affairs with this comment:

The thing about science is it is contested until it is not. When consensus is arrived at, it is not contested anymore.

The senator has a PhD in artificial intelligence, has published 40 papers and should know better.

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines the scientific method as 'a process for developing and testing explanations of the world that relies on evidence, with the understanding that new evidence may revise or replace existing explanations'. There is no consensus provided for in that definition of the scientific method. Senators and witnesses who disputed the belief, based on the evidence, that humans are responsible for our changing climate were subjected to hostility, rudeness, smugness and arrogance unbefitting the Senate. The inquiry is a travesty of the Senate process. It's a waste of taxpayer money and is designed to justify legislation to censor opinions it does not like. The government does not get to shut down dissent, censor inconvenient truths and cancel the right to free speech. One Nation will fight, every inch of the way, your attempts to set the government up as the thought police of Australia. You will not turn our beloved country into communist China.

Last week, I visited Tanya at the Abracadabra family day-care centre in Spreyton. Tanya's been operating there for 25 years, and for a large proportion of that time she has been operating under a dual educator model. She's now caring for the children of the kids she once cared for, and she's certainly much loved.

Recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission report into child care recommended that, particularly in rural and regional areas, the dual educator model be permitted under the national framework. The government, through the minister, has told this chamber twice now that the government will be implementing those recommendations. Recently, the Tasmanian government did their bit in this discussion, which has been referred to by the minister on a couple of occasions, and granted Abracadabra family day care and Addisons family day care at Latrobe an extension and a temporary waiver of the guidelines until 31 January 2026.

The question is: when will the government do what it said it would do, which is implement the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review? When will the minister implement recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which will take the pressure off these two family day-care centres, which are providing service in an area of need in north-west Tasmania. The minister has the future of these facilities at the tip of her pen. Tanya is now deciding whether she remains open when school starts again next year. That's the decision that this government needs to make: will it support the provision of childcare services in our region, or will it continue to sit on its hands?

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the Australian of the Year Awards for Tasmania. Every nominee had a story that spoke to courage, community and quiet determination. I want to congratulate Dr Jorian Kippax on being named the 2026 Australian of the Year for Tasmania.

Many first heard his name after the Franklin River rescue, where he helped save a stranded rafter in incredibly difficult conditions. But what stands out when you meet him is not the drama of that moment, but his humility and the deep respect he has for the whole rescue team. His career as an emergency medicine specialist, including service with the ADF and the Australian Antarctic Division, reflects years of calm, steady work in the toughest of environments.

I also want to acknowledge our Senior Australian of the Year, Julie Dunbabin, whose vision has changed the way we think about school lunches in Tasmania. Her simple but powerful belief that every child deserves a nutritious sit-down meal made from local produce is now reaching thousands of students each week. It is building healthier habits, supporting local growers and easing pressure on families.

Our Young Australian of the Year, Alyssia Kennedy, is helping young Tasmanians to take their first steps into adult life with confidence. Through her Life After School program, she is giving young people the skills and support they need for the real world.

Finally, I congratulate the 2026 Local Hero for Tasmania, Emily Briffa. Hamlet cafe has been a place where people living with disability and mental health challenges gain skills, confidence and a pathway to work. More than 700 Tasmanians have trained through Hamlet—a testament to Emily's leadership and the belief in the potential of every person.

Congratulations to all recipients across the country, and best of luck to our Tassie contenders. I have no doubt they will do our state proud.

In the latest assault on black and brown kids, the Allan Labor government wants to lock up 14-year-olds for life. This announcement came soon after the Australian Youth Representative to the UN, Satara Uthayakumaran, published her report which said:

Young people describe Australia's youth justice system as punitive, not rehabilitative. First contact is often punishment, not protection: handcuffs before help, cells before care.

The testimonies in this report include a child stating:

They stripped me in my cell. The moment they pulled my pants down—that's when I stopped feeling like a human.

Another said the detention centre 'locked up 14-year-olds with disabilities for 23 hours a day—then wondered why they broke'. While kids in detention centres wrote letters to the Prime Minister pleading with him to look out for them, crying out for protection, Prime Minister Albanese stood side-by-side with Premier Allan, praising this latest move as evidence she is doing an excellent job. How dare the Prime Minister! And how dare Premier Allan sign with one hand the treaty for Victoria, while her other hand writes laws that can jail First Nations children for life. Adult time for adult crime is a harmful, inhumane and racist policy to grab new scope to control votes, while throwing kids under the bus. It does nothing but have devastating consequences for children and families. In the words of Monique Hurley from the Human Rights Law Centre:

Children deserve care, not cages and adult prison sentences. The Allan Government's proposed laws will condemn children as young as 14 to irreversible harm and an incredibly bleak future behind bars.

These laws are reckless and shameful, and they should be scrapped.

Recently, I was in the market for a new air conditioner when I came across an acronym I had never seen before—DRED, Demand Response Enabling Device. Spoiler: it's as bad as it sounds. I jumped online to see exactly what DRED was all about. The Daikin website gave a great overview:

A Demand Enabled Response (DRED) air conditioner allows your electricity provider to control the system at various pre-programmed levels, to manage your demand on the power grid during peak periods.

What could go wrong with that? The next article I found was from the ABC. They reported that Queensland's state owned Energex remotely throttled down nearly 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months, slashing their power to 50 per cent during sweltering heat to protect the grid. How does a power company send a signal to your house to turn down the air con specifically? Smart meters.

In my home state of Western Australia, they are coming to a meter box near you. You may be able to have the remote communications removed if you meet certain criteria. If you do, you'll have to read the meter yourself—a massive step backwards and a major inconvenience. But you don't even get that option if you have solar panels, an electric car or a home battery system.

Thanks to Labor's brutal attack on our power grids, governments are scrambling to find ways to stop them collapsing. Your batteries, your panels, your electric cars and your air conditioners will no longer be yours to control. They have been hijacked for the greater good, whether you voted for it or not. This is coming to your house. This is the future of energy under Labor. Total government control is coming. DRED is coming.

When companies are so strongly opposed to unions, it's often because they've got something to hide. Amazon, the second-largest online retailer in Australia, is one of the worst offenders when it comes to worker exploitation, tax evasion and disregard for even the most basic levels of human dignity. It's time to make Amazon pay: pay their fair share of tax, pay their workers fair wages and pay their workers the respect that they deserve.

Amazon's abhorrent practices undermine the democratic principles at the heart of our great nation. Their systemic exploitation of workers and their tax avoidance don't just hurt workers; they undercut fair, proud Australian businesses who do the right thing. The worst part is that these tactics are deliberate. In the US, Amazon have spent tens of millions of dollars on anti-union consultants—the most of any company—and they've imported those heinous tactics here to Australia. They've actually called police to block union officials from inspecting conditions, and they've sacked dozens of drivers who dared to speak up.

To Amazon, workers are just a number, an expendable cog in the corporate greed machine designed to line the pockets of the C-suite and shareholders. But, unlike those opposite, who seek to entrench wage suppression and crush workers' rights, the Albanese Labor government is doing the opposite. We've delivered multiple reforms to improve workers' rights, including world-leading closing-loopholes reforms, protecting casual and gig workers and delivery drivers, and strengthening our procurement rules. It's time to make Amazon pay.

I rise today to again express my deep sorrow and unwavering solidarity with the Sudanese Australian community. Across this country, people are watching in anguish as their loved ones suffer through an unspeakable conflict. I'm concerned that the response of the international community does not match the devastating scale of the crisis. This week, reports from el-Fasher suggest that more than 32,000 people have been killed in that city alone. Across Sudan, the death toll is now estimated at over 150,000 people.

I want to acknowledge the many Sudanese Australians whose advocacy and courage have kept this crisis from slipping entirely from public view. You have shown moral clarity in seeking support for more to be done to support people in Sudan. The conflict is not just a war; it risks becoming a genocide, if it has not become one already, with widespread reports of ethnic cleansing, systemic rape and mass starvation. Western governments, including those of our allies, have been accused of moral cowardice while atrocities mount. Whether or not one accepts that claim, it is clear that economic and strategic interests are outweighing human lives.

This chamber has shown solidarity before, but symbolic gestures are not enough. I recognise the government's action in announcing $10 million in humanitarian assistance in response to the crisis, but I call on the government to do more in supporting the Sudanese community here in Australia and in Sudan.

Let's talk about genocide. Genocide is considered the crime of all crimes—'genos', meaning 'tribe', and 'cide', meaning 'killing'. As Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who first defined genocide, understood it, genocide began long before World War II or the drafting of the genocide convention. Lemkin saw genocide across the colonies as the destruction of Indigenous peoples everywhere for private and imperial gain. Lemkin's definition of genocide held that cultural destruction was an essential part of any attempt to destroy a racial, ethnic, religious or minority group.

Destroying cultural items, targeting cultural leaders or places, banning cultural practices, and forced assimilation are the tools of cultural genocide. All of these were used in the bloodied history of this very colony. This element of genocide is missing from the current law. The legal definition was altered by nations that should be convicted of it. Leaving cultural genocide out of the international and domestic law was deliberate. Colonial states like Australia had to denounce the barbarism of World War II while protecting themselves from accountability for their own destruction of First Peoples.

The destruction of rock art at Murujuga is cultural genocide. Fifty thousand years of cultural history is under threat for gas. Exempting damage caused by gas emissions in the very document that gives it World Heritage status trivialises that very process. It is impossible to ignore that this colony is still committing genocide.

The annual 16 Days of Activism against Gender Based Violence is underway. The human cost of violence in Australia is catastrophic, immeasurable and increasing. Since this time last year, 74 women have been killed by an intimate partner, but many more are injured and impacted. The financial cost of family violence to this country is $32 billion a year. It remains the main driver of homelessness for women and children. Frontline services continue to turn away about a thousand people a day. The four Closing the Gap targets going in the wrong direction—adult incarceration, children in out-of-home care, suicide and children commencing school not developmentally on track—are fuelled by violence. Indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in statistics, and multicultural groups remain largely invisible. It is a scourge that does not discriminate, though. It is an issue for everyone.

In my home state of South Australia, family violence offences are up six per cent on last year. Our state royal commission provides recommendations, but the key here is not words but action delivering on the contribution of those significant consultations. Attending Rotary Foundation Australia's Purple Waves of Change at Moana Beach in South Australia on the weekend and Djirra's annual walk in Canberra focused attention on the impact on Indigenous women. It's clear the will exists; what we need to do is find more ways. It is work that must be supported by national coordination and consistency of approach, though recognising that there are local solutions, and having the courage to move past reviews and into implementation. The key lies in what Australians do every day and government being prepared do more of what the evidence says we should do more of and being brave about not doing what we know isn't working hard enough to change these statistics.

Can you believe that, right now, in 2025, there are women in Australia who don't have access to a toilet in their workplace? This is a reality for too many women who work in the transport sector, highlighted in a new survey conducted by the Rail, Tram and Bus Union, the mighty RTBU—and a shout-out to Alex Claassens. Nearly three out of every four women, 73 per cent, working in the sector reported health issues because of inadequate workplace sanitary facilities. Dehydration, UTIs, digestive issues, menstrual complications and kidney problems—all the result of not having access to a safe, private toilet in their workplace.

Women are delaying their toilet breaks. They're dehydrating themselves. They're having to carry used period products around in their pockets or bags during shifts, or even having to wear adult nappies or special underwear just to get through their shift. The response of managers? Too often, they laugh it off, and they make comments like, 'That's just how it works in this job.' Not good enough! I support this campaign. Every decent Australian should too.

Thank you, Senator O'Neill. The time for responding has expired. We'll move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. This morning, the ABS confirmed that inflation rose to 3.8 per cent in the 12 months to October, an increase from 3.6 per cent in September and higher than forecast. This follows confirmation from the RBA earlier this month that they expect headline inflation to rise to 3.7 per cent and remain high across 2026. Minister, how much more evidence do you need before you admit that the government's policy settings are resulting in higher prices for Australians?

I thank Senator Paterson for the question. I think, if Senator Paterson is concerned at inflation which was flat in the month of October, he would have been absolutely mortified at inflation when they were last in government, when, of course, headline inflation was 6.1 per cent and climbing.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Well, I'm merely drawing a comparison to the inflation rate that we inherited when we came to government, which was 6.1 per cent, and climbing, at that time, and of course we know it peaked at eight per cent or so in the December quarter of that year.

Yes, inflation is higher than we would like, but it is much, much lower than we inherited, and that is a fact. Not only have we got inflation down; we've seen jobs grow; we've seen unemployment remain historically low; we have got wages moving again; we've started to repair the budget; and, at the same time, we've provided Australians with cost-of-living relief to assist them when inflation was higher than we would like—all measures, I would point out, that those opposite criticised at the time; many, they voted against, and, indeed, continue to criticise when they talk about the expenditure of the budget. When they criticise the expenditure of the budget, the decisions we have taken, they are decisions around indexing the pension, making sure that single parenting payment goes up, looking at Commonwealth rent relief and making sure that we were able to provide energy bill relief when electricity prices have been high—all of that is what they refer to when they say, 'Labor has spent too much money.' What they are saying is: Labor has spent too much on you—on your energy bills, on Medicare, on housing, on— (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Today's ABS release also states: 'Electricity costs rose 37.1 per cent in the 12 months to October.' Does the minister acknowledge that the Albanese government's policy of net zero has totally failed and Australian households and businesses continue to pay higher and higher energy bills?

Senator Paterson has been in this place for a while now, so he will, of course, remember the fact that they had 23 energy policies, and couldn't land one of them, and that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure when you were in government. And what was your response? Nothing—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order across the chamber.

Head in the sand. 'Nothing to see here. Let's do nothing. Let's do nothing about creating the energy grid, the energy system, that Australians need. Let's fight over climate change internally'—which, might I say, continues to this day. Where is Senator Bragg? He got everything he wanted, we hear—got everything they wanted when they walked away from net zero.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson?

President, on direct relevance: I'm not sure what Senator Bragg has to do with a 37.1 per cent increase in electricity prices—on your watch; you're in government.

Senator Paterson, the minister is being relevant. There have been a lot of interjections and, as you know, the minister is entitled to take interjections, so I suggest that you try and get the left-hand side of the chamber to be quiet.

On energy bills, specifically, when we have recognised that there have been price increases, we've sought to assist households with energy bill relief and small business with energy bill relief, and those opposite voted against it.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

Deloitte Access Economics partner Stephen Smith said the Reserve Bank finds itself in the trickiest spot, facing accelerated inflation and softening economic growth. Minister, your out-of-control spending is causing higher inflation and higher interest rates, and we have softening growth. Isn't it now clear that the government has failed to live up to its promise that life will be cheaper under Labor?

The spending that you criticise, Senator Paterson, is for things like investments in paid parental leave, energy bill relief, support for apprentices, support for households to transition to and implement batteries, paid pracs for nursing teaching, social work, midwifery, boosts to Medicare, more choice and support for Australian women when it comes to health care, the $20,000 instant asset write off, our housing programs, our aged care, wage increases and our support for early childhood education and care. These are the things that those opposite are criticising when they talk about spending. We have repaired the budget, we have delivered two surpluses, and we have lowered the debt and the interest on that debt. All at the same time, as we fought against you every step of the way, we have introduced all of those measures to help the Australian people.

I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 26th Delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by the Hon. Nguyen Tung Lam. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and the Senate in particular.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, continuing the theme of her previous answer. Today, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released new consumer price index figures which showed prices were actually steady in October.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Check it out—zero per cent in October. But they ticked up in annual terms. You should be interested in this. Can the minister update the Senate on the latest economic data and the progress that has been made in the fight against inflation?

Order! Order! Senator Paterson, I've called order twice and you just completely ignored me. So disrespectful!

():  I thank very much Senator Dowling. It's great to have a respected economist on our side asking the questions around the Albanese government's management of the economy and indeed of the budget. New figures from the ABS today showed that inflation was steady in October but ticked up in annual terms. As I said in relation—

Ticked up!

It's not an unusual term to use, Senator Ruston—but anyway. As I said in answer to Senator Paterson's question, it is higher than we would like. The flat monthly result in October was driven by falls in electricity and fuel prices—those opposite may have missed that—and moderation in housing costs. The tick-up in annual terms in part reflects temporary factors such as the timing of state energy rebates and some of the volatile items such as travel prices.

But we also recognise that households are still under pressure, and that's why our continued, responsible cost-of-living relief is so important. When we look at the monthly results—and these are important; this is the first month, I think, of the full, complete monthly CPI figures—we think it is an important change that will help inform decision-making into the future and support the work of the government and indeed organisations like the Reserve Bank. Headline inflation was flat in the month of October but 3.8 per cent in through-the-year terms. Underlying inflation was 3.3 per cent in the 12 months to October. And, of course, when we came to office, Senator Dowling, headline inflation was 6.1 per cent and climbing. It peaked in the December quarter of that year, but it is now moderated substantially, which has given the RBA confidence to cut interest rates three times this year. Underlying inflation was hovering around five per cent when we came to government. It is now much lower than that.

Addressing cost-of-living pressures is important for all Australians, and the Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering the relief that Australians need. What measures has the government delivered to ease household budgets while strengthening the economy?

I thank very much Senator Dowling for the supplementary. We are continuing to roll out real, practical and ongoing help with the cost of living for Australian households. I would remind those—I'm trying to think of one those opposite supported. I'm not sure there is one. When we talk about pay rises for minimum- and award-wage workers, they now receive a total increase under Labor of over $9,000 a year. The superannuation guarantee is being increased to 12 per cent and paid parental leave expanded to 24 weeks. Energy bill relief continues to flow. There are $10,000 bonuses for housing apprentices on top of their wages. We've got our home batteries scheme, which is proving to be very popular. There are paid pracs for nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery students. There is our boost to Medicare and, again, the tripling of the bulk-billing rate, which came in on 1 November, expanding that across the board to help all Australians. More choice, lower cost and higher quality care for Australian— (Time expired)

Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on jobs, wages and cost-of-living relief for Australians. How is the government delivering for Australians and, most importantly, putting people ahead of politics?

I'm so glad Senator Dowling got to give that excellent supplementary. When we came to office, real wages were going backwards and had fallen for five consecutive quarters. Last week's wages data showed annual real wages have grown for eight consecutive quarters, the longest run of real wage growth in almost a decade. Since Labor was elected, inflation is down, debt is down, real wages are growing, unemployment remains low and interest rates have fallen three times this year. If those opposite had won the election, all the cost-of-living relief which we just talked about would have been on the chopping block. They are the party that wanted higher taxes—remember that? Did everyone enjoy Niki Savva's piece on that? That was the one that got away—the party that will ever be known as the party of higher taxes, that went to an election arguing for higher taxation. We are the party of lower taxes and higher wages. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. On Sunday, the Prime Minister, Minister Wong and Minister Bowen issued a joint media release outlining the details of the formal agreement with Turkiye for it to host the COP 31 climate conference. The joint media release states, 'Australia, in partnership with the Pacific island countries, will set the agenda for pre-COP in the Pacific, preside over pre-COP and fulfil all the operational and logistical responsibilities for pre-COP.' Does this mean the Australian taxpayers will be asked to pay for the costs of putting on the pre-COP? If so, how much has the government budgeted for these expenses?

I think it is a good question, because it allows me to spell out, just for a second, in the hope it might sink in—I mean, they're not all there, but for those that are. I want to break this to you really slowly. It is in the Australian interest and the interest of Australians for these climate negotiations to be successful. It is in the interest of Australia for Australia's interest to be represented there by our capable and effective Minister for Climate Change and Energy. It's Australian farmers, Australian industry, regional communities—

Senator McKenzie?

On a point of order, Madam President, on relevance, the minister has gone nowhere near the cost of the issues outlined in the joint media release issued by the Prime Minister and Minister Wong.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I think Senator Ayres is addressing the media release, but I will continue to listen carefully, and if he doesn't I'll draw him to the question.

The media release and the Conference of the Parties, of course, go to all of these questions. It's in Australians' interests—Australian farmers, Australian industry, coastal communities and communities in the bush—and, of course, it's also in the interests—

Senator McKenzie, you've asked the question.

of our friends and neighbours in the Pacific, who you lot mock and make fun of. Your previous leader mocked their interests. We are working with them to deliver in Australian interests. Today, there are representatives of those countries and their churches touring this building—

Order!

Senator McKenzie, I called order.

speaking to us directly—in fact, this morning, singing beautifully—about their interests—their national interests. That is what is being represented here, and it's absolutely in Australia's interests. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

So you have no idea how much you've budgeted for pre COP. Let's try the joint statement. It also states that Australia will be responsible for:

Minister, will Australian taxpayers have to bear any of the costs associated with preparations and consultations for the COP31 climate conference in Turkiye?

Well, what you're talking about, Senator McKenzie, strikes me as a good COP. That is a COP where Australia's interest is represented—

Senator McKenzie!

because it's in our interests to see, in a measurable way, a plan to reduce emissions.

Minister Wong?

Point of order on the persistent and very loud interjections from Senator McKenzie.

Thank you. I was going to inform Senator McKenzie that she was being louder than the minister, which is quite a feat. I would ask you not to interject any further, because I want to hear the answer. Minister Ayres, please continue.

I will take that as a personal challenge, President.

No, please don't.

That's a good COP, where our interests are represented. I'll tell you what a bad COP is. A bad COP is what Mr Morrison did last time in his mysterious trip to Glasgow, with almost a hundred people clustered around him, pandering to his every whim. He spent half his time in the United Kingdom on a family history holiday, utterly self-indulgent. These costs will be determined in the normal way.

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

The minister has gone nowhere near answering how much money the Australian public will be on the hook for for this decision. Let's try for the third time. Can the government guarantee that Australian taxpayers will not have to cop any of the costs associated with the planning, communication and delivery of the COP31 conference in Turkiye? The third time's the charm, Minister.

The conference in Turkiye is a diplomatic triumph for Australia. That's what it is. The costs for that will be determined in the normal way.

How much?

You know, Senator McKenzie—

Senator McKenzie, I have appealed to you not to call out and not to interject. You've asked your questions. I'll listen for the minister's answer.

I've answered in relation to costs for this. I'll tell you the costs that I'm concerned about. Mr Joyce, a former member of the National Party, under you lot claimed six hundred and—

Did we miss that?

It's a matter of time. He claimed $675,000.

Senator McKenzie?

The minister has been misrepresenting—

What's the point of order?

Barnaby Joyce—

That's a debating point. What is the point of order?

who is still a member of the National Party.

Senator McKenzie, I have asked senators many times not to use points of order as some sort of way to make a personal statement. If you had stood and asked me to direct the minister back to the question, I would have gladly done so, and I intend to draw the minister back to the question. That would have been an appropriate point of order. Minister Ayres, please go back to the question.

As I said, I've dealt with the question of costs. I understand that his ambiguous party membership status is a challenge for you. He's in the National Party and out of the National Party; he determines the National Party's policy approach and now he determines the Liberal Party's policy approach—in and out, the sort of Schrodinger's member for New England. He copped $675,000 in the pocket for being the special envoy, and he produced two text messages.

Thank you, Minister. The time for answering has expired. Senator Faruqi.

We have now moved on. I called Senator Faruqi. Senator Faruqi.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Minister, more than two centuries since the violent colonisation of First Nations land, we still remain subjects of a British head of state. The monarchy has hit headlines again in recent weeks over disgraced former prince Andrew's relationship with child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. A majority of Australians want him removed from the line of succession, and 43 per cent of Australians indicated their support for a republic—the highest ever. Your government's former attorney-general, Mark Dreyfus, said last week that it is past time for Australia to break its ties with the monarchy and encouraged you all to renew the republic campaign. Will the government acknowledge the surge in public support for a republic and take steps to cut ties and apron strings with the British monarchy?

Minister Wong.

Thank you very much and, if I may while I'm on my feet, welcome to our friends from Vietnam. You're very welcome in Australia. We're not always like this—well, actually, in question time we are!—but we value very much the friendship with your country.

Senator Faruqi, I think the position of the Labor Party is well known on this, and our support for a republic is well known. We also have been very clear that that is not something that is a first-order priority for the government in this term. I refer you to the Prime Minister's comments.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

Prime Minister Albanese has been a long-term advocate for an Australian republic and just last week said that an Australian republic is common sense. If that is the case, why did your government get rid of the role of assistant minister for the republic?

I'll refer you to my primary answer.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Minister, people in this country are deeply, deeply uncomfortable about Andrew Mountbatten being in the line of succession. I hope you are aware of that. When is your government going to move to a republic so that there is not even a remote possibility of this happening?

I think really, again, I refer you to my primary answer.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Farrell. We know social media is having a direct and harmful impact on Australian children, with statistics showing seven out of 10 kids have witnessed online harm. How will the Albanese Labor government's world-first social media laws help protect our kids from the pervasive pull of social media and give parents across the country peace of mind?

I thank the senator for her very good question and the great work that she does for the people of her home state, which includes keeping children safe online. It is a challenge, but it is one that the Albanese Labor government makes no apologies for taking on. Delaying access to social media until the age of 16 will protect Australian children at a critical stage of their development. That gives them three more years on which to build real-world connections, three more years for them to learn who they are before the platforms assume who they are. We have all heard the horrible tragedies that have befallen families throughout Australia. Social media targets children with deadly precision, and it's families that are left to suffer. This government will not stand idly by. We want kids to be kids, and these laws will help them have a childhood.

The Liberals and the Nationals are only focused on themselves and undermining these laws before they even begin on 10 December. We, on the other hand, are on the side of parents not platforms. That's where our focus is. There is a place for social media, but there's no place for predatory algorithms causing children harm. Social media has a social responsibility, and this government will continue to hold them to account.

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

We know the Albanese Labor government's social media minimum-age laws will be a major adjustment for Australian families, and that is why the government has made a range of resources available before 10 December. What impact will the government's world-first online safety reforms have on Australian families and children, and where can they find the latest and most accurate information?

I thank the senator for her first supplementary question. Our online safety reforms are about letting kids be kids. We know this is a significant change, and that is why there is a comprehensive package of resources available in the esafety website. There's been a 1,000 per cent increase in people visiting the website, and I encourage families to take advantage of these resources in the lead-up to 10 December. We are not chasing perfection, but we are chasing a meaningful difference. We're using every lever at our disposal to protect our kids and stand behind each family faced with an increasingly scary and dangerous digital environment.

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government takes the danger of online harm seriously, especially when it comes to those most vulnerable—our kids. Given these world-first online safety laws have been welcomed by Australian parents as a way to protect their children, how much interest in these laws have we seen from parents and experts from other countries?

I thank the senator for her second supplementary question. We know the world is looking at the Albanese Labor government decision to protect children online. Our reforms were resoundingly welcomed at the United Nations General Assembly. Just this week we've seen Malaysia announce its intention to ban social media accounts for under-16-year-olds. Earlier this month Denmark's government also announced plans to ban access to social media for anybody under 15. We are proud to be leading the world when it comes to protecting our kids online, and we're proud to provide Australian parents and grandparents with yet another tool to protect their children at a time when they are most vulnerable.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australia's economic growth is built on migration. This reliance on migrants, both skilled and unskilled, is not a coincidence. It is the backbone of our community and our economy, yet we still hear the tiresome base-level arguments. They are not taking jobs. They are filling gaps, creating new markets and sustaining our entire service economy. Can the government please outline what economic benefits migrants bring to Australia?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for the heads-up that she was going to ask a question around Australia's migration settings and policies and the economic benefit that comes from having a country that has been enriched and whose economy has been supported by a strong and mainly tripartisan or multipartisan approach to utilising the skills and capabilities of—

Lights in the chamber having flickered

Minister, please continue.

Filling workforce shortages and gaps, increasing the skills available for businesses, driving productivity and innovation, increasing and contributing to significant economic growth, enhancing business and entrepreneurship and increasing consumer demand are all things that support the continuation of a strong, sustainable migration policy.

In fact, Senator Tyrrell, you often asked me questions in this place about health care and Medicare when I was repping that portfolio. I think, where we have demand for skills that far outstrips the ability to supply those, anyone who goes into a hospital or an aged-care facility or, in fact, many of those industries that support care across our economy will see migrants there who've been brought in under various programs to support the delivery of services to the Australian community. If you look at doctor shortages or if you look at nursing shortages in allied health and the care economy more broadly, these jobs are critical to supporting our economy, our economic growth and our productivity agenda. Without migrants coming in on a sustainable program—and, as we have noticed in the last few years, net overseas migration has actually declined more than 40 per cent— (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Our ageing demographic means we are critically dependent on new blood and new skills. As we face an ageing population, we will need migration to support our aged-care sector and provide quality care. Can the government please outline how essential migrants are to our care sector?

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I really do appreciate a question that doesn't seek to demonise migrants coming into this country. It is a refreshing change, I think, and a different approach to the one that has been taken by others in this place.

In relation to aged care, it is essential that we are able to staff all of the care requirements that people need, whether that be in their homes or in aged-care facilities, or for those requiring more acute care in the hospital setting. We know that, over the last financial year, 21,000 healthcare workers came into Australia on skilled visas. That gives you a sense of the magnitude. Those 21,000 obviously will complement the skills of the experienced staff that we have working here as citizens, not on those visa arrangements. That gives you a sense of the magnitude, and this is going to continue. We know from all of the projections that we are going to need to continue to attract migrants in order to help us cover these job opportunities.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

We know for a fact that migration is boosting our economy and is keeping our care sector afloat. Can the government please explain what detriment to the economy a net zero migration policy for five years would cause for our economy, as proposed by One Nation?

It would have a very substantial impact on our economic growth, but it would also, importantly, have a very, very significant effect on the services that Australians seek and need, not only in the care economy. I have yet to find a business in this country—when I've done roundtables and all the rest of it—that has sought to have a policy such as the one that One Nation are arguing for. If anything, business is arguing for more intake in particular visa categories in order to fill the very significant shortages there are, whether it be in health and community care or, indeed, in construction or in engineering or in IT. All of those businesses would seek further increase in the intake. Certainly, no-one would be arguing for net zero.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Monday—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Smith is on his feet.

Senator Watt! Questions need to be asked in silence.

On Monday, the Labor premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, lashed your government's housing record, saying that the billions of dollars promised for hitting new home targets offered 'zero motivation for the states to reach their housing goals'. Minister, why are even your own Labor state colleagues now criticising your housing policies?

Thank you for the question. I hope all of the states would understand, as the federal government does, the importance of all levels of government responding to the need to increase housing supply. That's certainly the way we have approached it, and we will continue to work with state governments and, of course, continue to deliver the programs we are delivering. The facts are that we know Australia has had a housing affordability challenge growing for some time. We know that this has resulted in many—particularly young but not only young—Australians struggling, particularly renters and first home buyers. Unlike those opposite, who teamed up with the Greens to prevent more investment in Australia's housing supply, we recognise that the Commonwealth does have a role in increasing supply. Increasing supply is the primary way in which you can deal with affordability. There are, obviously, other measures that the government is seeking to put in place, including the Help to Buy scheme. I might be wrong, but are they seeking to disallow that as well? Is that right? Is that what Senator Bragg is doing?

In addition, there is the five per cent home deposit scheme. These are all measures that the government is putting in place because we recognise—unlike the government that was in place and of which you were a part, Senator, over nine years—that we have to work together to do something about housing supply. I remind you, Senator, that the government has a $43 billion housing Australia plan. We are investing more than eight times what the coalition did in a decade. We know that home building is improving, and we will keep working at this over the months and years ahead to deliver more houses for more Australians.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

The Prime Minister promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. So far, every state and territory is on track to miss their housing targets. Minister, is your government still committed to this promise?

I think the Prime Minister and the minister have both made clear that this is an ambitious goal. We know it is an ambitious goal. We accept that that level of ambition is necessary because of the mess that we inherited. For nine years, we had so little activity in this sector because those opposite—

You made the promise. We didn't make the promise.

I'll take the interjection from the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. 'We didn't make the promise,' that's true. You never made that promise because you never saw housing as a priority, so you didn't even bother making a promise or setting an ambitious target. You did not regard housing as a priority. Well, we do, and we are up for the challenge of investing money, investing funds, investing resources and working with the states and territories to deliver more houses for more Australians.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Minister, the government is failing to build houses. In the last financial year, you fell over 60,000 homes short of your target. Unbelievably, new home completions fell by over 3½ thousand compared to the year prior. Will your government admit your housing accord promise is now destined to be broken?

Senator Smith, I think I have said in here before that we have around 5,000 homes completed under Commonwealth programs and another 25,000 in planning and construction across the HAFF and other programs. There's another number which is pretty useful, and that's 373. That is the total number of social and affordable homes built in almost a decade under you. Yes, we do take the responsibility of having a higher target than 373 in a decade. We do that because we on this side understand the importance of housing to people's lives, security and future. We will keep doing what we are doing because we want to deliver more homes for more Australians.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Yesterday it was reported that the Trump administration had instructed US embassies in various countries, including Australia, to collect data on migrant crime statistics to address what it calls the human rights implications and public safety impacts of mass migration. Just yesterday, the Senate resolved to reject the immature stunt that Senator Hanson pulled earlier this week and stand with Australia's multicultural communities. In that context, Minister, will this government similarly condemn this hateful and divisive edict from President Trump?

This government will always make decisions about Australia's policies based on what we believe is best for Australia. We are a pluralist nation. We welcome different races, different religions, different views. That is the position of this government, and I think we have demonstrated that.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Minister, you said yesterday that modern day Australia is very multicultural, and that multicultural Australia is listening closely. It needs to know whether the government of which you are a part will stand against division, whether it comes from an Australian senator or an American president. So I repeat the question: with respect, will this government condemn this hateful and divisive edict from President Trump? Yes or no.

We are responsible for Australian policy. We speak for Australia. As I have repeatedly said over a couple of decades of public life, and as this government has repeatedly said and, I think, demonstrated by who we are, we are a party that supports our pluralist multicultural nation. One in two Australians is born overseas or has a parent born overseas. That is who we are, and we will always defend the principles that I have articulated, including yesterday, as has the Prime Minister.

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Minister, given the absence of a clear condemnation in your two previous responses, can you explain why the government appears to be willing to defend multicultural Australia only when it's politically convenient?

I shall try very hard, Senator Payman, out of respect for a fellow senator, not to be deeply and personally offended by that. There are some of us on this side who have defended multiculturalism for all our lives, and we always will.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Twice now voters have backed the Albanese Labor government's commitment to protect the environment and deliver cheaper and cleaner energy. With our abundant renewable resources and the falling cost of renewable generation, we have the chance to lower emissions while delivering more investment, more good jobs and a more productive economy. How is this government delivering cheaper and cleaner energy, and why is this government prioritising coherent and stable policymaking?

I'll just say that today in the electricity system there are 3.8 gigawatts of outages in the coal-fired electricity system—a thousand of those are planned and 2.8 gigawatts are unplanned. This is in the system that this lot thinks should be doubled, tripled or whatever the latest policy catastrophe is that it emerges from over there.

Today, when we have representatives from our Pacific partners and their faith groups in the building, we have catastrophic fire danger in the lower Central West plains and the highest November temperatures in years in Sydney and Brisbane. We are a party that takes climate change and emissions policy seriously. I think those opposite only remember the political embarrassment from 2019 and the bushfire season. We remember the human cost, the social cost, the economic cost and the environmental cost. They just remember the political embarrassment of what happens when you don't have a serious approach to climate, to energy, to climate adaptation and to building an energy system that is in Australia's interests.

Our plan to lower emissions will deliver the cheapest possible energy for families and businesses. It's why we've got the Cheaper Home Batteries scheme, cutting power bills already for more than 100,000 households—most of them in our outer suburbs—and adding more than 1,000 new households every day. That's what these people want to campaign against. That's why we have the Solar Sharer scheme, giving people and businesses free electricity in the middle of the day, and there's plenty more.

Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

Thanks, Minister. Two minutes sure does go quickly. The Albanese Labor government's energy policy is delivering the cheapest firmed power available—renewables backed by gas, batteries and hydro—to replace old coal power stations. Why is replacing these unreliable coal power plants a priority for the government?

Well, when the lights go out, Australians can be confident what the reason is. It's because these old coal plants shut without warning. They love these old coal-fired power stations over there. They want to invest public money in them—unless poor old Senator Bragg gets his Don Quixote tilting-at-windmills hopeful campaign up—sweating these plants for longer. When there's an unplanned outage, which happens every day, what happens? There are reliability challenges, but, also, power prices go up. Power prices go up because what's required is for our gas power stations to step in, and that pushes the price of power up. Your plan, your legacy, is higher prices, less investment and less generation.

Senator Dolega, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is not supporting coal power through the Capacity Investment Scheme and is not subsidising or funding new coal power stations. Why is the government not supporting new coal power stations?

The answer to that question—and it's a very good question, a characteristically good question from Senator Dolega. The reason we're not going to be investing taxpayers' money in coal-fired power stations, which is your approach, is because it would make electricity more expensive. There's poor old 'dopey Dan' over there. His strategy—

Senator Ruston?

I think you probably know what I'm going to ask the minister to do—address those in the other place by their correct title.

Senator Ayres, I will ask you to withdraw and remind you to address those in the other place by their correct titles.

I withdraw. The member for Wannon's plan to sweat these coal assets, as he says, is only mildly less dopey than Senator Canavan's plan—which never eventuated—to build a magical, publicly funded coal-fired power station in Collinsville. Not a fence was built. Not a dollar was installed. Not a hole was dug. There wasn't even a photo opportunity in that giant boondoggle.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Minister, a CEO of an Australian energy generator told the Australian Energy Council last week that net zero is one of the biggest things Australia is trying to do in such a short space of time, and having no thought-through, detailed plan on how to achieve the cost of doing it is probably going to halt the transition when the populists go, 'Hell no, can't afford it.' Minister, how high will energy prices get under your net zero plan before Australians do say, as one of our energy sector CEOs put it, 'Hell no, can't afford it'?

This is an extraordinary question, really, to try and find in that organisation's discussions, to try and work your way through to find somebody in the energy sector who actually agrees with the sort of feral wildness that has overtaken the Liberal and National parties on energy policy. The Australian Energy Council say:

… the Australian Energy Council, supports an economy-wide interim emissions reduction target as an important step towards achieving net zero.

They say:

Interim targets serve to provide certainty to industry and the broader economy about the expected investment pathway.

The interim target will be challenging, but that is not a reason to stop trying.

That is what industry is demanding. The Australian Industry Group—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator McDonald?

The minister is obviously trying to find the answer, so I'm turning him back to relevance—how high will energy prices get under your net zero plan?

Thank you, Senator McDonald. The minister is being relevant to your question.

The question—through you, President—was about the Australian Energy Council, and I'm answering it. It is impossible to find a serious contributor in Australian industry, in the energy sector, in manufacturing, in the business community, who thinks that a preferable position would be a disorderly transition run by the show over here. I understand that the impulse for danger, the impulse for wrecking, the impulse for self-indulgence has overtaken here, but the problem is that the people who pay for your policy self-indulgence are ordinary Australians. When you're self-indulgent about energy policy, ordinary Australians pay.

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Minister, since we signed up to net zero, energy prices have skyrocketed nearly 40 per cent, and gas prices are up 46 per cent. Minister, have you modelled how much higher energy prices will have to be to reach net zero compared to not doing net zero? If so, how much higher will energy and gas prices have to be to reach net zero?

The word 'we' in that question is doing a lot of work; it really is. When you say, 'We signed up,' who's the 'we' that we're talking about? It's Mr Taylor, right? Mr Taylor, Ms Ley, Mr Morrison, Mr Joyce—all of you.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I couldn't be more directly answering that question.

Senator McDonald?

The question is: how much higher will prices go?

That was part of the question, Senator McDonald. There was a preamble, and the minister is being directly relevant.

I'm reminded of Muhammad Ali, who said: 'Me. We.' We—all of us. If only that small moment of policy coherence could extend its way through, just imagine what would happen. Poor old Senator Canavan over there, who's sort of running this— (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Minister, Australians already can't afford their energy bills. Can you at least tell them how much taxpayer funding will be spent on pre-COP in the Pacific?

Senator McKenzie, I think if you look around the chamber you will see that I'm in the chair and I make those decisions. Minister Wong?

I'd ask you, President, to consider whether that question is in order as a supplementary question to the primary which was made.

It was a tenuous link, but we'll give Minister Ayres the opportunity to answer that question.

I'm tempted to spend a bit of time on tenuous links, but the point here, as Senator Canavan pointed out, is that at the end of the miserable period of the Morrison, Abbott and Turnbull governments, which did so much damage to Australia's electricity system, electricity prices had risen by 91 per cent. Because of that disinvestment that occurred, four gigawatts out and only one gigawatt back in—Snowy 2.0 started at $2 billion and is now $12 billion because of their mismanagement—electricity prices for ordinary Australians are higher than we would like. That's true. There is a consequence. Your self-indulgence, your incapacity, means that real Australians pay. You wrecked the electricity system. We are building a new electricity system. You wrecked it, and ordinary Australians pay. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. This month marked the Albanese Labor government delivering on its commitment to abolish the failed Community Development Program, replacing it with the new Remote Australia Employment Service. How will this new service better support people in remote communities to build skills, find work and participate in their local economies?

I thank Senator Stewart for the question and for her work in the area of economic empowerment for First Nations people—in particular, for her artwork on her Christmas card, by the way. On 1 November, the Albanese Labor government delivered on its commitment to abolish the failed Community Development Program and to replace it with the new Remote Australia Employment Service, or RAES. For years, remote communities were very clear. The CDP was not working and it focused on compliance rather than opportunity. It did not deliver the real jobs, training or pathways people asked for.

RAES is changing that. It will provide tailored support to around 40,000 participants across 1,200 remote communities. It will help people build the skills they need to become job ready, to move into work when it's available and, crucially, to stay in work through greater access to mentoring and ongoing support.

Where the job market is limited in these communities, RAES providers will engage participants in local community projects that build practical skills and confidence. At least 25 per cent of provider funding will be invested directly into these projects, giving communities the flexibility to design solutions that meet their own employment needs.

This is about shifting from a top-down model to genuine partnership. We've already seen the impact through job trials that informed the design of RAES in Galiwin'ku—just one example. The Miyalk Kitchen has supported 28 Yolngu people to build a thriving community enterprise, creating pathways to long-term employment and even supporting faster delivery of housing projects in the region.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Thank you for that update. The Remote Australia Employment Service is a major new investment in remote Australia. How will the Remote Australia Employment Service work alongside the government's remote jobs and economic development program to create real jobs in remote communities?

Senators will be very familiar with the catchphrase that I've been speaking about, and that is 'jobs, jobs, jobs' in our remote communities. While RAES is an employment service that provides skills training and activities to get people job ready, we know the reality in some of our remote communities is that their job market is limited. That's why we're delivering on our commitment to creating 3,000 jobs in remote communities under our Remote Jobs and Economic Development program. That program, RJED, is currently rolling out. These are real jobs that provide the dignity of work with proper pay and conditions, like sick leave, annual leave and superannuation. These jobs are rolling out in communities in industries like health, education, tourism, land management and cultural services.

Australians in remote communities deserve a government that delivers appropriate services and employment opportunities. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering jobs in remote communities making a real difference to empower Australians living in the bush?

When we develop policies for remote communities, I want to ensure that it's done in a way that does maximise the catchphrase of 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. Two examples of this are Indigenous rangers and food security. Both of these policies are creating even more jobs on top of our commitment to 3,000 remote jobs. On rangers, last week, I announced 900 new ranger jobs on top of that. They will be created in the latest round of funding as this government continues on the path to deliver on our commitment to double the ranger workforce by the end of the decade. On food security, we're also delivering a new nutrition workforce in remote communities, with over 100 locally employed positions in remote stores. These roles will provide culturally appropriate nutrition support delivered by local people in local languages, improving health outcomes while creating new employment pathways.

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

And I inform the Senate that there was a brief power outage at the Telopea Park Substation. Maintenance teams are currently working on resetting infrastructure that has been affected by the outage.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.

I move to take note particularly of those around the inflation figures that were announced today. It is quite extraordinary how far inflation has ticked up considering that, just a few months ago, Jim Chalmers was telling us all that the inflation genie was back in the bottle, that he had tamed the dragon, that we didn't need to worry anymore, that we could expect decreases in the prices of houses, that we'd see interest rates come down, that everything was fine and that it was all due to his exceptional economic management. Well, how quickly the story has changed!

You would recall, Deputy President, that at the beginning of this Labor government, when inflation was high, Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, said that it was always somebody else's fault. First of all, he blamed the coalition. Then he said it was Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine and that was why they had to push up gas prices. Then he said that it was Hamas's fault and that the troubles that were going on in the Middle East were causing the rise in energy prices and pushing up inflation around the world. Then he said: 'Well, now that President Trump has been elected, that's geopolitical instability and that's causing some problems with inflation. That's just something we have to deal with.' And then he came back to the coalition and said it was our fault all over again.

At no point in time has the Treasurer even once taken responsibility for the persistent inflation in this country, even though our inflation was higher and lasted longer than in so many other advanced economies, who managed to tame their inflation through fiscal responsibility. They saw the government spending wind back in response to high inflation around the world. They said: 'No, we'll do our bit. We'll do some of the heavy lifting. We won't turn it all over to monetary policy.' But that's not what this government did. In fact, they said: 'This is really Michele Bullock's responsibility. We'll just turn it over to her.' So the poor RBA had to pull on the only lever they had—they only have one lever, and that's monetary policy—and they pulled it 12 times. That's why we saw interest rates go up 12 times in the last parliament—12 times! It has since come back down three times, but now it has stalled again.

There are so many Australians out there—do you remember the days, Deputy President Brockman, when Australians really didn't give two hoots what the inflation data was doing? They really didn't even look too hard at interest rates. But now you've got families that are hanging out watching economic data roll in, wondering how it's going to affect them. And you can understand why, because their living standards have gone backwards under this government. Why have they gone backwards? Because inflation has been too high for too long. It has eaten away at their wages. It means that they can buy less with the money that they have. Even if their wages have gone up, they haven't gone up enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. And it's that cost of living that has caused so much damage in just the last three years alone—that persistent rising cost of living. It's a problem which, according to Jim Chalmers, has apparently been solved.

What is one of the causes of this persistent inflation? It's not just government spending although, let's face it, that is important—even Michele Bullock has pointed that out. It is the rising cost of energy—those increasing energy bills, those energy bills that you all know have gone up by 40 per cent in the last three years. And why have they gone up 40 per cent? Because of this government's ideological obsession with reaching its renewable energy targets and reducing emissions well beyond any comparable country by 2030, and, indeed, 2035 as well. That ideological obsession has seen our energy prices rise, not lower.

Only the coalition has proposed an alternative, which is to reduce emissions while delivering affordable and reliable energy, shoring up the grid—a technology neutral approach that will not see a one-eyed single technology of renewable energy delivering higher energy prices, which of course is taking us all backwards. That renewable energy obsession is what has seen companies go out of business, like Tomago, like Incitec Pivot, like Qenos plastics, like Oceania Glass in my home state of Victoria. These companies, these manufacturing businesses, are going out of business because of this government's approach to managing the economy, to managing the energy grid and to managing inflation.

We want to see the pie grow. Economic management is not something that happens by accident; it happens by design. But this government has done the exact opposite, and it is Australians who are paying the price.

Inflation is certainly much lower than what we inherited when we came to office. As you heard the finance minister say, the figures are much higher than we would like to see. But when we came to office, inflation was at 6.1 per cent and rising; now it has a three in front of it instead. And while inflation was flat in the month of October, it did tick up in annual terms, in part due to temporary factors such as the timing of state energy rebates and volatile items, such as travel prices. Underlying inflation was almost five per cent when we came to office; now it is lower than that.

The progress we have made on inflation has given the RBA confidence to cut interest rates three times this year. We've been able to get inflation down while keeping unemployment low, and the economy has continued to grow—and this is not the case around the world. And while we have made good progress on the economy together, we know that the job is not done and we know that people are under pressure. But today we heard questions that labelled some of our spending as a government as out of control. I'd like to go through a couple of the things that our government has prioritised spending money on and whether Australians might consider the spending to be out of control.

First, we've got tax cuts for every single working Australian, so that Australians can keep more of what they earn. Energy bill relief? I reckon that's a great thing for lots of Australian households and businesses. We've got record investment in Medicare, so people will be able to see a GP for free, with over 1,000 GP clinics signing up to be able to fully bulk-bill their patients. That's a great thing for everyday Australians. I don't know; maybe that's out-of-control spending for those opposite since they don't love Medicare like Labor does. Cutting the cost of medicines? We've already cut it once. Medicines are down to $32 now, and from 1 January they're going to be $25 for every Australian. I reckon Australians will be happy to spend $25 for their PBS script. I don't consider that to be out-of-control spending, because Australians should not have to choose between looking after their health and putting food on the table. That is a very good thing for Australians. Indexing the pension? I would think lots of pensioners would really like that.

I'm wondering what those opposite might take off their list. Increasing the single parenting payment? Maybe those opposite might go after that. A pay rise for aged-care workers—people taking care of older Australians? Those opposite don't really like highly feminised industries. They might go after that. A pay rise for early-years educators, maybe? Is that out-of-control spending, or would you like the people who look after our young people to be paid fairly? I like that and I reckon lots of parents like that, too. Support for apprentices so we've got the people and the tools we need to build the homes Australia needs? I reckon that's a great thing for the country, too. Is that on their chopping block? Paid prac for nurses, teachers, midwives and social workers? It's a great thing for people who are studying those professions to be paid for their pracs. I think that's a great thing. Increasing the number of weeks for Commonwealth paid parental leave? I reckon there are lots of parents around the country who would love that extra time at home with their families and with their new little bub. I reckon that's a great thing. Are those opposite going to cut it back to what it was? I reckon that's a good place for the government to prioritise putting money.

Maybe those opposite don't like paying superannuation on paid parental leave, because they really don't like superannuation. I don't know about them, but I like to see superannuation being paid on paid parental leave. We already know that women retire with less than men, so I think it's a great thing that we're paying super on Commonwealth paid parental leave. I would like those opposite to stand up and tell me which of the measures the government has prioritised spending money on—the ones they call out-of-control spending—that they're going to put on their cutting block, because I think that Australians support each of the things here that we've spent money on. (Time expired)

The motion moved referred to all answers to coalition questions, but I intend to focus on the answer to the question by Senator McKenzie to Senator Ayres and the one from Senator McDonald to Senator Ayres. The question asked by Senator McKenzie related to subsequent potential costs for negotiating the next round of COP. Can I put on record that I fully support the government's bid to bring COP to Adelaide. I think Adelaide would have been a magnificent setting. I don't think I can be accused of any bias in relation to that! The minister said that it's in the interests of all Australians for the climate negotiations to be successful. I agree with the minister on that proposition. He also said it's important that all Australians be represented—I actually agree with him—and also Australian farmers. They're especially important, and I agree with him on that one. I'm giving him high marks for the answer.

A government senator: You're on the wrong side of the chamber!

Maybe it's the wrong topic! Importantly, the minister raised the importance of the Pacific. I fully endorse any initiative to facilitate the voices of the Pacific into climate negotiations. I have spent much of my life building relationships with the Pacific. They are small nations. We are well resourced. It is important, from an ethical and moral perspective, that we assist our neighbours in every way.

He did have a slight crack at Mr Dutton, but Mr Dutton held to the net zero target. We must give credit where credit is due. It's only recent events that have taken us off the narrow path and onto the broader path. The minister did say that costs will be determined in the usual way, and I imagine that at this stage they are being budgeted for.

Let me come to the question by Senator McDonald, which was trying to tie electricity prices to net zero. I have a quote here—we all know I like my quotes—from Mr Matt Keane, chair of the Climate Change Authority. This is one that I go to regularly:

As an emissions-intensive, advanced economy that is extremely vulnerable to climate change, Australia has a clear national interest and responsibility to signal that we are willing and able to support the greatest possible emissions reductions.

There are various analyses and forecasts in relation to electricity prices, and it is complicated. The minister did imply—somewhat unkindly—that there was insufficient investment prior to the ascendancy of the Labor Party to the treasury benches. But there are more sensible analyses, and I have one here, from the Clean Energy Council:

Our modelling confirms that continuing to deploy renewable energy will keep wholesale electricity prices as low as possible. Clean energy not only works for Australia but it's the cheapest path forward for our electricity bills.

I agree with that. Electricity prices are often reliant on the gas price. They are affected by capital investment over long periods of time. So I don't necessarily believe in the nexus. I don't wish to inflate the ego of Senator Ayres, but I did take his point. This is a good day for Senator Ayres. But he also mentioned the Australian Industry Group. There are some conflicting and contrarian views in relation to that. My view, and I've expressed this publicly and in this place, is that unless you have a long-term target you cannot expect capital investment in infrastructure to deliver to our energy needs, and you can't do it on a rolling five-year time frame.

I suppose I come to this place with a disability, having worked in the financial markets. Billions of dollars will need to be spent. We are transitioning our economy. It will be difficult. But, unless we do so, we will not be able to reduce our emissions sufficiently. One thing that's left out by those who assert that we shouldn't have a net zero target is pollution and emissions, and they should be included.

For once it's actually nice to get a question from the opposition on the economy. Back when we came to office, inflation was rising rapidly. It's now much lower. It was at 6.1 per cent and climbing. Let's talk about the inflation challenge that we inherited from those opposite. We know it's hard to hear the facts sometimes, but the fact is that Labor is better at economic management. We've repaired the budget, we're working hard to get inflation back under control and we turned two Liberal deficits into two Labor surpluses.

It was quite funny to hear Senator Hume just a moment ago going on and on about inflation and Labor's management of the economy and what's been happening these past three years. She must have missed the report released just today by the Australian Election Study showing that voters prefer Labor's offering on economic management, taxation, housing affordability and the cost of living—clearly showing that the majority of Australians see Labor as the natural party of government.

We inherited the economic equivalent of a burnt-out Holden, and those opposite are somehow shocked that it didn't turn into a Tesla overnight. They want us to fix more than a decade of neglect instantly—

Seriously? Okay.

but they won't let us pass the bills required to do it. It's like yelling at the chef while stealing the ingredients.

On a point of order, it is inappropriate for comments to be made by the Deputy President, from the chair, about a senator's contribution.

I agree. I forgot myself. I apologise to the senator, I apologise to the Senate and I apologise to you.

Thank you.

Whilst we have made good progress on the economy, we know that progress is still to be made. The job is not done. People are still under stress. Real annual wages have grown for eight consecutive quarters, the longest run in almost a decade. They went backwards for five quarters before we came into office. If those opposite had won the election, the cost of living would have been on the chopping block. It's ironic that those opposite are now interested in energy and climate policy. I heard they tried energy policy a few times in the last term—over 20 times, apparently. They're not doing any better currently. Theirs is a truly divided party room. They can't even agree on whether climate change is real or not. They are the definition of out of touch. If they spent as much time talking to Australians as they did fighting with each other, maybe they'd realise that the majority of Australians do believe in climate change and want a net zero target. The coalition dropping net zero isn't a policy shift; it's an identity crisis. They've now got fewer long-term commitments than most of my exes. If the coalition think scrapping net zero is a vision, I'd hate to see what they call an actual plan. The rest of the world is moving forward, and they're doing doughnuts in the car park.

Those on this side of the aisle are actually trying to assist with energy bill relief. We put in place the Energy Price Relief Plan. The coalition voted against it, then they complained bills were too high. That's like refusing sunscreen and then blaming the sun. This government actually has your back. Why don't those opposite want to take accountability for their actions? Twenty-four of the nation's 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within a decade, all under those opposite. The stats do not lie. You were the ones that went to the last election proposing to increase taxes—bigger deficits, higher taxes and bigger debt, all because they were caught up in their weird nuclear fantasy. The lights may have gone out during question time, but, not to worry, we had the luminescent egos of those opposite.

Just today, I met with the Pacific Australian Emerging Leaders Network, and we discussed climate change at length and how it'll impact the Indo-Pacific region, because, after all, we share an ocean and we share a future. We care about the future, the next generation and the future of our Pacific neighbours. That's why Labor is committed to what we're doing to ensure that we tackle climate change. We know that the coalition doesn't care about our Pacific neighbours. This was summarised 10 years ago by the former member for Dickson Peter Dutton, who was caught laughing on a hot mic when he said, 'Time doesn't mean anything when you're about to have water lapping at your door.'

Those opposite are worried about the cost of COP. What we are worried about is the consequences after a decade of inaction. The Albanese Labor government will go to COP next year with true credibility. The coalition rocked up for years as the bad cop—with no evidence, no plan and no intention of solving the case. Whilst those opposite continue to blame us for inflation and continue with their climate denialism, we are committed to delivering change and assisting with cost-of-living relief.

Thank you, Senator Walker. Once again, I do apologise for that most disorderly interjection.

I rise to take note of answers to coalition questions but particularly in relation to the energy disaster that we have in this country. I know Senator Walker is a new senator, and I give Senator Walker a lot of leeway. But, when Senator Walker reads Labor Party talking points that seek to monumentally mischaracterise our position, that's disgusting. There's no climate denialism. We have made it very clear that we have a responsibility to reduce emissions, to play our role. So, Senator Walker, before you make those claims again, please check your facts. But we will not stand by and watch this government send our country backwards—because that is what is happening. Senator Walker may not be aware, and other ministers seek to misrepresent or conveniently overlook the facts in this chamber, but today the Australian Bureau of Statistics has confirmed that electricity prices have risen 37.1 per cent in 12 months. That is horrific! It's fine to senators opposite if they're earning $200,000-plus a year; maybe it doesn't matter. But I can tell you it matters to a lot of people, including a lot of Victorians, who literally have to make a choice between eating and heating. What is happening in this country is a disgrace.

As for the part-time Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen, spending more time with his ideological obsession for Labor's renewables-only madness, he should go to Turkiye and stay there. I am of the view that the Prime Minister needs to replace this hapless energy minister. He is the emperor with no clothes, on his horse, riding down the street, saying, 'There's nothing to see here,' but Australians can see the bare facts. Our energy security is going backward. Power and gas prices are skyrocketing. We are being denied base load power, and the government has just signed up to an international agreement which commits this country to phase out coal and gas. We are blessed with the resources of our country—coal, gas, critical minerals, uranium—and now this government has recklessly signed an agreement which puts at risk our second and third biggest exports, coal and gas, valued at $150 billion a year. And, yes, the lights did go dim in this chamber due to a power outage. This is exactly what we are facing as a nation: brownouts and blackouts as far as the eye can see under this government's renewables-only policies, which are causing so much environmental and economic harm to our country.

So I say the decision to abolish zero is not only responsible; it's the right thing to do for our country. What this government is doing is denying Australians base load power.

Wrong side of history, Senator Henderson.

Senator Grogan in the interjection doesn't seem to appreciate that these sorts of skyrocketing prices really make an impact. There are plenty of households that literally cannot afford to connect the electricity and gas—certainly in Victoria.

And of course today we learned that inflation is up again. It's now 3.8 per cent, with softening economic growth and no hope, according to the experts, of any downward trajectory in inflation until 2027. That includes interest rates, which are causing such enormous pressure not just on mortgage holders but on everyone paying skyrocketing rents. So these policies are a disaster for our nation, and it is time the energy minister got off his horse and the Prime Minister started to take a reality check and look at the damage they are causing our country. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to migration.

I'd first like to thank Minister Gallagher for her thoughtful and straightforward answer on migration. Her remarks make it clear just how important it is that we keep our decisions grounded in facts, in fairness and in the long-term interests of the country.

Now, we all know migration has played a big part in building modern Australia, but it's worth reminding ourselves of the numbers. Today, around 30 per cent of people living in Australia were born overseas. That's more than double the OECD average of 14 per cent, and it's been a major driver of our economic strength. Regions with higher migrant populations actually see better wages. There's about a 1.3 per cent lift for every 10 percentage point increase in migrant share. That's because migration boosts productivity and fills the skills we need to keep our economy moving. Skilled migrants, in particular, make a strong economic contribution. The modelling on the 2018-19 skilled migrant intake shows they add, on average, about $198,000 more to the budget over their lifetime than they take out. That's a solid return for the country and a reminder that good migration settings pay off.

Nowhere is the impact of migration clearer or more essential than in our care sector, whether it's aged care, disability support or health care. Migrants are absolutely central to keeping these services running. Around 40 per cent of all care and support workers in Australia were born overseas, a much higher share than the workforce overall. That includes about 183,000 overseas-born workers as of 2021, with 54,000 of them being more recent arrivals who've stepped straight into roles we desperately need filled. These are the people helping older Australians stay safe, helping people with disability live with dignity and supporting families right across the country. Importantly, a diverse workforce helps us deliver better, more culturally aware care—something that matters in a nation as proudly multicultural as ours.

As we continue refining our migration system, we have to keep these realities front of mind. Migration isn't about replacing local workers. It's about backing them up, filling genuine shortages and strengthening the services Australians rely on. Once again, I thank Minister Gallagher for her answer. I urge the parliament to keep supporting a migration system that reflects who we are as a nation—fair, practical and focused on getting the job done.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator O'Neill and on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of the intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for five sitting days after today proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025, made under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.

At the request of Senator Ruston, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 286.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 294 be withdrawn.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move general business notice of motion No. 295:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 3 December 2025, documentation outlining the executive salaries at Housing Australia for financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, 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 I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill seeks to restore freedom of choice for concerned parents while addressing the financial pressures placed on conscientious objectors from lower socio-economic backgrounds by repealing the 2015 No Jab, No Pay changes to family assistance immunisation requirements.

In 2015, conscientious objection and religious exemptions were removed from the immunisation requirements for eligibility for the Family Tax Benefit-A supplement, Child Care Benefit and Child Care Rebate—now the Child Care subsidy.

The removal of these exemptions, and a new requirement for children of all ages to meet immunisation requirements for the FTB-A supplement—including older children—were included in the 2015-16 Budget as part of a package of measures aimed at boosting rates of immunisation—the policy was known as No Jab, No Pay.

Through the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No Jab, No Pay) Act 2015 the changes commenced from 1 January 2016, and included free catch-up vaccinations for older children who had not received all the required National Immunisation Program childhood vaccinations.

Wealthier families who are not reliant on or qualify for FTB-A are free to exercise their judgement with respect to their children's medical treatment while those families reliant on FTB-A are forced into state mandated vaccine compliance in order to receive the financial assistance they require.

Wealthier families are also more likely to have the time and energy to question and therefore vaccine hesitancy is strongest in well-educated, affluent families.

This should come as no shock.

A national survey of parents as far back as 2004 substantiated that parents who of unimmunised children were "significantly more likely to be tertiary educated."

Lower income Australians are not afforded this same choice, further compounding the effect of financial stress and hardship on their daily lives.

They cannot question, they cannot object. They must comply or be refused financial assistance for their family.

When coupled with Australia's already high vaccination rates, coercing lower-income families through financial measures to immunise a child shows an unnecessary infringement on the freedom of choice for Australians who can least afford to express their views.

They are shut out from espousing their personal concerns.

Such coercion raises its own moral and ethical issues.

According to the Australian Immunisation Handbook for consent to be legally valid, "It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation".

The principle of informed consent becomes questionable when consent is only obtained under the threat of denying much needed financial assistance to vulnerable families.

The current regime undermines the concept of informed consent and is quite possibly in breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The 2015 change in legislation has placed undue financial pressures on parents in order to coerce them to accept medical treatment for their children they might not want.

With the data gathered in the decade since the introduction of these measures, it is difficult to see how such imposts on families have had a substantial enough benefit to justify such an ethically questionable practice.

This Bill seeks to address the infringement on the rights of parents to determine what is best for their child.

Under the proposed changes, conscientious objectors would once again qualify for assistance, under certain circumstances.

This Bill reinstates the definition ofconscientious objectoras follows:

conscientious objection

Under the proposed changes, a child (or FTB Child as defined by the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999) would meet their immunisation requirement if:

It is clear that the current legislation disproportionately burdens low-income families who depend on family tax benefits and childcare subsidies to make ends meet.

More and more families with the means have opted out of this system in since 2021, but Australia's immunisation rates remain at above average levels.

Providing the same freedom to lower-socio economic families would have a minimal impact on national immunisation figures, while restoring their freedom of choice.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, 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 I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 builds on the policy of the former Morrison Government to allow more older Australians to downsize, freeing up housing supply for younger Australians.

The original Coalition measure introduced in 2017-18 allowed older Australians who were downsizing from their family home to contribute the proceeds of that sale into their superannuation accounts, without being subject to the annual contribution caps. The measure currently applies to Australians 55 years who have owned their home for ten years and is limited to a contribution of $300,000 per person (so $600,000 per couple).

The Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025 updates the original parameters of the Downsizer Contribution rules. It gives more Australians greater flexibility when contributing the proceeds of the sale of their family home into their superannuation, increasing financial security in retirement for older Australians while also helping unlock housing stock for younger families.

Currently, the dream of owning a home is out of reach for so many young Australians.

One such Australian who feels that is the case, is 27 year old Julia, a lawyer from Melbourne. Julia recently wrote to me, sharing her story about the difficulties she and her husband are having finding a home they can afford so they can start a family.

Her story embodies the quiet desperation felt by so many young people.

Julia and her husband, an electrician, are both in good jobs. They work hard, they contribute to our society. In 2021, Julia bought her first property, a one-bedroom apartment, using a government scheme. But now, Julia and her husband want what many Australians dream of: to start a family.

They need a family home—nothing fancy, just three bedrooms, a backyard for kids to play, a shed, maybe a second bathroom. But despite their two good incomes, they are completely priced out of the market for anything that would be sufficient for family life. Julia knows she can't afford to give her children the same childhood she had, but this goes deeper. Her husband describes it as a "betrayal," and I don't think that's hyperbolic at all. This is not just about luxuries; it's about the very basic right to establish a family home.

Julia, like many, faces the grim reality of mortgage stress. To buy a property close to $1 million, which is pretty well the market rate in Melbourne, would mean repayments are 50-60% of their combined income. This is far beyond the 30% threshold that defines mortgage stress.

Julia explained to me that she won't be able to afford the same kind of school for her children, nor take time off work to raise them when they are little, as she would like to. Her husband would likely have to work six days a week, missing out on precious family time. This is a generation facing a future where hope is a luxury, where simply raising a family is becoming out of reach. Julia asks, "How did we get into a situation where the Australia of my childhood is out of reach for me and my generation?". It's a question this government must answer—but they have failed to do so.

My message to Julia is that the Coalition is on your side. Finding ways to ensure that young people can find a home, afford a home, and buy a home is not just a priority for the Coalition for electoral purposes—for the Liberal Party home ownership is foundational for strong families, strong communities and a strong society. The housing crisis faced in Australia today is a stain on the Labor government who, in opposition, promised cheaper mortgages and more homes, but in government have only delivered fewer homes and more red tape.

I should be very clear; the bill that I am introducing today and the policy it enacts won't solve Labor's housing crisis tomorrow. But it is just one simple lever that can be pulled to help free up more homes for Australian families.

It's a simple incentive to allow older Australians to realise a benefit to moving from a larger family home to a smaller home, suitable to their needs, keeping the stock of housing supply moving and ensuring that unnecessary barriers to downsizing are removed.

This is a very simple Bill. It only does three things.

First, it lowers the minimum age of eligibility from 55 years to 50 years.

Second, it extends the period of time to make a downsizer contribution after settlement from 90 days to 1 year.

Finally, the maximum amount of the contribution is increased from $300,000 to $500,000.

So if this Bill was passed, people who are aged 50 years or over will be able to make a non-concessional contribution of up to $500,000 into their superannuation from the sale of their family home, so long as they have held it for at least 10 years.

Other criteria, as set out in section 292-102 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, remain the same, and include:

As is currently the case, the updated downsizer contribution does not count towards a person's contribution caps. A downsizer contribution is considered a non-concessional contribution (ie, tax has already been paid on funds contributed) but it can be made in addition to other non-concessional and concessional contributions even once the annual caps have been reached.

As is also currently the case, the updated downsizer contribution would continue to count towards a person's transfer balance cap, which limits the total amount of superannuation which a person can transfer into their retirement phase.

This cap applies when a person moves their superannuation savings into the retirement phase and is taken into account when determining a person's eligibility for the age pension. For the 2025-26 financial year, the transfer balance cap was set at $2 million.

This policy is a real win-win. It helps improve the availability of family style homes in the housing stock, which will be so welcomed by the thousands of young Australians wanting to buy a family home. And it will help bolster the retirement savings of older Australians, eventually providing a more comfortable retirement income, if and when they decide to downsize into a smaller home.

At its core, this is a simple policy with a powerful economic logic.

Our housing market is under strain. In just 3 years, the government has presided over the biggest boom in Australia's population growth since the 1950s, while overseeing a historic housing construction collapse.

The housing crisis facing Australia is a fact acknowledged by those opposite. It is why Labor's election platform was centered around the promise to build 1.2 million homes by 2029.

Now this sounds great in theory, but the fact is that the Albanese Government is going to fail to achieve this ambition. Leaked Treasury advice has admitted this.

Since Labor came to power, building construction prices have shot up by over 20% and Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data has shown that new home completions in 24/25 fell by over 3,500 compared to 23/24.

So despite all the money that Labor is telling Australians they are pumping into building new homes—$60 billion according to Parliamentary Library analysis—they are actually building fewer houses than the previous Coalition Government.

No wonder our housing market is under strain and young Australians are able to purchase the homes they want.

Young Australians right around the country are working hard and saving diligently, and they are still struggling to find homes that suit their needs and their budgets. At the same time, many older Australians are living in homes that no longer meet their lifestyle or mobility needs but feel financially constrained in making the move.

Downsizer contributions help change that incentive. They give older Australians an accessible, tax-effective way to shift into more suitable housing without sacrificing their long-term retirement income. And when those larger family homes come onto the market, housing supply increases for those who need it most: young families trying to enter the market or move up as their own needs grow.

The Coalition has long championed policies that strengthen retirement incomes while also strengthening economic participation and opportunity. The original downsizer policy has helped tens of thousands of Australians move into more appropriate housing.

In fact, Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data shows that since 2018-19 the total number of individuals who have taken up downsizer contributions is 98,595.

Expanding its parameters will allow it to help thousands more.

This Bill broadens eligibility, streamlines the age requirements, and removes unnecessary administrative hurdles. It takes what was already a good policy and makes it more effective.

Importantly, downsizer contributions do not force anyone to move. They do not interfere with the family home. They simply empower choice. Older Australians get the flexibility and financial confidence to make decisions that suit their lifestyle.

Interestingly, this policy may also assist in closing the gender super gap—a policy area that is a real passion of mine and something that I would love to see closed in my lifetime.

ATO data also shows that the number of females making downsizer contributions has always been larger than the number of males. Currently, 57.6% of all individual contributors are female.

Expanding the parameters will therefore give the opportunity for more women to take up this opportunity earlier on, to help improve their superannuation balance and even their balance to their husbands.

This is the kind of practical reform the housing debate desperately needs: not more bureaucracy, not more grandstanding, but policies that actually move the dial.

The Coalition is the party of home ownership. We want to see all Australians, particularly younger Australians, those like Julia and her husband who I spoke about earlier, realise their dream of home ownership.

As representatives in this place, we simply cannot allow for a situation where Australians believe that the childhood they had is out of reach for their children.

Australia's housing crisis needs constructive, economically responsible solutions that are grounded in evidence, not ideology. This Bill is exactly that.

Retirees deserve a superannuation system that supports the choices they want to make.

Younger Australians deserve a housing market that rewards their effort and aspiration.

Our economy deserves policy settings that make better use of our existing housing stock.

This Bill helps achieve all three.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator Lambie, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 March 2026:

The process, governance and effectiveness of federal financial support provided to state and territory governments for infrastructure development, with particular reference to:

(a) the criteria and processes used by the federal government to assess, prioritise and allocate infrastructure funding;

(b) the transparency, consistency and accountability of federal funding decisions;

(c) how the viability and appropriateness of state and territory projects receiving federal funding is assessed, including the adequacy of business cases, rural and regional distribution impacts, and use of independent assessments;

(d) how the economic, social, cultural and community impacts of federally supported infrastructure projects are considered during assessments;

(e) federal oversight mechanisms used to track progress and performance of a state or territory project receiving federal funding and opportunities to improve governance, oversight and public reporting; and

(f) any other related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 6, standing in the name of Senator Lambie, moved by Senator Pocock, be agreed to.

I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 8 before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Whish-Wilson and David Pocock, move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2026:

Funding and resourcing for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), with particular reference to:

(a) the nature of recent and proposed job and program cuts in the CSIRO;

(b) the importance of public funding for public good science;

(c) the importance of public resourcing of Australian sovereign scientific capability;

(d) the recruitment and retention of staff including senior and mid-career researchers, along with the training and career paths of early-career researchers;

(e) CSIRO's commercialisation of scientific research;

(f) the long-term capability needs of the CSIRO, including workforce, infrastructure and equipment;

(g) the role and independence of the CSIRO's leadership in making resourcing allocation decisions;

(h) the effects of these cuts on the program of scientific work conducted by the CSIRO, including in relation to:

(i) areas of fundamental and basic scientific study that do not find ready industry funding partners,

(ii) areas of scientific study that relate to emergent, pressing and/or priority issues like the pace, impact and mitigation of climate change including study of the oceans, biodiversity, agricultural adaption to a changing climate, and related issues, and

(iii) the particular burden of proposed cuts on the Environment Research Unit; and

(i) any related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, and for related purposes. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025.

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 table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Albanese Government is committed to ensuring the National Disability Insurance Scheme provides essential disability supports for people with permanent and significant disability, today and into the future.

We want to build the very best NDIS that we can—one that is fair, consistent and empowering for people with permanent and significant disability.

That means putting people with disability back at the heart of the NDIS and ensuring it is here to support generations to come.

The NDIS must also be safe and operate with integrity.

When Labor came to Government in 2022, spending on National Disability Insurance Scheme was growing by 22 per cent a year.

Before the implementation of Labor's NDIS Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1) Act in 2024, the NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and non-compliance.

This Government is determined to build an NDIS that is sustainable, effective, safe and operates with integrity.

Those who defraud the NDIS are exploiting the hundreds of thousands of Australians who rely on the lifechanging support the NDIS delivers.

Our Government acted quickly, investing over $550 million in tackling fraud and non-compliance, setting up the Fraud Fusion Task Force, and passing Getting the NDIS back on track Act Number 1 to place it on a sustainable footing.

But there is much more work to do.

We know that the vast majority of NDIS providers do the right thing and provide quality services.

But there are too many that see the NDIS not as a disability support scheme but as a get rich quick scheme.

Where we see fraud, too often we see violence, abuse and neglect.

We are determined to clean up the sector and protect people with disability.

This Bill will give the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission more of the powers it needs to be more responsive to protect participants from abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

At the same time, it will make minor changes that will support the NDIA in improving the experience of participants.

CONSULTATION

I want to thank the disability community for their insights in helping shape many of these reforms.

The NDIS Commission held forums, both face to face and online, ensuring that anyone who wanted their voice heard on these reforms had the chance to be listened to.

We heard from participants, carers and providers about how these reforms will help them in supporting the disability community.

We heard that tougher penalties for mistreatment and poor behaviour are required.

We heard providers must be accountable for their staff and the services they provide to participants.

We heard that predatory and unethical advertising of NDIS supports must be identified and stopped.

MEASURES

Strengthened Penalty Framework

A stronger penalty framework will strengthen the NDIS Commission's ability to deter, respond to and prevent contraventions of the NDIS Act.

Under current arrangements, if an organisation is found liable for an event that inflicts serious harm on both a worker and a NDIS participant, the penalty for harming the worker could be as much as 38 times the penalty for harming the NDIS participant.

Penalties we are seeking to introduce include civil penalties of up to 10,000 penalty units, currently $3.3 million, for individuals. And for corporations, 50,000 penalty units, currently in excess of $16 million.

The availability of a higher penalty aims to enable a more proportionate, reasonable and effective response to these types of aggravated breaches of the NDIS Act.

However, we know that there are some providers out there who must be registered but are shirking their responsibility to be registered. This is irresponsible, it's unsafe, and it's illegal.

In both of these cases, we are seeking to introduce a term of imprisonment of up to two years or 120 penalty units, or both, where serious failure to abide by these requirements, where a provider has deliberately or recklessly failed to comply.

Banning Orders are placed on providers and individuals who demonstrate the most serious of poor conduct, where the threat of harm, exploitation and dishonestly exists.

We're also introducing a stronger penalty for people who fail to comply with a banning order—up to 5 years imprisonment or 300 penalty units or both.

Banning Orders Expansion

We are broadening the scope of who a banning order can be placed upon.

The NDIS Commission's existing banning order powers only apply to providers and their workers.

We know there are auditors and consultants who are not fit to operate within the NDIS sector.

What we are proposing is to broaden the NDIS Commission's banning order powers to capture those who provide services to NDIS providers.

This amendment addresses a regulatory gap, improving participant safety, preventing future harm, and safeguarding the Scheme against those who would take advantage, exploit and rip off our community.

Anti-Promotion Orders

We are seeing a growing practice of providers who advertise or sell supports and services to participants that are not only inconsistent with the NDIS Code of Conduct and the purpose of the scheme, but also risks harming vulnerable participants, including by undermining their choice and control over services.

The Commissioner will be given a new power to issue an antipromotion order restricting a person from engaging in promotional conduct in connection with the NDIS where that conduct undermines the objects of the NDIS Act.

This change will enable the Commission to swiftly address behaviours inconsistent with the integrity of the NDIS.

Information Gathering

The Bill expands the registration conditions of NDIS providers to require them to comply with document requests from the Commission.

This change complements the already enacted power the Commission has in requiring compliance with an information request.

Providers will continue to have at least 14 days to respond.

However, where the Commissioner forms a reasonable belief that there is a risk of injury, harm, or death of a person with a disability, this Bill would allow for a shorter timeframe for providing information or documents to be imposed.

Rule Making Powers for Sharing Protected Commissioner Information

To enhance information sharing across the Commission and other safeguarding entities, the Bill would enable the Commissioner to make NDIS Rules prescribing bodies to which protected Commission information may be disclosed, and for what purposes such disclosures may be made.

Prima Facie Evidence

We are also introducing an amendment to allow the Commissioner to issue an evidentiary certificate for use as prima facie evidence to increase efficiency in providing uncontroversial evidence.

Amendments related to the National Disability Insurance Agency

Withdrawing from the Scheme

This bill introduces a safeguard for participants requesting to withdraw from the NDIS, in the form of a 90-day cooling-off period. During this period, participants will be able to cancel their request. It will ensure the request to leave is genuine, and will prevent physical, mental or financial harm to the participant, as a result of leaving the scheme without due consideration and planning.

Additionally, the Bill will also expand the manner that participants and their nominees can provide notification to the NDIA they want to leave the Scheme, such as over the phone and in person.

Electronic Claim Forms

This amendment will enable the NDIA to require providers to lodge their claims via electronic claim forms. A small change that will generate significant efficiencies in how the scheme is run.

Plan variation

The bill also clarifies the current legislation by specifying that plan variations can include an increase or decrease of the total funding amounts.

NDIS participants may experience changes in their circumstances, including the need to adjust their supports and funding.

This does not change the current plan variation arrangements, including the circumstances in which plans can be varied and the kinds of variations that can be made. These are already specified in the Act and will not be amended by this bill.

Rather this addition clarifies that at times, a plan variation can result in a reduction in NDIS funding. For example, if a participant receives a lump sum compensation payment that is relevant to NDIS funding which pays for a similar disability support, there may be a need to adjust funding in a participant's plan. These amendments ensure a participant who receives a compensation or supports under a statutory scheme after a plan is approved, can have their plan adjusted without having to undergo another support needs assessment.

CONCLUSION

Through this Bill we are putting in place the necessary changes to how the NDIS is regulated, ensuring the Scheme remains sustainable, has integrity and makes headway to bring it back to its original purpose—that people with a disability receive the high quality, safe supports and services they deserve, that enable them to participate fully in their communities.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.

I move general business notices of motion Nos 280 and 281:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 280

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, copies of all communications in relation to the development of amendments to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 and Schedule 5 (benefit restriction notices) between:

(a) the Minister for Home Affairs;

(b) the Minister for Social Services;

(c) the Minister for Government Services; and

(d) the Attorney-General.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 281

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, copies of all communications in relation to the development of amendments to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025 and Schedule 5 (benefit restriction notices) between the Department of Social Services and:

(a) the Department of Home Affairs;

(b) the Department of Education;

(c) the Attorney-General's Department; and

(d) the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

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, the scope of OPDs had insisted on specificity or 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 question is that general business notices of motion Nos 280 and 281, standing in the name of Senator Allman-Payne, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Science, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 28 November 2025, the final written report of the independent review of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's financial sustainability and governance arrangements, conducted by Mr David Tune AO PSM.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will be opposing this motion. A briefing has been offered to Senator Payman on this topic. These issues relate directly to cabinet deliberations.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 282, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 283 be withdrawn.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 12 December 2025, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Communications and/or her office, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in relation to expectations of a future legal challenge to the constitutional validity of Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021.

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 by the senator.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 284 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 9 December 2025, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Finance and/or her office, the Department of Finance and the Digital Transformation Agency in relation to non-compliance with the policy for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in government by Commonwealth departments and agencies.

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 the Department of Finance, the Digital Transformation Agency and the minister and her office. 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. But the government encourages the senator to narrow the scope of their order.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 285, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Liddle, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by midday on Tuesday, 9 December 2025, all written or digital correspondence, all attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing materials, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 1 July 2022, between the Minister for Indigenous Australians or her office, the Central Land Council (CLC) and/or the National Indigenous Australians Agency, related to:

(a) the ascertainment and management of conflicts of interest of CLC councillors, directors and senior staff, including but not limited to connections to and involvement with proponents;

(b) the involvement and conflicts of interest between CLC councillors, directors or senior staff with the Centrecorp Aboriginal Investment Corporation, the Centrecorp Foundation Board, the Central Australian Aboriginal Charitable Trust and the Central Aboriginal Charitable Trust; and

(c) the involvement and conflicts of interest with any other organisation or Commonwealth statutory body.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will opposing this motion. I understand Senator Liddle was offered assistance to identify any specific documents that she's looking for in response to this OPD. She was also offered a briefing that could be provided to answer any specific questions. Senator Liddle declined these offers and proceeded with the OPD anyway. I also note that Senator Liddle will have the opportunity next week to ask the questions that she wants of the NIAA and the Central Land Council. If Senator Liddle were serious about this issue, she would have taken up these constructive offers from the government.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 287, standing in the name of Senator Liddle, be agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Paterson, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator David Pocock will also sponsor general business notice of motion No. 288, and I seek leave to amend the motion.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senator Paterson, and also on behalf of Senator David Pocock, I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator the Hon Katy Gallagher, and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, by no later than 12 pm on Friday, 28 November 2025, all correspondence (including emails, letters, text or instant messages) between:

(a) the Department of the Treasury, the Treasurer or the Treasurer's office;

(b) the Department of Finance, the Minister for Finance or the Minister's office;

(c) the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's office;

and any Minister or Department or Agency concerning cost savings targets as referenced in an article by John Kehoe and Ronald Mizen published in the Australian Financial Review on 25 November 2025.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The government will be opposing this motion. The document referenced in the original motion does not exist. No letter has been sent by the Minister for Finance or the Department of Finance. Senator Gallagher's office made contact with Senator Paterson's office to explain this. Instead of withdrawing this OPD, Senator Paterson has now amended the motion to embark on a fishing expedition. These kinds of approaches are not in line with the intent of an order for the production of documents.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 288, standing in the name of Senators Paterson and Pocock, as amended, be agreed to.

I move general business notice of motion No. 289, relating to an order for the production of documents—with significantly reduced scope from the last time I introduced it, President:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Friday, 19 December 2025, any correspondence, ministerial or departmental briefing notes, dated from 1 June to 31 October 2025, provided to or by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and/or the Department of Industry, Science and Resources relating to any floating production, storage and offloading vessel currently or previously situated in Australian Commonwealth or state waters, and the Hazardous Waste Act, Article 11 of the Basel Convention and/or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Approval Condition 10(b).

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government will not be supporting this motion. As already outlined to this chamber, the 48th Parliament has seen an increasingly inappropriate use of OPDs. Historically, the scope of OPDs insisted on specificity or sought a particular document. The broad scope of this order means that a substantial number of documents may be reviewed to consider whether they may be in scope. The government encourages the senator to further narrow the scope of their order.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 289 standing in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 23 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents (OPD) no. 9, which required the Minister representing the Prime Minister to table all written or digital correspondence, attachments to any written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, text messages, file notes, meeting notices or minutes or other records of interaction since 10 October 2024 between the Prime Minister and his office and, among other entities, Responsible Wagering Australia and any commercial media company, where the meeting related to gambling advertising reform,

(ii) on examination of the Government's response to OPD no. 8 on gambling advertising, it was identified that the Prime Minister participated in a meeting with the Minister for Communications and representatives from Nine Entertainment to speak about gambling advertising reform,

(iii) this meeting was in-scope of OPD no. 9 but was not disclosed and no documentation relating to it, including any briefing materials, meeting notices, files notes or minutes, have been provided to the Senate,

(iv) the Government's answers to questions on notice from supplementary Budget estimates confirm that the Prime Minister did attend the meeting referred to in paragraph (a)(ii), and

(v) the Government's answers to questions on notice also confirm that at least one email from Responsible Wagering Australia to the Prime Minister has not been provided to the Senate;

(b) considers that OPD no. 9 has not been fully complied with; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to fully comply with the order by no later than 9 am on Monday, 1 December 2025, including by providing:

(i) all briefing notes, files notes, meeting notices, minutes or other documents relating to the meeting of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Communications with Nine Entertainment on the morning of 23 July 2025,

(ii) the full email correspondence, including any covering emails, between the Prime Minister and his office and Responsible Wagering Australia, and

(iii) any other documents in-scope of OPD no. 9 that have not yet been provided.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 292, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 293.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 297 before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 176 was agreed to by the Senate on 27 October 2025 with a compliance date of 3 November 2025,

(ii) the order required the Minister representing the Treasurer to provide the outstanding government response to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee entitled Bank closures in regional Australia: Protecting the future of regional banking,

(iii) the government response to the committee report was due by 24 August 2024,

(iv) in response to the order, the Treasurer's letter that was tabled in the Senate on 3 November 2025 states that 'there is no document within scope of this order for the production of documents', and

(v) there is no restriction on the Senate ordering the creation of documents; and

(b) orders the Minister representing the Treasurer to fully comply with order no. 176 by midday on 4 December 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 297 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, as amended and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27 relating to advice provided by the Treasury to the Treasurer and the Minister for Housing in relation to the Government's plan to invest $10 billion to construct 100,000 new homes for first home buyers,

(ii) on 28 July 2025, the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) provided an interim response to the order stating that officials in the Treasury were progressing the request for documents but that additional time was required to comply with the order,

(iii) on 3 November 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order, noting that 3 months had passed since the minister provided an interim response requesting more time to comply with the original order, noting the failure to release the documents in a timely manner was in contempt of the Senate and its functions, and ordering the minister to attend the Senate on 4 November 2025 to provide an explanation of the failure to comply,

(iv) on 4 November 2025, the minister provided 2 records with redactions of details of non-executive staff, third parties and internal Treasury email addresses; and withheld other documents on public interest grounds,

(v) on 6 November 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order noting that the minister's explanation of the failure to fully comply with the order did not provide a credible response as to why the requested documents had not been released in their entirety and ordering the minister to comply with the order by no later than 5.30 pm on Thursday, 6 November 2025, and

(vi) the order has still not been fully complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 298, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 28 October 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 197, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer (the minister) to produce the independent review commissioned by the Treasury and delivered by Intersection into the governance and operational concerns at Housing Australia in early 2024,

(ii) on 4 November 2025, the Senate agreed to an order concerning compliance with the original order, requiring the minister to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 5 November 2025 at the conclusion of question time to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the order,

(iii) on 5 November 2025, the minister provided an explanation of the failure to comply with the order,

(iv) on 13 November 2025, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing provided a letter of response to the order, raising public interest immunity claims over the full document, and

(v) the order has still not been complied with;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claims raised by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 27 November 2025.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 299, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

I remind senators that yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Henderson proposing a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That I be granted leave of absence for 6 November 2025, on account of personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Senators Chandler, David Pocock and Whish-Wilson have submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

The need for the Australian Government to ensure Australia has a world-class national science agency, because the ongoing cuts to the CSIRO, which have led to the loss of 1,150 jobs, have weakened Australia's ability to diversify our economy and respond to major challenges.

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 ensure Australia has a world-class national science agency, because the ongoing cuts to the CSIRO, which have led to the loss of 1,150 jobs, have weakened Australia's ability to diversify our economy and respond to major challenges.

I thank Senators Chandler and Whish-Wilson for their good work on this motion. More than a thousand Canberrans work at the CSIRO and dedicate their lives to science, to research and to the future. It's a workforce that now faces devastating uncertainty as our national science agency is once again forced to make cuts. Up to 350 jobs are on the line, on top of the 800 jobs cut over the past 18 months. It has been pointed out to me that that doesn't include some of the non-ongoing roles which simply haven't been renewed. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet; these are people with families. These are minds working at the cutting edge of our environmental monitoring, health, agriculture and nutrition. Five weeks out from Christmas, this is the news that they have been given.

Investment is now lower than it's ever been. Per capita, it's less than half of what it was in the 1980s. It's fallen 87.5 per cent as a percentage of GDP over the same period. Here's what makes the current situation so outrageous: under this Labor government, the CSIRO job losses are now set to surpass even those made by the Abbott government. In 2014, we rightly saw outrage from the then-opposition Labor Party. The member for what is now the electorate of Fenner rose in the other place and gave an impassioned speech about the need to protect the CSIRO. I think Canberrans would welcome a similar speech today. The last Labor government increased investment in innovation, science and research by 50 per cent, from $6.6 billion to $9.9 billion. At the moment, it seems that the Labor government is happy to write billion dollar cheques for manufacturing jobs in Whyalla and Tomago. Why not for our scientists? Why not for the people solving the problems of the future? Whyalla has been provided a joint package of $2.4 billion. We know Tomago's is likely to be billions more.

Let me say this clearly: we need researchers in Canberra just as much as we need steelworkers in Whyalla. This is not a binary choice. It is about national priorities. Right now, those priorities are clearly failing science. Capital budgets at the CSIRO have been neglected for years. Buildings are crumbling, safety risks are rising and now infrastructure costs are cannibalising core funding. They saw the end of their COVID supplement, and they've seen, over the last 3½ years, their funding decline in real terms by seven per cent. The government may say, 'We haven't made any cuts. We've given them the same funding,' but we know they have to find savings in real terms.

I want to read into the Hansard the words of a CSIRO employee who sent me an email after the announcement of cuts: 'Dear Senator Pocock, I'm an employee of CSIRO and have just left a meeting wherein we were told that the majority of upcoming staff cuts will be in the environment portfolio. About 20 per cent of environment staff have just been told we'll soon be unemployed. Merry Christmas to us! My concern is the short-sightedness of this decision. Australia should be massively investing in R&D right now. I'm writing to ask for your help. The people of Australia need to know what is happening to a trusted national institution.'

Yesterday, we learned that the government is planning even more cuts, with the Minister for Finance reported to have written to departments and agencies and flagged a five per cent cut—more uncertainty, less science. To the government, I say this: surely, enough is enough. The uncertainty around funding must end. Our national science agency deserves long-term investment because, once we lose research capability, it's almost impossible to get it back and the challenges of the future, from climate change to artificial intelligence, will not be solved by cutting corners on science. It's time to pull out the cheque book, as you've done for Whyalla and as you'll do for Tomago. It's time to save our CSIRO and actually invest in science so we can be the smart country.

I want to put a few of the key facts on the record, and I welcome, actually, the opportunity for a discussion about the future of the CSIRO and the role that it plays not just here in the ACT but as our premier national science—importantly, applied science—and industrial research organisation. The CSIRO is the recipient of, in round terms, a billion dollars a year in public funding. That is not its only source of income, but it's a very significant contribution from the Commonwealth government. It will continue to be a very significant contribution from the Commonwealth government. There are no funding cuts from this government for the CSIRO. There is nothing but respect from this government for the role that the CSIRO plays not just in terms of its own work but in terms of the important facilitative and leadership role it plays across the rest of Australia's research and development system.

Why are 300 people losing their jobs, Tim?

 Listen, any level of interest—you know, I've been engaged with Senator Pocock about some of these issues over many weeks and months. There are a few other senators in this place who've displayed an interest. The position of the coalition in government and in opposition has just dripped with contempt for the CSIRO and has dripped with contempt for science.

That's a joke. You are a joke.

Why are there job cuts, Tim?

We will get to the decision, but I won't take interjections from people who've mobilised against the interests of science and who've diminished the role of science in so many aspects of Australian life. There are no funding cuts from this government. There's nothing but support, including additional support on top of the billions of dollars of funds that we provide every year. In fact, it was the Abbott government, in 2014, that started the problem with savage cuts to the CSIRO's capacity. They were mobilised by an ideological antipathy towards science and the modern world. That's what drove that.

What is happening here is that CSIRO management are making some decisions about what are the priority areas of research for the CSIRO, what research programs are going to be strengthened and where work is going to either not continue or be altered. That is the truth. As the minister, I expect every research dollar, every dollar that goes into science, to be spent consistently with those national science priorities. I recognise that organisational change—the changes that have been signalled—is very difficult indeed. The people who are affected by these changes are passionate scientists who bring an enormous amount of expertise and hard work to the work that they do.

But the future focus of this organisation, my responsibility as minister and this government's commitment to the CSIRO and to science are to make sure that we have an organisation that is fit for purpose and is ready to meet the challenges that we will need to face. They will be there supporting a clean, affordable energy transition, including transforming critical minerals to materials; addressing the pressing problems of climate change with a renewed focus on adaptation and resilience; applying advanced technologies, including AI, quantum sensing, robotics and manufacturing; improving the productivity and resilience of Australian farms and the agriculture sector; and mitigating and eradicating biosecurity threats to industry, landscapes and communities. Those will be the focus areas and the priorities. That's where the CSIRO, their management and their staff are working together to deliver a stronger, more effective CSIRO.

In rising to speak on this urgency motion here today, I think it's important that we frame up what this debate is all about. The reality is we have been told of a number of job cuts that will be impacting the CSIRO, and, rightly, Australia's science community—and indeed, I think, the Australian community more broadly—are concerned about the impact that these job cuts could potentially have on our national research capabilities. They are also concerned about where these job cuts might be happening and what areas of research we're not going to be able to focus on quite as strongly if these job cuts take place.

One of the reasons we're having this conversation here today is that Australians need to know the answers to those questions. But, regrettably, we've just had a five-minute contribution from the Minister for Science here in this chamber where he talked about his commitment to the CSIRO—and I don't doubt that that is a genuine commitment on the part of Senator Ayres—but provided no clarity to Australians on exactly where these job cuts will be coming from and exactly what impact that is going to have on Australia's ability to tackle the scientific challenges that we see coming into the future.

For more than a century, the CSIRO has been the backbone of Australian innovation. It's not just a research organisation; it's the engine room of ideas that have helped shape our nation and, in some cases, the modern world. We know that the CSIRO is responsible for wi-fi, polymer banknotes, Aerogard and advances in agriculture and climate science. All of these initiatives came from the CSIRO. And they are more than just clever ideas; they are the technologies that Australians use every day and that the world relies on.

But we know that under this government there have been a significant number of job cuts from the CSIRO. In the last 18 months, the organisation lost more than 1,000 jobs—818 of those since mid-2024—and now, as I said, we've heard from the government that another 300 to 350 research roles will be cut in the future, as announced this month. These are more than just numbers. They represent expertise in marine science, biosecurity, crop protection, mineral resources—areas critical to our national sovereignty and our food security. The fact of the matter is that the government is not being upfront about where these cuts are going to come from. It would be very easy for them to come clean with Australians and explain where the cuts are going to come from. I think if they could do that, and clearly demonstrate how CSIRO is going to be able to still deliver on its priorities, then perhaps there wouldn't be quite the level of consternation there currently is within the broader community. But, again, we had a five-minute contribution from the minister for science in here this afternoon where he failed to do that.

I've looked through the areas that have been talked about for potential job cuts and I've looked at the geographical parts of this country where that important research is done. Cuts to the environment could mean up to 150 jobs gone. It could mean cutting Hobart's marine hub and the Aspendale climate centre. Health and biosecurity could mean around 110 roles could be lost here. Boggo Road and Waite Campus could be stripped of disease prevention and biosecurity expertise right when global health threats are rising. Agriculture and food could see up to 55 job cuts in this area—again, losing skills in resilience and food innovation—risking our own productivity and our own food security. Mineral resources could have up to 35 jobs gone. Perth and Brisbane would be likely to lose critical mineral processing and engineering talent, which is vital for clean energy and supply chains, and I know these talents are so important to the local industries in those areas.

I'm not trying to scaremonger here. If I'm wrong about these job cuts—these are just a few numbers that I've put down on a bit of paper based on publicly available information—then I would love for the minister to tell me so. I would love for the minister to come into this chamber and tell the Australian public the exact nature of these cuts so that we can understand them more fulsomely. These cuts don't just hit the CSIRO; they hit families, local jobs, regional economies and Australia's sovereign capability.

I thank Senator Pocock for bringing forward this motion, and acknowledge that the Senate has just passed a motion for a references inquiry into these job cuts at CSIRO. It's a very important opportunity for us to get to the bottom of how CSIRO got to a point where it had to not only sack or retrench 850 workers recently but also target job cuts for 350 scientists and researchers across the organisation.

In my home state of Tasmania, we have about 400 staff at CSIRO in Hobart. They are absolutely critical to our community down there, to our economy and to our reputation as a global science hub. And this is not my first rodeo on this. I chaired a select committee in 2016 into the LNP's attempt to cut 350 jobs at CSIRO. In that case, we worked out something that's really important and very relevant to this situation. Public good science—that is, science that should be funded by the public, not commercialised or monetised—is the first science to go when we see these restructures and retrenchments. The witness evidence we got back then was very clear: there was an attempt to try to monetise science across CSIRO. Individual researchers, including climate researchers, ocean researchers, environment researchers and water researchers, who are doing this important, public-good science, dealing with some of the greatest challenges of our time, were told by their division heads they had to go out and find revenue to justify their existence. What have we found out already out of the 350 science cuts? Minister Ayres confirmed last Friday that they will be from the Environment Research Unit, which is oceans, atmosphere, climate, water and nature—public-good science. A hundred and fifty jobs out of the 350 will come from public-good science and from the Environment Research Unit. Sadly, most of the 400 scientists in Tasmania are from the Environment Research Unit. You do the maths.

We cannot afford to lose those jobs in Tasmania. We can't afford to lose science jobs anywhere in this country. Science is under siege globally. There's never been a more important time for this country to show that we value science and scientists by investing in scientific research. I support scientific research for commercial applications in agriculture, in AI and across a whole range of difference areas. We do need more R&D and innovation, and CSIRO has a great record in that. That's why we have wi-fi and lots of other inventions. They've come from research from CSIRO. We cannot target and defund public-good science at a time when it's most critically needed. We need to find out how CSIRO got to a point where they ran out of money and had to sack scientists. I'll ask—

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Bell to make his first speech and ask senators that the usual courtesies be extended to him.

I rise to address this chamber with gratitude and a deep sense of duty for the people of New South Wales and Australia, who I am here to serve and to my party, One Nation, that I'm here to represent.

First I want to thank my wife, Amelia. None of this would be possible without your sacrifice, your dedication as a mother to our daughter, Rosetta, your patience and your constant support, especially during the long days and even longer nights of work with campaigning. You have stood by me, supported me, defended me and provided me with encouragement, advice and love, and I would not be standing here today without you. To my parents, Elizabeth and Lindsay, thank you for teaching me the values of hard work, self-discipline and responsibility. The values that I bring into this chamber were shaped around our family's kitchen table, and I carry them with me today. I would not be here today if it were not for both of you. To my brothers, my wider family and my friends, thank you for standing with me, for supporting me, for reminding me where I come from and for keeping me relatively grounded.

To the One Nation parliamentary staff with whom I've had the privilege of working in this building, some of you for nearly a decade, thank you for mentoring me, for supporting me and for preparing me for this moment. Thank you to the One Nation head office staff and the One Nation state teams. I have seen firsthand the dedication and the commitment that you show, which keeps our movement running. You work harder than big parties with a fraction of the resources. You do not ask for praise. You just get the job done, day in, day out. And you get it done.

To Senator Warwick Stacey, whose vacancy I now fill, I want to acknowledge your service to this party and to thank you for the campaign you fought. I know your strength and determination—your commitment to the people of New South Wales and this country—and I'm honoured to follow in your footsteps as a representative of One Nation in this chamber. And to my fellow One Nation senators and to our leader, Senator Hanson, I want to thank you for your trust, your support and your unwavering commitment to the people of Australia. It is an honour to join you in this chamber. I've worked beside you, I've learnt from you and I've seen firsthand the integrity and determination you bring to this parliament every day.

I enter the Senate by way of a casual vacancy, and I am fully aware of what that means. I was not elected by name on a ballot paper, but I was elected on principle, on a platform of policy and belief carried by the party that I represent. That party is Pauline Hanson's One Nation, and I am proud to be here under that banner. Like many One Nation members and supporters, I never thought I would be in politics. I did not grow up dreaming of holding elected office. I did not follow the usual path to this place, because the truth is I haven't always applied myself the way I should have. I didn't make the most of the opportunities my parents gave me, and I didn't honour the sacrifices they made the way I should have. I dropped out of university, I have wasted time in my life and I have often not taken things as seriously as I should have.

Then one day I lost my job working shifts at a video store, after the march of technology carried on and video stores across the country disappeared almost overnight. I was out of work with no degree, no trade and no back-up plan. So I took work in catering, I worked mowing lawns and eventually I signed on with a labour hire company, and for the next four years I worked unloading shipping containers by hand at factories and warehouses, stacking pallets, wrapping them up, sometimes unloading 20-foot containers and sometimes 40-foot containers. It was four years of waking up at 3.30 in the morning, working hard and reflecting on the choices I had made and what I wanted to do with my life. I can tell you this: I learnt more in those four years about what matters in life than I ever did at university. Eventually, while working that job, I went back to part-time study and picked up a few qualifications. I got a chance to work as a claims assessor, contracting, working for myself and doing what I could to stay afloat.

But then something happened: Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister at the time, called a snap double-dissolution election, Pauline Hanson was returned to parliament and One Nation won four Senate seats. The very next day, I walked into the One Nation head office and handed them my resume. That's when I met Senator Roberts for the first time, as they were still counting the votes to see if he would be joining Senator Hanson in parliament. I didn't hear anything for a few months, and then one day I got a phone call from Senator Hanson's chief of staff, James Ashby, who has, for better or worse, had to put up with me ever since. It was a phone call that changed my life, because the next day I met Senator Pauline Hanson and that afternoon I was offered a job. For the next nine years, I had the honour of working for Senator Hanson and One Nation in this place and across the country, fighting for the people of Australia and the future of this great nation.

To anyone watching today who is doing it tough, who's lost their job, who's failed an exam or who feels like they've missed their shot, I want you to know something: it is never too late to turn things around. You can get knocked down and you can make mistakes, but, with hard work, a bit of luck and a willingness to keep going, you can find your way. I never imagined I would be standing here in the Australian Senate, but I kept showing up, I kept working and, when the chances came, I took them. If I can do it, so can you.

Now I want to take a moment to properly acknowledge Senator Hanson, the founder of the party I represent and my greatest mentor, who should be sitting here today were it not for others in this place deciding that the conventions on tabling legislation and the conventions on allowing others to speak, debate and be heard apply to others but not her. Now some may think that, by shutting her down, by banning her and by abusing her, they have won some victory. The truth is you have won nothing and only made Senator Hanson stronger—and that is hard to do, because she is already one of the strongest women I know. You have failed because despite the best efforts of the political establishment to remove Senator Hanson from this place, be it through the legal system, jailing her, or by dirty political tricks, banning her from taking her rightful place in this chamber, Senator Hanson is still here, because the people chose her. She is still here, that is still her seat, and it remains her seat by the will of the people and not by the whims of the Senate. She is still here, and with every year the number of people in this place and around the country standing with her is growing.

From her first speech in the House of Representatives in 1996 to the near decade of service to this chamber, she has never backed down—not once and certainly not this week. For her courage, she has faced more abuse, more slander and more misrepresentation than any politician in living memory, and through it all she has continued to speak up clearly, directly and with unmatched bravery for the people this place so often forgets. The longer the years go on, the more Australians can see that she was right all along—right on immigration, right on energy, right on national security, right on our national sovereignty, right on foreign ownership and right on protecting the freedoms of this nation. Her contribution to this country dwarfs nearly all others and her legacy will endure through generations because, when Senator Hanson speaks, she speaks for the forgotten people of this country—the workers, the farmers, the small-business owners, the pensioners and the mums and dads who play by the rules and just want a fair go. She has not just given them a voice but given them the courage to use their voice. That is what she has taught me to do, and that is what I am doing today.

I believe Australia is the greatest country on earth and it is home to the greatest people on earth. Australians don't ask for much—just a fair go, a country that works and leaders that put the people first. But, right across this nation, people are angry. And they have every right to be angry. They are not angry because of some hate for Australia; it is because they love Australia, and they see it slipping away. They see their towns and suburbs transformed without ever being asked. They see house prices and rents exploding while wages stay flat. They see power bills soaring while our coal and gas exports are sent overseas. They see crime rising and our standard of living falling. They see their values mocked, their history trashed and their kids taught to be ashamed of who they are. They see a country that once worked now struggling under the weight of bad policy, weak leadership and politicians and political parties that seem to serve the interests of everyone but the people of this country. They see the major parties bow to corporate interests, foreign investors, globalist think tanks, the United Nations and a woke agenda while ordinary Australians are lectured, insulted and told to shut up. Well, we will not shut up, and One Nation will continue to give the people a voice.

I stand here as a proud Australian who loves this country. I believe this country belongs to the people who built it, who defend it and who call it home. It should be a government's first duty to protect them and to serve them, not to serve foreign nations or the interests of the United Nations, left-wing radicals, activist judges or unelected bureaucrats pushing an imperialistic, progressive political agenda. It should be to the Australian people, first and foremost. I believe strong families, secure borders, local jobs, personal responsibility and the rule of law are some of the foundations of this nation. I believe the Anglo-Celtic values that built this country and the Christian bedrock upon which so much of this great nation stands must be defended. I will fight to protect these institutions from the radical ideologies and globalist forces that threaten to tear them down.

Much of what has made this nation great has been torn down, which is why I believe we need to not only defend these things but restore these things, which made our nation great but have been neglected and undermined. We must restore what drove our standard of living—cheap, reliable, Australian energy. We must restore control of our nation's borders because our immigration and investment policies, which were once about building a nation, have become a betrayal driven by big business, global pressure and the politics of greed and cowardice. We must restore our national identity to one grounded in a shared culture, a proud history and an Australian way of life. These pillars matter because, if they crumble and fall, the nation falls with them. If we do not act to defend our borders, to end mass immigration, to put our people first, then Australia is lost. We must act urgently because Australia is at risk of being swamped by mass immigration.

Under this Albanese Labor government, we have been subject to one of the most reckless and careless immigration experiments in our nation's history. The reason this has been allowed to happen is that others in this place do not truly see Australia as a sovereign nation. They see nothing special or unique, nothing worth preserving. But I do. A nation is not an economic market. It is not a workforce. It is not a population that is too old that needs to be replaced. It is not a population target dreamed up by bureaucrats or bankers that we must hit. A nation is a people bound by a shared history, a shared culture and a shared way of life. It is a contract between the living, the dead and those yet to be born. A nation is a gift we inherit from our ancestors, and it is our duty to protect and preserve it for those who come after us.

For years now, that contract has been torn up. Under this government, over one million people having been brought into this country in the middle of a housing crisis, an energy crisis and a cost-of-living crisis. The result? Skyrocketing rents, crumbling services, overloaded infrastructure and neighbourhoods that change beyond recognition in just a few short years. This is not an immigration policy; this is a betrayal. It's a betrayal of Aussie families, mums and dads, who feel like they are being pushed aside in their own country, be it through mass immigration or weak laws on foreign investment. A young mum and dad with two kids should not have to compete with every millionaire from China, India or the United States or compete with global investment firms just to buy a home in suburban Sydney, but that is what is happening around the country every day because so many politicians in this place believe Australia should not have real borders—that anyone can come here, in any number, and that anyone can buy a home here, whether they live here or not. This is a disgrace.

Housing in this country should be for Australians trying to build a life and raise their family, because this is our home. This is not some abstract global marketplace; this is our home. This nation is home for our people, the people of Australia, and to act otherwise is a betrayal. The Australian people have never asked for or approved of this betrayal. They did not ask for their suburbs to be reshaped. They didn't ask for their kids to be priced out of the housing market. They didn't ask for their hospitals or schools to be pushed to breaking point. But is happening anyway because political parties in this place, for their own reasons, for their own special interests, have decided they will not listen to the people of Australia.

I am proud to say One Nation is listening, and that is why we will not apologise for putting Australia first. We will not apologise for demanding that illegal migrants be deported and that government make the necessary cuts to immigration. We will not apologise for defending our borders, our values and our way of life. It is our duty to defend these things. It is our duty to the people of Australia and to our future generations. This is the responsibility I have to my daughter—to protect and defend the Australia that I have inherited, that she has inherited, before the Australia that was gifted to us by our ancestors is gone forever. No nation can survive without defending its borders and without a shared language, a shared culture and a shared sense of who we are. We are not just an economy. We are not just a labour pool. We are a people with roots, with loyalties and with an Australian way of life that is worth defending. If we lose that, we lose the nation itself. I will fight with everything I have to make sure that such a tragedy never comes to pass.

To be clear, this is not the only threat posed to the future of this nation. Another is the steady, deliberate failure to manage our energy system, a failure that goes far beyond net zero. Australia should have the cheapest, most reliable energy in the world. We are blessed with abundant natural resources. Coal, gas, uranium—we have the lot. We should be a powerhouse. Instead, we are becoming powerless. For years governments of both stripes have torn down what worked and replaced it with slogans, subsidies, foreign-made solar panels, and wind turbines contaminated with asbestos, and net zero is the excuse being used to cover this up.

Let us be clear: net zero is not a climate policy; it is an economic wrecking ball, and it is being swung with force at the heart of this nation's prosperity. Families who once had steady jobs, affordable power and a sense of security now face the exact opposite. Power bills are soaring. Manufacturing has been shut down. Industry that is the backbone of our economy, such as Tomago Aluminium, is on the brink. Coalmining jobs that have sustained regions like the Hunter and helped to fuel our future are being sacrificed and thrown away for nothing. Farmers in regions like New England are being strangled by green tape, torn apart by industrial wind and solar projects, and pushed off their land to make way for energy infrastructure that is fuelled by an obsession. Regional towns are being gutted, losing their jobs, losing people and losing hope. The lights are flickering on a power grid that used to be the envy of the world. Why? It's because both major parties surrendered to a fantasy. Labor pushes it and the Liberals pretend to oppose it, while signing up to the exact same targets and treaties and supporting the exact same policies that are causing the damage and the decline. Australians are being told to sacrifice everything for net zero, and they are getting nothing in return—just more pain.

In New South Wales, we once had some of the cheapest, most reliable energy in the world because we used our own coal and gas and we believed in self-reliance. Now these same industries are under attack, while we are told to rely on Chinese-made solar panels and foreign supply chains. This is national self-harm, and it must end.

I believe in cheap, reliable energy not just because it's good economics; I believe it is a moral obligation. I believe that restoring our energy system and delivering cheap energy to the people of Australia is the greatest moral obligation of our time. We must decide what we value more: destructive international treaties like the Paris Agreement that say we must sacrifice our nation's prosperity so other nations may profit, or the future and wellbeing of our own children. Nothing will rebuild this nation faster than affordable power in the hands of its people. That is the path to a stronger Australia, and that is the fight One Nation is here to lead.

But it is not the only fight we will lead. We must also fight to defend what it means to be Australian, because our culture and national identity are also under siege. Children are taught to feel ashamed of our history. They are taught that the statues of great men and women who helped build this country should be torn down. They are taught our national flag can be burnt. They are taught to hate Australia Day, our national day—a day that has been hijacked by extremists to promote their agenda of hatred and division. This must stop.

Australia is the most generous, free and fair-minded nation on earth. We do not need to rewrite our past to build a better future. We need to honour the legacy of our ancestors. That is what we should be teaching our children, because that is how we build a better future for our children. That legacy includes all of us. It includes Indigenous Australians. It includes the British settlers who founded our institutions and brought our democratic traditions. It includes generations of Australians from all backgrounds who worked, served, sacrificed and made this nation what it is. We must teach our children to be proud of their country and not ashamed of it, because Australians should be proud of their country. That pride should be passed on, not torn down. Our children should be raised to honour what came before them: the soldiers who fought, the values that built the nation and the culture that holds it all together.

We are not here to apologise for Australia. We're here to defend it, preserve it and teach the next generation to do the same. If others will not do that, then One Nation will. We are a nation, with an identity, with roots and with a way of life that must be protected, because what is the point of bringing down the cost of living if the life we are left with isn't worth living?

To the people of Australia, my mission in this place is simple: to put you first always, to defend and conserve the values that made this country strong, to speak for the millions of Australians who've been ignored for too long, and to carry forward the fight that Senator Pauline Hanson began when she stood alone in this building many years ago and spoke truth others would not dare say.

Senator Hanson has started a movement: one of courage, conviction and plain old common sense. The light of that movement burns like a light on a hill that guides us, and I will do everything I can to keep that light burning, in our towns, on our farms, in our factories and in the hearts of every Australian—and right here in the Senate, and right beside her when she returns.

I am here to represent the people who sent me, as Senator Hanson taught me: loudly, clearly and without apology—and unashamedly One Nation. I thank the Senate.

I thank Senator David Pocock and colleagues for moving this important motion on CSIRO. CSIRO is, indeed, a national asset. As it is a peak public institution in this country, devoted to science, we will always support it. This stands in contrast to the climate deniers on the opposite side, who now seem to have discovered a genuine interest in science. It's entirely hypocritical for them to be now clutching their pearls and their chests and wringing their hands in anguish over imminent job cuts at CSIRO. You have no credibility whatsoever.

The story of CSIRO is not one of government job cuts. It is, unfortunately, a story of mismanagement. Indeed, four days ago, a whistleblower declared to the Fairfax Papers that there were problems evident at CSIRO five years ago. The Morrison government, during the pandemic, injected an additional $459 million over four years into CSIRO. This funding boost led to a huge increase in CSIRO's headcount. The headcount swelled by nearly 1,400 staff between 2020 and 2024. In other words, CSIRO went on a massive recruitment drive with this additional funding. What also happened during that time is that employee benefits, CSIRO's largest expense, jumped—by 30 per cent since 2019. This is a quote from this former senior staff member:

There were no real projects for them to work on.

When 2024 clocked on, there was a funding cliff, and this near half-a-billion dollars that had been injected into CSIRO had been, effectively, squandered. The new management have come on under the stewardship of eminent scientist and fine Australian Professor Doug Hilton. He's had to do housekeeping; he and the independent board, which stands at arm's length from the government, have had to do some housekeeping.

I want to make it clear: any institution, whether it be scientific or otherwise, that receives public funds must be held accountable. CSIRO must be held accountable even though it is a peak scientific body. It is not a protected species. No-one that receives taxpayer dollars in this really challenging fiscal environment is a protected species. So the board did a review. It was the first strategic review in 15 years—and that tells you everything you need to know. It decided that there needed to be a realignment of CSIRO's priorities with the national priorities of this government. As a result of the mismanagement of the previous administration, unfortunately, a number of people are now likely to lose their job.

In terms of these people, bear in mind that this Albanese Labor government is establishing a number of statutory bodies next year. From January next year, the first ever Centre for Disease Control will kick off. That is going to require people with expertise in infectious diseases. Professor Hilton has already declared that one priority will be 'one health'—animal health as well as human health and environmental health. This will be an absolute focus of the CDC. There is no tackling infectious diseases unless you tackle threats to animals as well as the broader environment, because that's how pandemics emerge. In addition, provided this parliament works together and passes our environmental laws, we will be standing up a national environmental protection agency. So those workers who are likely to lose their jobs in the environmental sector of CSIRO will potentially be able to enter the EPA or Environment Information Australia, the EIA. We would need their expertise.

In addition to that, we have just announced the establishment of a national AI safety institute, a body that will rest within the department of industry. It will absolutely need scientists with expertise in AI, quantum and mathematics to be able to, again, scan the horizon for threats. So there are opportunities here for those scientists. (Time expired)

Science isn't failing; the government is failing science. They ignore warnings from climate scientists, they sideline experts and now they're letting our national science agency be gutted. Australia has a scientific legacy to be proud of, from pioneering global agriculture to world-leading Antarctic research and medical breakthroughs like the cochlear implant. First Nations people have stewarded land, water and biodiversity with scientific knowledge stretching back 50,000 years.

We are a nation built on science. CSIRO scientists carry that legacy today. They're on the front line of the biggest challenges of our time, from bushfire modelling to fighting antimicrobial resistance and breakthrough work on renewable energy. These are the people building our future, and what does Labor do? They hollow them out. This government should be buffering and celebrating Australian research, not bulldozing it—including by tackling one of the biggest structural barriers in the field: gender inequity in STEM leadership. If we want women to lead in STEM, we need to back them before they hit the glass ceiling. Programs like WILD for STEM show exactly what's possible when we invest early and properly: 100 per cent of participants stay in STEM. More than half secure new roles or promotions, and nearly a third land board positions within a year.

Australia's scientists punch way above their weight, even under insecure funding, gender gaps and a global political climate increasingly allergic to the truth. Scientists are the people who can pull us out of climate disasters, pandemics and extinction crises. They get us out of the messes that politicians help to create. So here's the message: you do not slash science. You protect it, you invest in it and you back the people who make Australia smarter and safer.

What extraordinary contributions we have heard from the other side of the chamber defending these job cuts at CSIRO. They're quite extraordinary. The last speaker for the Australian Labor Party referred to the fact that the Morrison government had given so many hundreds of millions of dollars of extra money to CSIRO that they'd actually gone out and hired scientists to do scientific work. Therefore, it's the Morrison government's fault that they're now being made redundant. What an extraordinary argument. Then we had the minister attend this chamber and refuse to provide details with respect to these job cuts, but he did refer to the Abbott government.

Let me give you a quote from the CSIRO Staff Association of the CPSU. This is what they're saying in relation to these job cuts:

This is a very sad day for publicly funded science in this country …

They are now responsible for cuts to public science that exceed the Abbott Government …

These aren't my words; these are the word of the CSIRO Staff Association of the CPSU. They said:

They are now responsible for cuts to public science that exceed the Abbott government …

They said:

These are some of the worst cuts the CSIRO has ever seen.

They said:

We don't need a crystal ball to know these cuts will hurt—they'll hurt families, farmers and our future.

That's what the CSIRO Staff Association of the CPSU are saying. I wonder what former senator Kim Carr would say about this. He railed against the job cuts and the cuts that were introduced by the Abbott coalition government. He railed against them. What must he be thinking to hear the contributions from those opposite? He must be absolutely aghast, as a senator who served in this place and was such a strong advocate for public science.

I want to read to you a quote from Senator Pearce from a speech he gave on 11 June 1926, speaking to the legislation which actually established the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. He talked about the importance of CSIRO, he talked about the importance of science for the public good. I want to read you this quote:

The need for the establishment of a Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has been discussed on many occasions, and the arguments for national research are well known. In all civilized countries it is recognized that from time to time national problems arise, the solution of which can not be left to private enterprise.

This is me having to inform those opposite of the need for public science funding. He goes on:

The problems are of such magnitude and of such general interest and importance that their investigation is appropriately regarded as a matter for governmental action.

That was the case that was made for adequate funding of CSIRO back on 11 June 1926, when legislation was introduced establishing the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. And yet we have those opposite blaming everyone except themselves for these catastrophic job cuts.

I admire the contribution that Senator Whish-Wilson made. Senator Whish-Wilson has been a very strong advocate in relation to public science, and he outlined the important areas of research which need to be funded, including in the environmental space. It is extraordinary. These job cuts are extraordinary. We're looking at 300 to 350 full-time-equivalent positions. It's just extraordinary. And this is coming from those opposite, who railed against lower cuts that were introduced by the Abbott coalition government. And we now have the CPSU, the CSIRO Staff Association, actually calling out a Labor government with respect to the dramatic nature of these cuts. It doesn't really matter in relation to other statutory authorities that are going to be set up. CSIRO, when you read the speeches leading to the establishment of CSIRO, the senators referred to CSIRO as the nation's national laboratory and talked about the importance of public science to support our industries, to deal with biosecurity threats and to deal with the whole range of issues which merit an investment in public science. I say to the government that they need to consider these cuts very seriously.

Question agreed to.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Roberts, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

Dear President

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under 'Build to Rent', foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more."

Yours Sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts Senator for the State of Queensland

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

I move:

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

The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under 'Build to Rent', foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.

The government has offered young Australians starting out in life two equally terrible options: either become a debt slave to the banks forever or rent from a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock and never actually own a home. Successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments—uniparty governments, that is—have failed to address the root cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration. Why would they do that? The answer is simple: necessity. After years of selling Australia out to their foreign masters, such as BlackRock Inc, Australia's domestic economy was performing so badly that immigration became the government's lifeline.

Australia has had negative per capita income for five successive quarters. What that means is that everyday Australians are going backwards. Their small pay rises do not compensate for inflation.

The reason the Australian economy as a whole is not in recession is the spending from new arrivals, as they furnish their homes and buy clothes, appliances and so on. This feeds on the GDP. But, per capita, we're in recession. It's economic sherbet. Once the sugar hit wears off, these new arrivals wind up in the same cost-of-living recession as Australians.

Instead of developing infrastructure, reducing red tape, reducing green tape, reducing blue UN tape and getting private employment going again, the government takes the easy way out: more migrants, and more, and more. Decades of mass immigration have led us to this place we are in today, where we have 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not citizens of Australia. We now have absolute confirmation that neither Labor nor the Greens, the Liberals or the Nationals are capable of solving, nor can they be trusted to solve, the real cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration.

And it's a crisis. The latest CPI data shows that housing has now risen 5.9 per cent in the last year—an accelerating rate of increase. And electricity, by the way, went up 37 per cent, as those election bribes Labor gave you—sorry, electricity 'subsidies'—started to expire. According to CoreLogic, it now takes someone on the average wage 12 years to save for a home deposit on the outskirts of Sydney and 30 years to save for the deposit on a home close to the city—30 years, for a deposit! Servicing a home loan now costs 42 per cent of income. The point at which a mortgage is considered to be impaired used to be 30 per cent. That's insane! It's a tragedy for young Australians.

The blame for this rests squarely with the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties. You have taken the option of homeownership away from young people with your insane mass immigration and your net zero agendas. You, and you, have allowed foreign multinational corporations and superannuation funds to bid up the price of Australian homes, and you've stood idly by while young people have walked away from auctions in tears. Instead, you make cringeworthy TikTok videos. You make promises that are not and cannot be kept, because you run and hide from the real reasons for the crisis: the Ponzi scheme that mass immigration has become. You run and hide.

Here's what One Nation wanted this parliament to vote on today:

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

The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under 'Build to Rent', foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.

Yet the other parties want to remove the facts, the data, from One Nation's motion. No-one wants to talk about the fact that there are 4.7 million visa holders—people who are not Australian citizens—in the country right now, all needing homes. No-one wants to talk about the tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords BlackRock Inc. No-one wants to talk about foreign ownership of Australian homes—no-one, except One Nation.

There is a reason why One Nation is the most trusted party in the country on the issue of migration—that's what the polls are saying quite clearly. The reason is simple: we care; they don't. One Nation will govern for everyday Australians. It's time for a One Nation government now.

The coalition is the party of homeownership. We want to see every single Australian—especially younger Australians—realise their dream of owning their own home. Labor has created the worst housing affordability crisis in decades, driven by an historic collapse in homebuilding and by record migration for which the government has completely failed to plan. It is Labor's failure to manage and plan for migration, and Labor's failure to deliver meaningful housing reforms—and that is what is impacting on housing availability today. When we're talking about a housing crisis in this country, we must focus on why we are here in this situation, and the real reason is clear: it is the mismanagement of the Albanese Labor government, it is Labor's uncontrolled migration policies that are reducing the availability of homes in this country, and it's the Prime Minister's red and green tape policies that are strangling new construction, driving the great Australian dream out of reach. This is urgent because it means many young Australians have lost hope of owning a home of their own.

Migration has always been central to our story. We are a migrant nation built on generations who chose this country and made it their home. But migration must be managed responsibly, with stable settings and long-term planning to ensure housing, jobs, services and infrastructure keep pace. While migration has ballooned, this government has overseen a historic housing construction collapse. Communities are feeling the strain, and the cost of poor planning is being carried by every single Australian, leaving many disappointed at the Prime Minister's lack of leadership. Locking in uncontrolled migration without addressing housing and infrastructure pressures is reckless, and, quite frankly, Australians deserve better.

However, we will seek to amend this motion so that the blame for Australia's housing affordability crisis is entirely sheeted home to the government. The failures of housing policy are not the fault of our migrant communities; they are the fault of the Albanese Labor government. That is why I am seeking leave to move an amendment circulated in my name that changes this motion to read:

"The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese Government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with Labor's uncontrolled migration policies reducing the availability of homes and Albanese's red and green tape policies strangling new construction and driving the great Australian dream out of reach."

This amendment reflects the urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government's immigration and housing policies. I seek leave to move the amendment.

Leave granted.

I move the amendment standing in my name:

Omit all words after "the following is a matter of urgency", substitute:

"The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese Government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with Labor's uncontrolled migration policies reducing the availability of homes and Albanese's red and green tape policies strangling new construction and driving the great Australian dream out of reach."

Here we go again. We have the same right-wing politicians reaching for the same old political stunts. Once again, they're trying to use migrants as a political punching bag, the oldest and saddest trick in the book. It's not new, it's not original and history has shown over and over again that it is wrong. It is dead wrong. When those opposite in the coalition join forces with One Nation on their policy offerings, we know that they have nothing new to offer the Australian people. They are all out of ideas and desperately searching for relevancy. They're looking for someone to blame for their current situation, and, all too often, that someone to blame is a hardworking migrant family in this country. It is a tale as old as time, and we all know the truth.

The simple fact is that a dog whistle is just lazy politics. It's nothing more than a policy shortcut for One Nation and the coalition, who are not interested in doing the real work of governing in this country. If you cannot solve Australia's big challenges off the back of a bumper sticker, they're not interested. If you can't fix an issue by playing dress-up, they don't want it. If it takes showing up in this place day after day and doing the real policy work, they ain't interested.

We know that it takes real policy work, record investment and having all levels of government working together to solve the great challenges of our time. That is how we build the homes that Australians need after a decade of inaction under the coalition. That is how we are going to deliver ongoing cost-of-living relief. That is how we're going to build the infrastructure our communities need now and into the future. You're not going to get that on a bumper sticker. It takes hard work.

Senator Roberts knows this. He himself is a proud migrant to this country. He knows that migrants aren't the problem, and he knows the facts support this. Net overseas migration has declined by more than 40 per cent from 2022-23. Those opposite left migration teeming with rorts. We all remember the Liberal Party fundraisers during the last election. Peter Dutton was beside conversations, offering up golden tickets to wealthy investors. That's their record in migration—a record of rorts. Our government has restored integrity to the system while ensuring that there is a sustainable level that delivers the skills that we need.

New housing approvals are up by 15 per cent from this time last year. More new homes are being built right around Australia. Senator Roberts knows this, but he chooses to come into this place and move motions like this, aided and abetted by the coalition, in a race to the bottom. We have seen the coalition try and climb their way out of some pretty disastrous polling lately. We have seen them try and tear down the new Australians. That's not leadership; that is weakness.

I will come to an Essential poll that was released in the last couple of days. It asks who the best person to lead the Liberal Party in this country would be, and 14 per cent of people said opposition leader Sussan Ley.

Senator Bragg, do you have a point of order?

I do. I fail to see how polling has anything to do with the motion at hand.

I think Senator Mulholland is definitely within the bounds of this motion, but I will remind Senator Mulholland to stick to the content.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was interested that, in that poll, a whopping 45 per cent of people said they were unsure who should lead the Liberal Party, and a further 10 per cent said they just didn't know. It's not a real ringing endorsement, is it? But, rather than turning inward and doing the work in this place, they are seeking to move motions with One Nation. We've got the Acting Leader of the Opposition in the Senate speaking on this One Nation motion, we've got the shadow minister for housing speaking on this motion—

Don't mislead the parliament!

And don't interject. It is unparliamentary.

Thank you, Senator Bragg. We will allow Senator Mulholland to complete her contribution in silence.

If Australians want an idea of what the modern Liberal Party in this country is looking like, look no further. They're coming in here, aiding and abetting One Nation on migration policies. But this motion, whether it be the amended motion or the original motion from One Nation, is not going to build a single home. While One Nation moves motions like this with the coalition, it's not going to help build a single home.

This government is getting on with the job. On the weekend, we announced the third round of HAFF funding to deliver more than 21,000 new social and affordable homes around Australia. Labor are building more homes, we are making it easier to rent and we are making it easier to get into your own home.

I will take the opportunity to clarify what was said before by Senator Ruston, and that is that we will not be supporting One Nation's motion in relation to this matter; we will be moving amendments, so I encourage senators to listen carefully, if they can. The main point I want to make, for the record, is that, for those who wish to link the housing issue with migration, it is a very one-dimensional approach, and it is not the main driver of the housing problem. It is not a reasonable argument to be blaming migrants for what is a homegrown problem here in Australia. Not only is it wrong based on the numbers but, I think, it's also morally wrong, and it is not providing the sort of leadership that Australians are looking for. Australians are very decent people, and most of us are migrants of some form in recent decades. We all, in the main, know that migrants have not created this housing crisis. They know that. It is the case that if you have high levels of migration and a collapse in housing supply, that that can be a factor. It is also the case that very high migration settings, as we've seen in the past few years, have been a contributing factor to the housing issue. But the housing issue is one of supply.

The only way out of the housing issue is to build more houses. There is no other formulation that we can conjure that is going to solve our massive problem. Unfortunately, for Australia, this government is in the process of spending $60 billion to give the country fewer houses than we had under the prior government.

The government inherited a housing system which was supplying 200,000 houses a year on average. Now we're back to 170,000 houses a year on average. Despite all the bureaucracy and bluster, we are sadly receiving fewer homes. That is the scoreboard. That is how many houses are being built. It looks like it will be about 175,000 houses again this year. They're not very good numbers.

More broadly, the government's main flagship housing fund has had $10 billion and two years. It has built a handful of houses and purchased some. So the supply record, unfortunately, is not too flash. What I would say, as another linkage point, is that if you are running a large migration program, you'll be looking to bring in people who can help you build houses. The government has not done that. I think the government brought in 4,000 tradies on visas last year. There is an 80,000 shortfall in tradies needed to build houses. So what we should be looking to do is to bring in people who can help us build out of this mess that we're in, rather than demonise the people who want to make Australia their home. I think that is a more constructive approach.

There are a lot of different ways we can couch these issues, a lot of different ways to talk about them. My advice is that we should try and be constructive and be honest about the position we find ourselves in. If we were to cut migration to nothing tomorrow, we would still have a massive housing crisis. That is the reality that we face in Australia. Whatever our political desires may be, I think every Australian wants the government to get better at building houses and get better at helping the private sector get the supply moving—whether it's a private sector housing system, a public housing system or a social and affordable housing system. That's the key to understand.

I think there was a very good point made in the motion in relation to the perverse idea that we're going to get BlackRock and other foreign fund managers to build houses. I don't understand that at all. I don't understand why the government has thought it necessary to give foreign fund managers a tax cut to become corporate landlords. We don't want to be like Atlanta or other parts of the US; we don't want that. I think they will be better off doing their budget and finding something more constructive there, because that is not the way we want to be in Australia. We want to be a property-owning democracy. I think that's going to be the best way to go forward.

It's not usual that I find something in the speech from Senator Bragg on housing that I like and agree with, but I absolutely endorse his comment that it is completely wrong to blame migrants for anything that we're seeing in this sector. This motion before us is just a continuation of the themes we have seen in this chamber this week. The shameful behaviour on display in this chamber earlier this week was prejudiced, offensive, deeply disrespectful and un-Australian. I believe it was a shameful abuse of the power and responsibility we have in this place to all of the Australians that we represent. I am very proud that our nation has been, and will continue to be, built by migrants from every race and every faith from across the globe. And I feel absolutely devastated that—because of the actions of one senator, supported by others—vulnerable members of my community have now been made to feel less valued and less safe. This institution that we all serve in has so much power to do good. How shameful that one senator would use that power to punch down, to hurt and to deliberately target Australians of faith.

While I am loath to buy into the absolute nonsense peddled by One Nation senators on migration, which are again reflected in the motion before us, it is important to put some facts on the table. Migrants are not to blame for any of the elements of the housing crisis we have before us. Another fact—it's not convenient to One Nation senators, but it is a fact—net overseas migration has declined more than 40 per cent from the post-COVID peak in 2022 and 2023. It is a fact that, under Labor, immigration is falling. It doesn't suit you politically to accept that, but it is a fact. Another fact is that housing approvals are increasing for new houses. That is a fact. They are up 15 per cent on this time last year. Facts matter in every debate in this place, and One Nation senators continually abuse the facts and use the facts to punch down on the very people who built Australia into the nation and into the country that it is.

It's also important in this debate to talk about the realities of what is happening in our housing policy space and the enormous amount of investment and work our government is doing, because, when it comes to housing, I know there are few issues of more importance to people in my community, but especially to young people, young Australians, in my community who are looking at this generational deal and feeling left out of it. They are looking at what their parents were able to do when it came to housing, they are looking at what their grandparents were able to do, they are looking at what they thought housing meant to their Australian dream—the way they want to raise a family, what they can achieve in life—and feeling cut out of this deal. They are feeling like, intergenerationally, they have been completely ripped off.

The tearing up of that deal and that social contract hasn't happened over the past four years of the Albanese Labor government; it has been generations in the making. There are many actors and stakeholders at fault for that, but migrants are not one of them. But you choose to instead come in here, to continue the themes of this week, which this chamber utterly rejected and condemned, themes which do not reflect this institution, the people who serve in it and everything we seek to uphold as an institution that can do an extraordinary amount of good.

This motion is rubbish! It's not worth the paper it's written on because it seeks to continue ideas which are also rubbish. Ideas which are offensive, ideas which are dangerous, ideas which are harmful and ideas which actually shouldn't be on display in an institution that is meant to represent all Australians and all Australian values. So obviously I reject this motion. I would remind One Nation senators of the value, relevance and significance of fact in any policy debate, but certainly in debates in this place, where our words carry a lot of meaning. I would also remind you of the importance of civility and that it is absolutely not okay to punch down, to endanger and to make the migrants of every faith and every nation who have built our country feel less safe and feel more vulnerable. We reject that. I reject that, just as I reject this absolutely rubbish motion.

I rise to support Senator Roberts' matter of urgency, because the Albanese Labor government has utterly betrayed the next generation of Australians. For the record, we don't blame migrants. We don't blame migrants. I think there is a comprehension problem in here. We blame the people in here. This is the problem, not the migrants. We are not blaming migrants.

The Albanese Labor government has betrayed the young families who dream of stability, the students who hope one day to put down roots, and the hardworking Australians, and migrants, who want nothing more radical than a chance to buy a modest home in the country they love. Young people now stare down the barrel of million-dollar house prices, mortgage repayments that swallow half their wage and a future where home ownership has become a distant and almost abstract dream—something spoken about, but rarely achieved. What used to be the great Australian dream has become a luxury available only to the wealthy, the lucky or a foreign investor.

In Perth the situation has become downright desperate. Rents are up more than 50 per cent in just five years. House prices have risen by 8.8 per cent, year to date. Vacancy rates scrape along at 0.7 per cent. At a single rental inspection, 92 desperate locals turned up—families, pensioners, students, young workers, migrants. People who once would have had reasonable options are now competing like it's the hunger games.

This is not normal or health, and it's clearly not inevitable, yet Labor pours petrol on the fire, with record mass immigration. We now have 4.7 million noncitizens competing for the same limited pool of homes, the same rental listings and the same public services. While Australians struggle, Labor hands out massive tax breaks to foreign corporate giants like BlackRock through the so-called build-to-rent scheme, an arrangement that sounds helpful but in practice delivers a stable stream of profits to offshore landlords while leaving ordinary Australians further behind.

Worse still, Labor's reckless five per cent deposit scheme encourages young buyers to borrow 95 per cent of an already inflated price. Does that sound familiar? This saddles them with monstrous mortgages, six to eight times their income—double or more what their parents ever faced. It is not help; it is a debt sentence. It locks young workers into decades of financial servitude simply for wanting a roof over their head. Meanwhile, foreign buyers continue snapping up our homes with near impunity. Red tape strangles our tradies and builders, and supply cannot possibly keep up. This is market sabotage, and Australians are paying the price. In Western Australia, where I come from, families scramble for shelter in a market with just 0.7 per cent vacancy. Rents have exploded, more than 50 per cent in five years, adding thousands to the bills that working families can barely afford.

Today, right on cue, the Australian Bureau of Statistics released the complete monthly CPI for October 2025. Annual inflation has climbed to 3.8 per cent, up from 3.6 per cent in September and higher than the market expected. Any lingering hope of early interest rate relief has just been crushed. The single biggest driver is housing, up a staggering 5.9 per cent this year. This is a direct and predictable result of Labor's demand-side madness. This is year 6 maths—supply and demand.

How can this government claim to care about cost-of-living pressures when its own policies are the biggest contributor to the inflation spike now hitting every Australian household? They create the problem and then feign sympathy for those suffering under it. Labor's arrogance knows no bounds. They prioritise global agendas and corporate mates over the aspirations of ordinary Australians. A two-year ban on some foreign home purchases is a bandaid on a gaping wound. Red tape burdens our tradies under mountains of compliance, halting construction and worsening the very shortages Labor pretends don't exist. We need homes built, not more paperwork.

Mass immigration at this pace is not sustainable. It outpaces our ability to house, educate and employ people. The people coming here—the immigrants—also need somewhere to live. I'm not sure how people in this place don't understand that. It's supply and demand.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I give notice on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate calls on the Commonwealth government to urgently establish an independent national body to investigate, report, monitor and enforce change in relation to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander deaths in police and prison custody in Australia.

I present additional information received by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee relating to estimates.

I present additional information received by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on its inquiry into the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024.

I present the 513th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, together with accompanying documents.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Scrutiny of Delegation Legislation Committee's Delegated legislation monitorNo. 8 of 2025. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 98 legislative instruments registered between 24 September and 21 October 2025. In this monitor the committee has commented on two concluded instruments and one new instrument. The committee has concluded its examination of the Competition and Consumer (Notification of Acquisitions) Determination 2025. This instrument supports the new merger control regime that was introduced in 2024 through amendments to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Part 6 of the instrument sets out the content and format of the notifications and public benefit application forms prescribed under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and the information and documents required to accompany these forms.

Under scrutiny principle (a), the committee expects that instruments are made in accordance with their enabling acts and otherwise comply with all legislative requirements. In addition, Senate standing order 23(4A) empowers the committee to scrutinise legislative instruments that are exempt from disallowance, including whether it's appropriate for those instruments to be exempt.

In this case, the committee raised concerns about the legal basis for exempting only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance. Part 6 is made under sections 51ABY and 51ABZQ of the Competition and Consumer Act. Those sections also provide that any 'legislative instrument' made under them is not subject to disallowance. The other nine parts of the instrument are made under different enabling provisions within the Competition and Consumer Act and are subject to disallowance.

Paragraph 44(2)(a) of the Legislation Act 2003 provides for two distinct circumstances in which an act may declare or have the effect that the usual parliamentary disallowance process does not apply—that is, to a 'legislative instrument' as a whole or to 'a provision of a legislative instrument'. In this case, subsections 51ABY(7) and 51ABZQ(6) of the Competition and Consumer Act provide that the usual disallowance process does not apply to 'the instrument' and make no reference to only certain provisions of an instrument being exempt from disallowance. As such, it was unclear to the committee whether the Competition and Consumer Act authorises the exemption of only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance.

The committee sought advice on this matter and received responses from the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury about the instrument on three occasions. Most recently, in Delegated Legislation Monitor 7 of 2025, the committee asked whether the assistant minister would consider repealing and remaking the instrument as two separate instruments. The assistant minister responded on 4 November 2025, advising that he would remake the instruments as two separate instruments.

In Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025, the committee thanked the assistant minister for his constructive engagement on this matter and noted that the assistant minister's undertaking addresses the committee's scrutiny concerns. Nevertheless, the committee reiterated its view that it is unclear as to the legal authority for exempting only part 6 of the instrument from disallowance. The committee also noted that it considers combining exempt and non-exempt provisions in a single instrument to be undesirable drafting practice, even where it is legally authorised. This is because such an approach has the potential to undermine clarity and to limit parliamentary oversight of provisions subject to disallowance.

The committee has also concluded its examination of the Help to Buy Program Directions 2025. This instrument directs Housing Australia in the performance of its functions in administering the Help to Buy program under the Help to Buy Act 2024.

The committee previously raised scrutiny concerns and, on two occasions, sought advice from the Minister for Housing in relation to broad discretionary powers conferred on Housing Australia by the instrument. In particular, the committee was concerned that several terms central to Housing Australia's discretion were unclear. The minister provided examples of the intended meaning of these terms and advised that Housing Australia would publish relevant guidelines and would implement policies and procedures to apply these concepts. The committee requested that the minister amend the instrument's explanatory statement to include this information. The minister subsequently agreed to this, and Treasury advised the committee on 18 November 2025 that this undertaking had been implemented. The committee welcomes the implementation of this undertaking and thanks the minister for her prompt engagement on this matter.

Finally, Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025 includes committee comments on the Aged Care Rules 2025. This instrument, which is 666 pages in length and accompanied by a 729 page explanatory statement, was made under the Aged Care Act 2024. It sets out specific requirements relating to the new aged-care framework. This includes care and services obligations, pricing and payment arrangements, complaints handling, compliance and enforcement processes, and aged-care provider registration requirements. Noting the length and the complexity of this instrument, I would like to take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of the committee, the committee's legal adviser and secretariat for their diligent and prompt work on this complex matter.

In monitor 8, the committee has raised a number of scrutiny concerns about the rules, including the automation of certain administrative decisions, the conferral of broad discretionary powers, coercive powers, privacy and independent merits review. The committee has sought a response from the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors about these concerns. Additionally, the committee has resolved to bring to the attention of the Senate concerns identified under scrutiny principle (j) about the inclusion of significant elements of a regulatory scheme. I wish to take this opportunity to further draw the Senate's attention to the committee's comments in relation to this particular scrutiny matter.

The rules contain numerous provisions that appear to be central to the aged-care framework. For example, the rules prescribe an aged-care code of conduct and aged-care quality standards. As per the act, the code imposes conduct requirements on registered providers, responsible persons and aged-care workers, while the standards include enforceable measures that relate to the quality of funded aged-care services. Under the act, compliance with both the code and standards is a condition of registration for registered providers. Noncompliance may result in the imposition of civil penalties and could affect an aged-care provider's registration status.

Additionally, the rules supply content for several terms that appear to be central to the operation of the aged-care regulatory framework. For example, while the act broadly defines the term 'restrictive practice' as any practice or intervention that restricts an individual's rights or freedom of movement, much of the content of this term is prescribed within the rules. For instance, the rules specify chemical, environmental, mechanical and physical restraints and the use of seclusion as forms of restrictive practices. Requirements for the use of a restrictive practice are also included within the rules, rather than the act, including the use of restrictive practices on persons who have been assessed as unable to provide informed consent. Key safeguards are also prescribed within the rules, such as the requirement that restrictive practices be used as a measure of last resort and only to the extent necessary.

Finally, key provisions relating to the funding of aged-care services are set out within rules, rather than the act. Under the scheme established by the Aged Care Act, individuals accessing funded aged-care services will have those services funded through Commonwealth contributions or, depending on the individual's means, through individual contributions and fees. Chapters 7 to 10 of the rules provide much of the detail as to how this funding framework is to operate in practice. Given the importance of the Aged Care Code of Conduct, the Aged Care Quality Standards, the funding of the aged-care scheme and key terms such as 'restrictive practice', the committee is concerned that the explanatory statement does not provide sufficient justification for the inclusion of these significant matters in the rules, rather than in the primary legislation. While the committee has resolved not to seek further advice on this occasion, it has resolved to draw this matter to the attention of the Senate under Senate standing order 23(4).

In concluding my remarks, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of comprehensively justifying any significant matters which are proposed for inclusion within delegated legislation, rather than primary legislation. The committee's consideration of this issue is underpinned by the importance of ensuring proper parliamentary oversight over all matters covered by legislation, noting the central constitutional role of the parliament as lawmaker in chief. The committee will continue to monitor this important issue in its scrutiny of future instruments. With these comments, I commend the Delegated legislation monitor No. 8 of 2025 to the Senate and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Question agreed to.

I present Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025. In this digest, the committee concluded its consideration of eight bills previously introduced into this parliament. The committee's initial examination of the eight bills introduced into parliament between 3 November 2025 and 6 November 2025, including the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025, are not included in this digest. The committee instead considered these bills inScrutiny digest 8 of 2025, which was tabled out of sitting on 18 November 2025 during the Senate's adjournment.

Digest 9 highlights the considerable importance of ministerial responses to the technical scrutiny of bills and legislation undertaken by the committee. The provision of reasoned justifications by the executive supports the committee to reach a considered view about characteristics or impacts of legislation that may raise scrutiny concerns. This dialogue serves to enhance the transparency, accountability and oversight of the legislative process and to safeguard public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law in Australia. Ministerial responses that directly address the scrutiny concerns raised by the committee can mitigate or resolve such concerns.

Having considered the advice from the Minister for Health and Ageing in this digest, the committee has considered that its inquiries about the Australian Centre for Disease Control Bill 2025 in Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 have been appropriately addressed. These include initial concerns about the availability of merits review of decisions to compel information, including personal information, and defences under which individuals rather than the prosecution would be obliged to prove certain elements of a criminal offence. A response that directly addresses the concerns outlined by the committee in the manner of this response assists the committee to advise the Senate that its scrutiny concerns have been resolved. This bolsters parliamentary oversight by giving confidence to senators that the bill has been subject to effective scrutiny.

This digest also contains a concluded entry in respect of the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. In particular, the committee has acknowledged that aspects of the Attorney-General's advice lessened the committee's initial concerns about a proposed general discretion for the Administrative Review Tribunal to decide to hear matters on the papers. The committee retains concerns, however, in relation to the framing of this power and the potential to incorporate greater guidance which the response to the committee has not addressed in detail. Considered engagement with the initial scrutiny concerns raised by the committee also provides an opportunity to improve the clarity of explanatory materials, thereby improving the accessibility of the law for the broader public and those affected by its operation.

In Scrutiny digest 6 of 2025 the committee queried whether the Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Financial Systems and Other Measures) Bill 2025 would in fact render decisions to publicly confirm an investigation into a particular charity immune from judicial law. The committee, having drawn this concern to the attention of senators, welcomes the Assistant Treasurer's commitment to table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum clarifying the continued availability of judicial review. Addenda of this kind serve to increase understanding of the law and assist with the day-to-day interpretation of legislation that is passed into law.

These examples demonstrate that meaningful engagement with the committee's comments enhances the parliament's scrutiny of bills and improves the transparency and accountability of the legislative process. Where other responses have not fully addressed the information requested by the committee, the committee will often draw its concerns to the attention of the Senate for consideration. Accordingly, it is important for the integrity of the committee's scrutiny function that ministers respond in a manner that directly engages with the committee's concerns and analysis.

In light of these benefits, the committee draws particular attention to two overdue responses to the committee. The response to the committee's comments relating to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 was expected by 23 September 2025. It is now outstanding for 64 days. Similarly, the response to the committee's comments relating to the Health Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 1) Bill 2025 was expected by 13 November 2025 and is outstanding for 13 days. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 9 of 2025to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code, together with accompanying documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—In respect of the final report of the PFAS select committee, which was tabled out of session last week, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

PFAS affects every single one of us. Around 98 per cent of the population have PFAS in their blood, yet many people know very little about these chemicals and how pervasive they are. PFAS affects us in our everyday lives, from consumer goods like cosmetics, food packaging, pharmaceuticals, cookware, furniture, tampons and even our drinking water. They are called forever chemicals because they don't break down in our bodies or the environment, and they bioaccumulate.

Just a few companies—3M and DuPont, first and foremost—are responsible for literally poisoning the whole planet and almost the entire population with these chemicals. They have known about these impacts for decades, yet they've been able to get away with this almost unblemished. In the meantime, governments in this country have paid little attention to the ever-increasing impacts of these chemicals. It seems it was easier to ignore this asbestos of the 21st century than to address something this widespread and costly.

Yet we could not ignore this ever-increasing problem any longer. This is why I initiated this inquiry on PFAS, and it's been an honour to chair it over the last year. I am pleased that the committee have been able to agree on 47 recommendations resulting from the vast evidence provided by affected communities and workers, experts, industry, government and government agencies. In particular, I'd like to thank those who have been directly affected by PFAS, most notably firefighters and communities whose land and water have been contaminated.

The committee's visit to Wreck Bay at the start of this year was an incredible privilege, and I wish to thank the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community for inviting us onto their land and sharing their stories. To see a small community so deeply affected by the contamination from a nearby defence base has been absolutely heartbreaking. Country, water and totems have been poisoned, affecting the community's ability to fish, hunt, swim and birth on country. It's affecting their ability to engage in ceremony and pass on cultural knowledge to younger generations. Their cultural loss has been acknowledged in a class action settlement. However, the small settlement amount is just a drop in the ocean of what the community has lost.

It also does not take into account the significant health impacts on the community, which has tragically lost many members over the last years, with many others having cancer or suffering from kidney disease or high cholesterol, all of which are associated with PFAS. Wreck Bay has been described by doctors as an obvious cancer cluster, yet governments have denied this. There are no additional health supports available to the community, and even accessing primary health care is challenging.

This is not a coincidence. Australian-government issued health advice on PFAS is inconsistent and lagging behind international evidence. It states that PFAS exposures have generally been small and are unlikely to be important to health outcomes. This is at odds with the World Health Organization classifying PFOA as a carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. These are the two most prolific PFAS, with others still under investigation. We also know that PFAS acts as an immunosuppressant. This means they make it more likely for people to get sick and make it harder to successfully fight diseases. This is why the committee recommended for the government health advice to be reviewed. It also recommended providing subsidised PFAS blood testing, enhanced health screening and mental health support for highly exposed groups, such as firefighters and affected communities.

The main source of PFAS contamination and PFAS related health issues was in firefighting foams containing PFAS. Our firefighters have been exposed to these toxic foams for decades. While 3M knew they were harmful, the committee also agreed that the government should legally pursue 3M for producing firefighting foams containing PFAS, which were widely used in this country. Any legal settlement amount should go towards the remediation of contaminated sites.

Firefighters have put their lives on the line for us in so many ways yet have been fighting for years to get acknowledgement of the harm these foams have caused and to try and get these foams banned. Their research and advocacy around this is internationally leading. Yet successive governments have ignored their pleas. The committee recommends a ban of all firefighting foams containing PFAS, replacing all legacy PFAS contaminated firefighting equipment, and remediation of contaminated fire stations and training facilities. The committee also recommends that the government ensure a consistent approach on occupational PFAS exposure across the country to protect workers.

Chemical regulation is another major concern. Most people would not be aware of how much this country relies on chemical companies self-reporting how toxic they believe their chemicals are instead of independent testing before chemicals enter the market. Even though three of the around 14,000 PFAS chemicals have now been banned in this country, there is no mechanism in place to actually give effect to this in practice. We have a long way to go to ensure the public is being kept safe from toxic chemicals. Meanwhile, there is little chance for people to know what is in their products due to the lack of labelling requirements, which is why the committee recommended the establishment of a mandatory product labelling regime for PFAS chemicals.

On a higher level, the committee recommended improving chemical assessment, classification and regulation but fell short of proposing a general ban on all PFAS chemicals, which was widely supported by participants in the inquiry and which is already being progressed in the EU. I believe that the current regime of banning a few of these toxic chemicals at a time won't get us there. New PFAS chemicals are being released onto the market all the time, continuing to pose risks to our health and the environment. Given the knowledge we have, this is completely unacceptable, and we need to take a precautionary approach and ban PFAS as a class.

PFAS is in our drinking water, and it has been increasingly making headlines over the last year, as it was discovered that the Blue Mountains residents had been exposed to elevated PFAS levels in their drinking water likely for the last three decades. This has resulted in some residents having higher PFAS levels in their blood than even communities near defence bases, and yet widespread testing has not been offered to community members. The Blue Mountains example illustrates the shortfalls of monitoring PFAS in drinking water, to which there is no coordinated national approach. Many drinking water sources don't get tested at all, which means that high levels, like those in the Blue Mountains, would only be detected randomly or if there is a specific suspicion of contamination. Hundreds of thousands of people right across this country could be drinking contaminated water right now.

There is so much I could talk about, and there are so many more important recommendations, but I don't have the time. It is disappointing that Labor are the only ones who disagreed with the committee recommendations. It is time that we take PFAS seriously and time for the government to stop passing the buck and take responsibility. I urge everyone to contact Labor ministers to let them know that you care and you want these recommendations implemented.

I want to thank the secretariat and fellow committee members, who saw with their own eyes a snake dying on the beach because it was contaminated with PFAS. There was a lot of time, energy and work put into this. We need action. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present two government responses as listed on today's Order of Business and seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

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

Review of the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in the Review of the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The Committee recommends that the Government implement a periodic survey, starting in three years from the presentation of this report, to ascertain ongoing economic impacts of the TOLA Act legislation on Australia's ICT industry and the results should be made publicly available.

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 the Government, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, develop a prescribed set of requirements for information that must be included in technical assistance requests.

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 s317C of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to clarify that a designated communications provider does not include a natural person, where that natural person is an employee of a designated communications provider, but will only apply to natural persons insofar as required to include sole traders.

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 that Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to remove references to 'systemic vulnerability'.

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 s 317ZG of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to describe the 'prohibited effects' of a technical assistance request, a technical assistance notice or a technical capability notice.

Such an amendment could take the form of the words put forward by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in his recommendations 9 and 10, and the government may consider incorporation of additional definitions in s317B of the Telecommunications Act 1997 arising from the proposed amendment.

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 the Department of Home Affairs develop, maintain, and publish non-exhaustive guidance documents that set out non-binding examples of what may constitute a 'whole class of technology' for the purposes of defining a systemic weakness.

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 Government commission a review of Commonwealth legislation to determine whether the concept of 'serious offence', 'relevant offence', and other similar concepts:

This body of work should inform, or occur as part of, 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 8:

The Committee recommends that the relevant provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 and the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and law enforcement agencies to seek external authorisation from the Attorney-General or issuing authority to carry out concealment activities in relation to the execution of computer access warrants following the initial 28 day window provided in the respective acts.

The Committee recommends that such an application should allow the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation or law enforcement agencies to carry out concealment activities within a window of time not exceeding six months from the expiry of the initial 28 day window, with the option to seek additional external authorisation for a further six months if required.

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 that the Government make clear that no mandatory assistance order, including those defined in section 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 and section 201A of the Customs Act 1901, can be executed in a manner that amounts to the detention of a person where that agency does not otherwise have any lawful basis to detain the 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 10:

The Committee recommends that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to limit authorisation of activities under voluntary assistance provisions to the Director-General of Security and Deputy Directors-General of the Australian Security Intelligence 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 11:

The Committee recommends that s 21A(1)(e) and s 21A(5)(e) of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to confine the scope of the immunity from civil liability offered under the Act to 'conduct that does not result in serious personal injury or death to any person or significant loss of, or serious damage to, property'.

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 that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Director-General of Security to be satisfied of the reasonableness and proportionality of the conduct of a voluntary assistance request prior to issuance.

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 that s21A of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to retain written reasons underpinning a voluntary assistance request.

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 s21A and s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to state that nothing in either section authorises the Director-General of Security to make a request of a person that is properly the subject of a technical assistance request as set out by s317G of the Telecommunications Act 1997.

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 that the Government make clear, for the avoidance of doubt, that the compulsory assistance order power in s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 does not authorise the detention of person to whom the order applies where the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation does not otherwise have any lawful basis to detain the 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 16:

The Committee recommends that s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to state that the requirement to comply with a compulsory assistance order is only enlivened once the specified individual has been provided with a written notice that outlines what they must do to ensure compliance with the order. This notice should also clarify the consequences of failing to comply.

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 that s34AAD of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to advise the individual subject to a compulsory assistance order the conditions associated with that order at the time the written notice is provided or at such time as the conditions are known.

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 amend the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 to expand the jurisdiction of the IGIS to oversee the intelligence functions of the Australian Federal Police.

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:

The Committee recommends that the Government amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security with the ability oversee to the intelligence functions of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.

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 the Government give further consideration to the proposal from the INSLM for an Investigatory Powers Division within the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and provide a response on the proposed model or any recommended alternatives by September 2022.

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 Government consider the proposal for an Investigatory Powers Commissioner, as recommended by the INSLM, and provide a response on the proposed model or any recommended alternative models by September 2022.

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 that the Government expressly clarify that the Commonwealth Ombudsman must consult with relevant agencies to identify operationally sensitive material that should be removed or amended before publication of a report. Section 317ZRB(7) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 should then subsequently be repealed.

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 s317LA of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be repealed so that State and Territory police are not required to seek the approval of the Australian Federal Police for a technical assistance notice.

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 that s 34 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to report to the Attorney-General when a device is removed from premises in the execution of a computer access warrant and the duration of the removal.

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 that:

Intelligence Services Act 2001

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 that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation brief the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the acts or things implemented as part of a compulsory assistance order to facilitate and assist the ongoing review and oversight of the legislation.

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 that s 3LA of the Crimes Act 1914 and s 201A of the Customs Act 1901 be amended to require agencies to report to inspection bodies on the execution of assistance orders and publish those figures in their respective annual reports.

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 the definition in s 4 of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 be amended to allow the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the amendments made by the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 of its own motion.

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 s 29 of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to commence a review within three years once the Committee becomes aware through existing annual reporting requirements that the technical assistance notices or technical capability notices provided by Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 have been used.

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.

______

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

Advisory Report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in the Advisory Report on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

In accordance with the Committee's recommendations from previous reports, which the Government has agreed to, the Committee recommends that the Government ensure that the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's has sufficient resources to enable effective oversight of powers under the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (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 2:

The Committee recommends that a new subclause be added to the proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that designated international agreements must be published and tabled in the regulations, subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and subject to a period of disallowance.

For the commencement of the regulations, proposed Schedule 1 should be amended to provide that regulations made under clause 3 (i.e. listing an agreement as a designated international agreement) cannot commence until no earlier than the expiry of the standard period for disallowance (i.e. 15 sitting days) under the Legislation Act 2003, or until the commencement of the other party's agreement, whichever is the longer.

For the period for disallowance, the bill should be amended to provide that the statutory disallowance period for regulations made under proposed clause 3 of Schedule 1 is the longer of:

Legislation Act 2003

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 an additional subclause be added to the proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that a designated international agreement may be renewed or extended for a period of three years without completing the parliamentary treaty process, if such a renewal or extension is proposed without amendment to the agreement.

However, the Committee recommends that the clause also provide that, following the term of the initial agreement and any additional three year period, any further renewal or extension should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance even where no amendment is proposed.

Finally, the same clause should also be amended to provide that, whenever an amendment to a designated international agreement is made or proposed, the amended agreement must be specified as a new agreement in the regulations and thus subject to the usual parliamentary treaty process and be subject to disallowance.

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 that a new subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that—in order to qualify as a designated international agreement—the agreement must:

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 a subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that a designated international agreement shall not permit a foreign government 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 6:

The Committee recommends a subclause be included in proposed Clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to provide that incoming international production orders under a designated international agreement must only be issued for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism.

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 that proposed Clause 182 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to provide that, for the purposes of the Act, an agreement—and a foreign government—will be considered to satisfy the statutory requirements (including the requirements set out in Recommendation 4 and Recommendation 8 of this report) if the Attorney-General, with the concurrence of the Minister for Home Affairs:

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 that the proposed Schedule 1 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to state that a country seeking a designated international agreement with Australia must meet the following criteria:

The name of the agreement must not be specified under paragraph (1)(b) unless the Minister has received a written assurance from the government of the foreign country relating to the non-use of Australian-sourced information obtained by virtue of the agreement in connection with any proceeding for a death penalty offence in the country or territory.

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 that, where relevant, the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 be amended to implement the recommendations set out in the Committee's report of its Inquiry into the Impact of the Exercise of Law Enforcement and Intelligence Powers on the Freedom of the Press, including recommendation 2 (i.e. that the current role of the Public Interest Advocate, as provided for under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended in line with the terms of that recommendation and expanded to apply to applications for international production orders.

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 that proposed Clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to include a definition of 'urgent circumstances' which provides that in circumstances where:

such circumstances would constitute 'urgent circumstances' for the purposes of making an oral or telephone application.

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 that proposed Clauses 22(3), 33(3)(a), 52(3)(a) and 63(3)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended in a manner that is consistent with Recommendation 11 of the of the Committee's Review of the Mandatory Data Retention Regime. That is, these provisions should be amended so that:

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

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 that proposed Clause 2 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 amended to insert a definition of senior position holder that is consistent with the provisions of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.

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 that proposed Clauses 83 (3)-(4) and 92(3)-(4) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended so that the Director-General of Security may only delegate powers to a senior position holder

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 proposed Clauses 101(3)-(4) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to provide that the Director-General of Security can only authorise Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employees, or classes of Australian Security Intelligence Organisation employees, at the Executive Level 2 (or equivalent) and above to make applications on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation's behalf.

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 that proposed Clause 83(9) and 92(8) of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to provide the Attorney-General with:

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 Australian Government ensure that the Commonwealth Ombudsman has sufficient resources to enable effective oversight of the proposed powers granted by the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.

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 that the Australian Government continue to ensure that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is given appropriate resources to enable effective oversight of the proposed powers granted by the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.

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 proposed Schedule 1, Division 4 be amended to include an express provision for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, or an official of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, to access the register of international production orders in connection with its oversight responsibilities.

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:

The Committee recommends that proposed Schedule 1, Clause 153 be amended to allow international production order information to be used, recorded or disclosed for the purposes of an official of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security exercising their duty as an official.

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 Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 be amended to allow for officials of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to share information relating to the international production orders regime with members of the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and members of the Attorney-General's Department where sharing such information is connected to the roles and duties of the member of the 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 21:

The Committee recommends that:

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979

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 that proposed Schedule 1, Clause 135 and 136 be amended to require the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation 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 Bill be amended to require the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to commence a review on the effectiveness and continuing need for an international production orders regime on the earlier of the date that is:

Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

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 that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Bill be passed by Parliament.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning Housing Australia, the five per cent home deposit scheme, illicit tobacco and funding agreements concerning the Housing Australia Future Fund.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN CONTENT REQUIREMENT FOR SUBSCRIPTION VIDEO ON DEMAND (STREAMING) SERVICES) BILL 2025

Today the Albanese Labor government is legislating for streaming services to have guaranteed Australian content.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and subordinate legislation, to allow for an Australian screen content requirement on subscription video on demand (streaming) services.

In the National Cultural Policy, Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place, the Australian Government committed to introduce requirements for Australian screen content on streaming services to ensure continued access to local stories and content.

We should never underestimate how important it is for Australians to see ourselves on screen. It helps us to better understand ourselves and our neighbours and allows the world to see us.

Australian stories play an important role in shaping Australia's national identity, fostering social inclusion and encouraging cultural expression. They are our greatest cultural asset. They help build a sense of community, collective well-being and a shared identity. They reflect and define who we are as a nation and make us recognisable on the international stage.

Australian stories help make sense of our past, define ourselves in the present and promote our people, our creativity and our country to the world. They bring people together and enable the exchange of experiences, ideas and perspectives.

All Australians benefit when we are represented by and can hear our voices in the stories brought to the big and small screen.

Maj or structural changes in audience viewing habits have meant that contemporary Australian audiences are increasingly engaging with content across multiple platforms. Public broadcasters, commercial broadcasters, cable and streaming are all part of Australia's television landscape now and into the future.

In relation to the public broadcasters. The ABC Charter includes the requirement for the ABC to broadcast programs that contribute to Australia's sense of national identity, inform and entertain and reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community.

The SBS Charter states that the SBS's principal function is to provide multilingual and multicultural broadcasting and digital media services that inform, educate and entertain all Australians, and in doing so, reflect Australia's multicultural society

Australian content quotas for commercial television were first introduced in the 1960s to ensure that Australians had access to Australian stories and to see their culture, language and values reflected on screen.

These local content requirements were updated in the 1990s to apply free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters, requiring broadcasters to commission a minimum level of Australian content every year. This is either based on hours, in the case of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters, or, in the case of other subscription broadcasters, a percentage of their total drama expenditure in Australia.

These requirements stabilise the market, and act as a safeguard for the Australian screen production sector.

But, unlike free-to-air broadcasting services and other subscription television services, streaming services have no requirements to make Australian content available on their platforms. The ready availability of content produced in other countries risks drowning out our own Australian stories. Without Government intervention there is no guarantee that streaming services will produce and make Australian content available to Australian consumers.

As more Australians watch screen content through streaming services, the Government's goal in introducing these requirements is to guarantee a minimum level of expenditure on new Australian content on these services. It will ensure that access to Australian content—and Australian stories—is guaranteed to Australians regardless of the platform on which they choose to view it.

Since the policy was endorsed in Australia's National Cultural Policy, Revive in 2023, there has been an extraordinary amount of engagement with stakeholders also involving the Minister for Communications Anika

Wells, and before that by the now Attorney-General Michelle Rowland as well as Arts Envoy Susan Templeman.

The extensive and genuine consultation process has informed the development of this requirement. The views of stakeholders and the analysis undertaken throughout the consultation process has informed the development of the Australian screen content requirements being introduced today. Consultation took longer than we would have liked but we were determined to get this right.

The proposed requirement introduced today is consistent with Australia's international trade obligations.

The Australian screen content requirement will apply to streaming services operating in Australia with at least 1 million Australian subscribers

The requirement is for streaming services to invest at least 10 per cent of their total program expenditure for Australia on eligible program formats in Australia on new Australian programs.

Eligible program formats are drama, children's, documentary, arts and educational programs. Total program expenditure for the Australian market includes the cost of programs commissioned or acquired specifically for the Australian market, as well as programs which were made overseas and not specifically licensed for Australia, otherwise known as global content. This global content can represent a large portion of streaming services' catalogues.

There are some streaming companies operating in Australia that only have global content. If global content wasn't included, and the requirement was based solely on a streaming service's total drama expenditure in Australia, then there is a risk that services could have no requirement at all. If global content is excluded from any requirement, international streaming services could simply minimise their expenditure in Australia and avoid any obligation. Simply put, 10 per cent of nothing, would deliver nothing.

The requirement also includes a voluntary option for streaming services to acquit their requirements based on a calculation of 7.5 per cent of their Australian revenue.

The requirement uses the definition of Australian content set out in the Broadcasting Services (Australian Content and Children's Television) Standards 2020. This is the definition that is used for commercial free-to-air and other subscription television broadcasters. It is therefore the appropriate consistent definition.

Streaming services covered by the new requirements will report to the Australian Communications and Media Authority, which will administer the Australian screen content requirement.

Streaming services can acquit their obligation over a three-year period. This principle was put strongly to the Government during consultation by the streaming services and reflects the lumpy nature of investment cycles in high quality programs.

There will also be a statutory review conducted four years after commencement to make sure the requirement is operating effectively.

The Australian Government committed to ensuring Australians have access to local stories wherever they choose to watch their screen content. This Bill fulfils that commitment.

In introducing this legislation, I must acknowledge the numerous stakeholders who have long advocated for an Australian content requirement on streaming platforms. The Screen Producers Association, the MEAA, all of the guilds as well as many people who don't work in the industry, but who have a connection to the screen through great Australian stories.

The path to this legislation has been long. The streamers hadn't arrived in Australia in 2013 when I was a new Arts Minister. I noticed you could log onto Apple iTunes and you could choose a movie—and come back half an hour—and it would be ready to watch. I said at the time, it's not going to be long before we are watching the internet through our televisions. I knew then, that the television quotas on Free to Air television wouldn't help. I wish we had acted then, we didn't have time before we lost office. We are acting now.

Since their introduction in Australia, streaming services have created some extraordinary shows. In the last few years, many of them have produced great Australian content. A minority are yet to produce any. This legislation is not a criticism of the streaming businesses in Australia.

It is an endorsement of Australian stories, a celebration of Australian creatives and a show of respect for the Australian audience.

This Bill will guarantee Australians will have access to Australian stories, now and into the future—it will ensure that no matter which remote control you're holding, Australian stories will be at your fingertips.

Australians will see themselves, know each other and the world will meet us.

VET STUDENT LOANS (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2025

Today, I introduce the VET Student Loans (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2025.

The Bill ensures that VET Student Loans (VSL) providers were authorised to handle students' tax file numbers (TFNs) to administer the VET Student Loans program.

The VET Student Loans Act 2016 (VSL Act) governs both the eligibility criteria for students seeking a loan and the requirements that providers must meet, to participate in the program.

Students are required—under the VSL Act—to provide their tax file number (TFN) when submitting a loan application, as repayments are made through the tax system. The TFN is essential to ensure the student's loan application details align with their Australian Taxation Office account.

During a review of how VET Student Loans are administered, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations identified that there was no clear role for VSL providers to handle tax file numbers under the VSL Act and stronger alignment between relevant IT systems and legislation was required.

We have taken action to fix this.

Since early 2025, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has implemented updates to the IT systems to mask VSL students' tax file numbers and automate the transfer of TFNs between the student interface and government systems. So now VSL providers no longer need to handle TFNs.

This Bill includes a retrospective measure to authorise VSL providers' past handling of student tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purpose of administering loan applications and VET Student Loans.

It also authorises the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations' previous disclosure of TFNs to providers for the same purpose.

The measure applies to all current and former VSL providers and their officers who handled TFNs from 1 January 2017 to 30 September 2025. It also extends to other relevant parties, including the Secretary of the Department, the Commissioner of Taxation, and Commonwealth officers.

By clarifying the basis for these past practices, the Bill ensures the VET Student Loans program remains both accessible to students and compliant—supporting confidence in the system and the delivery of quality vocational education.

Income-contingent loans for Vocational Education and Training (VET) students were first introduced in 2008, under the former VET FEE-HELP scheme.

That scheme operated under the Higher Education Support Act 2003, which allowed VET FEE-HELP and Higher Education Loan Program providers to handle students' tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purpose of administering loans.

In 2017, the VET FEE-HELP scheme was replaced by the VET Student Loans (VSL) program. While the VSL program operates under its own legislative framework—the VET Student Loans Act 2016—it continued to use the same IT systems platforms.

This Bill is important because VET plays a huge role in building the skilled workforce Australia needs—now and into the future.

The VET Student Loans program makes vocational education and training more accessible to Australians by providing opportunities for students to undertake a VET course—diploma level and above— and defer the payment of tuition fees through an income contingent loan.

The program helps to address skills shortages across critical industries including engineering, occupational licencing trades like plumbing, carpentry and electrical work, and training and assessment.

There is no change to the way students apply for a VET Student Loan using the Electronic Commonwealth Assistance Form (eCAF).

I confirm to the house that since the VSL program commenced in 2017, there have been no student complaints related to the handling of tax file numbers (TFNs) for the purposes of administering the program.

Ensuring VET Student Loans are accessible and administered with integrity is critical to helping Australians gain the skills and qualifications to build our future, strengthen our workforce, and support long-term national prosperity.

Further details of the measure in this Bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend the Bill.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

I move:

That the Treasury Laws Amendment (Help to Buy Exemptions) Regulations 2025, made under the Corporations Act 2001 and National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, be disallowed [F2025L01140].

I move this disallowance motion because it is a skewed priority for this government and this parliament to be pursuing. The reason I say it is a skewed priority is that, if you fail to have the houses constructed that Australians need to live in but simultaneously overly stimulate the demand side with Canberra's gimmicks, you end up with a worse situation, and that is the reality that Australia's younger people are now living. They're living that reality because the supply side has collapsed, and the numbers are very clear: 200,000 houses a year were completed in this country under the last government; now we are down to 170,000, and it doesn't look like we're going to improve.

Then there are the five per cent deposits, which are not means tested, and the two per cent deposits with the shared-equity schemes and the other things. These are all heating up that entry level point of the market. What we see in the data that has come through in the first month of the operation of the five per cent scheme, which is now not means tested and does not have place caps, is the largest uptick in prices at the entry level in years. The reality is that first home prices are too high. At the upper end of the market, those prices aren't moving.

Our concern here is not the prices of the houses for the very wealthy or the people who can look after themselves. We want to have a country where a person can purchase a house on an average wage. The problem with the inflation in the house prices at the entry level is that that is getting further and further away. No matter how well intentioned some of these demand-side measures may be, they are counterproductive because they are making the dream illusory or impossible. In the case of the five per cent deposit scheme, we're looking at a 95 per cent mortgage, which is a very heavy amount of debt for people to be carrying. That has brought forward the demand from others who would not usually use government programs.

This disallowance motion relates to the Help to Buy program, which was announced by the government in opposition back in 2022. We said at the time that, under this shared-equity program, you'd perhaps be sitting around the Christmas table with mum, dad, the kids and Mr Albanese. That won't be the case this Christmas, because the government haven't even been able to get the scheme in order. It's taking a long time to work through all the various issues they need to work through with the states. Even if you were relying on this being the great hope—the hope of the side, as it were—you'd be waiting a long time. This disallowance takes us into some of the mechanics.

One of the things the government has done to lay the groundwork for this scheme is to exempt the Commonwealth from the credit laws. The government's view is: 'Well, the credit laws are for other people. They can be applicable to the banks, the private financiers, the credit unions and everyone else. They can all comply with the rules that we've set. Don't forget, of course, that we also say that we're against red tape, even though we've created 5,000 regulations in the first term and 700 regulations in this term. But we hate red tape.' If you can keep up with it and you can fashion it into something that's coherent, then you're doing better than I am.

The point is that exempting the Commonwealth from the credit laws means that there will be no checks and balances for the Commonwealth portion. The way this scheme works is that the Commonwealth will provide up to 40 per cent of the value of the house. The other 60 per cent—or the other 58 per cent, given it's a two per cent scheme—would be provided through a loan from a bank or financial institution, and that bank or financial institution would have to go through the checks that the credit laws demand, such as the capacity to repay and the other capability assessments that you would expect to be undertaken. But for the Commonwealth share there will be nothing. There won't be any checks. Mr Chalmers—Dr Chalmers, or whatever he calls himself—will send a cheque. The carrier pigeons will take the cheque. It will be 40 per cent, and there will be no questions asked.

The problem with that is that we're looking at a $6 billion scheme. Maybe, when you're running deficits as far as the eye can see and you're covered in red ink, it doesn't matter. But I think it does matter, because the Australian people would look at that and say, 'Well, why would we be signing over our taxpayer funds without any sense of whether that money will ever be returned; why would we do that?' I guess that's really the point. That's really getting to the heart of this disallowance.

The coalition does not believe in and I put on record for transparency that we do not support this program. We voted against this program. This program was agreed to with the Greens, okay? We voted against it. I am surprised, noting our objection to the policy, that the government has decided to exempt itself from the credit laws and therefore will not be undertaking any due diligence as to how up to $6.3 billion of taxpayer funds will be spent.

I have to say that I probably don't have a great record of agreement with ASIC—in general, I don't think they've performed strongly—but I thought on this occasion they did make some constructive and important comments. They warned the government against doing this, and they made the point that the Crown is captured by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act for good reason. If the Crown is giving credit, then it's credit like any other credit and should be assessed. But the government knows best, and they decided these corporate cops—I mean, maybe the government thinks, like we do, that they're pretty hopeless. That's fair enough. But the government took the view that, 'Well, these people don't know anything; we'll just ignore them and put that piece of paper in the bin.' They went on their merry way, and they've exempted themselves from the credit act.

When the taxpayer underwrites up to 40 per cent—well, they don't underwrite it; they literally provide the 40 per cent for the house. They're not underwriting it. This is not a guarantee scheme. This is a funding scheme. They give the money over. The person has got to get their conveyancer and get their lawyer, and they buy the house. The 40 per cent Commonwealth share is just transferred over. That's it. All the best for the future! Hope for the best! It's a 'hope for the best' scheme. The taxpayer is expected to hope for the best. Maybe the market will go up; maybe it will go down. Maybe something good will happen; maybe something bad will happen. Maybe it will be foreclosed upon; maybe it won't be. Either way, there will be no checks and no balances. I think this is a reckless approach with taxpayer funds.

As I said, noting our objection to this scheme, we don't believe that the Australian people want to co-own their private house with the government. That's our objection. Putting that aside, if you were going to spend $6 billion, surely you would think, 'Well, we want to try and get some of it back; we should at least maybe think about our risk management plan, because it would be good if we could get some of that back in the future because then we can pay off the debt and we can pay for other services the community might want.' I think it is a reckless approach, and that's why I urge the chamber to think carefully about whether or not we want to be setting up a two-tier system.

Should we have a two-tier system? I think the answer is no. I think if you want to get into the business of providing credit then, surely—I think this is interference, by the way—there's got to be some kind of commitment to competitive neutrality. If it's good enough for everyone else to have to comply with the tests that people would expect—the capacity to repay and everything else—why wouldn't the Commonwealth do that?

Ultimately, this is a pattern of behaviour we've seen across the government—that there is a set of rules for the economy and then there is a set of rules which applies to the government sector, where the government will effectively act as a business in so many forms that they are prepared to write their own rules and prepared to set their own standards. I think that the Australian people will judge this very harshly, if there are monies lost in this scheme. Let's imagine that that money is going to be expended over the term of this parliament. They've got $6.2 billion that they want to spend on the scheme. By the way, this money is largely off-budget, but it's still public money. I mean, welcome to Australia 2025. When you look at the public finances, you've got no idea, really, what's going on, because there's a huge failure of integrity.

The Help to Buy funds have been borrowed by the Commonwealth. They're not on the main budget bottom line. They're borrowed by the Commonwealth, so they do hit the national debt number. The taxpayer is taking on debt. They're borrowing this money. This money is then given to people for up to 40 per cent of their property. The taxpayer will want to know what happened. We'll be asking questions about where that money has ultimately gone. What is the return over the course of this parliament on that $6 billion, if it is to be expended? At this rate, maybe none of the money will ever actually leave Canberra, because this was a promise from 2022. It seems to be taking a long time.

I make the point—and, Acting Deputy President, I compliment you on your attire.

Thank you, Senator.

The point of this disallowance is very clear. We do not believe it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to exempt itself from its own credit laws when it is providing money to people so that they can acquire a property. I note again our objection to this scheme and put it on record for transparency, but I want to make it very clear that our objection in this regard is about competitive neutrality and the safety of public funds. Will there be any provision or any check that the Commonwealth will undertake to ensure that taxpayer funds are going to be returned in some form? Will there be any risk management plan at all? It looks like there will be none, because the government doesn't want to apply any protection or any oversight on the up to 40 per cent that will be provided to people for the Commonwealth's share in the Help to Buy scheme. That is the question before the Senate today. The question is: should the Commonwealth be able to exempt itself from its own rules, and should taxpayers have to accept the fact that the government doesn't give a rats about $6 billion of taxpayer funds? It's not going to do any checks. It's not going to bother to ask whether the money is ever going to come back. Ultimately, if the answer to the question is, 'The government of Australia doesn't care about whether the $6 billion will ever be returned,' then I think the government will be judged very harshly.

I urge the Senate to consider the disallowance very carefully and support it and force the government back to the drawing board. It should not exempt itself from the credit laws. It should, on this occasion, listen to the advice of its corporate regulator, which has said to it that you should not exempt the Crown from the credit laws. If the Crown is providing credit then like any organisation it should be subject to the same obligations, because, of course, the Crown's money is not the Crown's money; it actually belongs to the Australian taxpayers. So I urge the government to reconsider, and I urge the crossbench to vote for this disallowance today.

I assure the Senate that Senator Bond is not in the chair this evening!

I listened carefully to the back end of Senator Bragg's contribution. I think it is important, before I deal with some of the merits of the arguments that have been made, to understand precisely what is being proposed here and what the point of this disallowance would be. The effect of this disallowance would be to delay, make more complex and frustrate the ambitions of the government, and, of course, the people who would be the beneficiaries of this scheme. It's not just about the mechanics. In the worst case this would render the scheme inoperable.

Senator Bragg invoked the principle, that apparently he holds dearly, of 'competitive neutrality'—and he asserted that like it was the sort of thing that applied here! The point of this scheme is that it is providing equity to people who would otherwise not be able to get it. There is no principle of 'competitive neutrality'. It is just word salad that is being provided as a justification.

This scheme, the Albanese Labor government's Help to Buy Scheme, will help another 40,000 Australians into homeownership—nurses, cleaners, early-childhood educators, aged-care workers—who would not otherwise be able to afford a home of their own. Senator Bragg says this would create a two-tiered system. There is already a two-tiered system. There are people who can repay a loan but can't repay a loan at the full price for a home. This is about the Albanese government saying, 'We will use the power of the government to step in and make sure that you have the right level of equity to be able to afford to buy a home.' What is wrong with that?

I think what is being put here is a mealy-mouthed position, with lots of complaints. Any number of reasons can be put forward in order to oppose a scheme that puts working-class Australians into homes of their own. These are not substantial, significant reasons. This is just blather. For such a young man, he—Senator Bragg—is an old fogey. They've just come up with all of the sorts of reasons you would want to stop a nurse or an aged-care worker or a cleaner—lower-to-middle-income Australians—from being able to secure their own home. Just imagine: if you get on the other side of the chamber on this question and vote against it, then don't look your cleaner in the face again; don't pretend that you treat low-income Australians with respect. Honestly! Just get out of the way and allow the government to support these people.

I think it's founded firstly in a sense of intellectual arrogance—a sense that those opposite are so clever that, unless they've designed a policy mechanism themselves, there's no way. It's from their sense of entitlement that drives them into public office. It's their way or no way—even if the consequence of that is that 40,000 ordinary Australians stay on the rental market forever, forever paying somebody else's mortgage. It's so utterly heartless, so completely self-involved, so utterly driven by a sense of entitlement.

There's a sense of snobbery that drives this position. Senator Bragg says, 'Australians don't want to co-own their home with the government.' Well, if you don't want to co-own a house with the government, don't buy a house with the government. There's a sort of snobbery that looks down on people in community housing or in public housing. These are people who have a steady income and can repay a loan, and will work their guts out to repay a loan. But the snobbery of the Liberal Party says: 'You're not up to it. We're only for other people—not for people who work hard. We're for other people.' It's that sort of born-to-rule sense of entitlement that means that you can offer a mealy-mouthed phrase like 'competitive neutrality' that means nothing in this context. It's meaningless. Is it because you're entitled by a sort of birthright to the role in the Liberal Party that you just get to say no to these people—say no to the cleaners, the childcare workers, the aged-care workers? You live in your own home, and pay your own mortgage, but you say to them, 'You're not good enough for that.'

Let's put aside all that cruelty and all that snobbery for a moment. Senator Bragg claims that it's reasonable to say that the same prudential regulations should be applied to the government. What a silly argument. What a vain argument. The truth is that these mechanisms will be driven by the banks that offer the loans. The prudential regulations apply to them. They have to discharge their obligations. Why would you set up a regulatory environment that says: 'We're going to double up the requirement. We're going to have not just one set of prudential requirements but effectively two. We'll have two decision-makers who might make different decisions'? Have a look at yourselves. Have a look at the people who you are disadvantaging and think about whether that's really a serious argument that an adult would make.

I understand that the Liberal Party and the National Party don't like government engaging in the economy to support ordinary people. I don't agree with it, but I get it. But we have been elected to perform this function by people who saw Labor's Help to Buy scheme and said, 'I can get into the housing market.' I know these people. These are people in my family and in my community who say: 'I could get partial equity. The value of my home will grow over time. I'll pay that mortgage. I can sell the home, with the government share declining in real terms over time as the value of the home increases. I can make a quid out of this. I can get a foot on the ladder.' But the Liberal Party and the National Party, under Ms Ley, say, 'No, it's not for you; it's just for us.'

I've had people in my office in tears with the hope that our five per cent deposit scheme gives them. One of them, just a few days ago, said: 'My HECS debt is gone. I can do a five per cent deposit. It's a real thing for me.' And these guys say, 'No, it's not for you; it's just for us. Don't worry about it, young people. You can flog yourselves for 15 years and try to save a deposit,' while, under the Labor Party government, these young people get to have a crack in a period of time that they can see and imagine.

Honestly, I can't believe the pile of garbage arguments that get mounted up in order to justify it—that it's a demand-side mechanism and all this econobabble. It is a real thing, and these are real people. These are people you might never meet or want to associate with, but they are real people. They may not be in the gentlemen's clubs and all that sort of stuff that you lot carry on about, but they are real people—young people, low-income people—who get to have a crack. But you want to just stand in the way and say, 'No, it's not for you.'

The majority of our package, our $43 billion package, is of course allocated on the supply side. It is working with the states and territories and with the community housing organisations to drive more activity in the housing market. We've set ambitious targets to do that, and we'll be measured on our success over time. The problem with the Liberals' argument is that they say, 'How many homes did you build?' on Wednesday and then they say, 'How many homes did you build?' on Thursday and it's not less than the day before. The number keeps increasing. It gets bigger. Those are hard things to do, and they require the government getting active and working with developers, and you get this nitpicking, undermining, snobbery driven response from the Liberal Party. That's what you get. It's mean-spirited. It's snobby. It's obstructionist. It's intellectually arrogant. It's born to rule.

The problem is that when you wreck things and try to establish a coalition of support across the chamber that has everybody engaged, and sometimes con the Greens to supporting your position, ordinary people pay. When you wreck these things it hurts cleaners, it hurts nurses, it hurts coppers, it hurts council workers and it hurts tradies who just want to have a crack. They just want to have a go. Maybe spend a bit of time over the Christmas break reflecting on what actual effective opposition should do. It actually involves sometimes backing the government, or backing policies that you wouldn't have written yourself. We did it plenty of times in opposition between 2019 and 2022. It was a pretty good model, a pretty successful model.

I watched Niki Savva with some interest on Sunday. I'm often out doing things on a Sunday morning, usually trying to do a few things around the house to make up for the fact I'm not often around during the week. She said the problem for the Liberal Party is they have got an existential crisis. Then she went on to say that the problem for the Liberal Party is they have an identity crisis. They don't know who they are. I've been around politics for a little while now for a young bloke. I've been around for a little while. I know from experience that you can have an existential crisis after a bad result, but if you know who you are and what you stand for, and you understand what makes up the movement you are in and your place in history and Australian democracy, then you can work your way through a tough existential patch. If you have an identity crisis, you have your existence to rely upon. You've got time to figure it out and you're not in a mad rush. But if you have an identity crisis and an existential crisis at the same time, you are in all sorts of trouble because you don't know who you are, you don't know what you stand for and your capacity to solve these problems in the interests of Australians gets smaller and narrower every day. That is the problem with your policy formulations, whether it's this or your approach to the energy questions.

I can see the sea change that's happening across this chamber as One Nation and Mr Joyce and all these characters actually in charge—Senator Sharma shakes his head, but he's in a diminishing part of the old moderate part of the Liberal Party. It doesn't really exist anymore except in a tiny little fraction of New South Wales. It's been bullied out of existence by these other characters who have given the game away on the centre ground of Australian politics. They want to move to the extreme right, and that's where you end up wrecking things and hurting ordinary people and ordinary Australians. That's what voting for this proposition would deliver—nothing more, nothing less. It's just pain for Australians you will probably never meet.

I really don't know where to start after that contribution. Here I was expecting a defence of Labor's housing policy, and instead we've had a series of ad hominem attacks against people on this side of the chamber. We've had some amateur channelling of Siegmund Freud, trying to psychoanalyse the coalition's internal dynamics.

We also had, frankly, some quite insulting things said by the minister. He suggested, firstly, that we don't seek to represent people, and I think he tried to claim some sort of moral high ground that only his side of the chamber represents working people. I remind him that it was our political party that increased homeownership under Robert Menzies. It's our political party that has delivered higher living standards.

When was that? How long ago was that?

Menzies was the postwar prime minister from the Second World War. Throughout our history, including in the recent term of the coalition government, it's been a coalition government that has improved living standards for Australians.

Three hundred and thirty-seven homes!

Minister, I did listen respectfully, despite the nonsense that was streaming forth from your mouth, and I'd expect the same in return.

We haven't had any defence of this policy whatsoever. I think there are grounds for common agreement here. I think the Labor Party—and even Senator Ayres, despite me being so appalled by his most recent contribution—genuinely thinks that Australians owning a home is a good thing. We, here, on this side, do as well. But I think where we differ—

Just not those ones. Just not them.

We can have a legitimate policy difference here without me needing to attack your personal motives or your connection to the public, Senator Ayres. We can have a legitimate policy difference here. Where we differ is that we think Labor's policies, including this one, are making the housing problem worse. Every time the Labor government intervene in the housing market in some way, they might temporarily privilege or advantage one group, but it's to the detriment of the overall health of the market.

Housing is not just an asset class; housing is a social good. And I think everyone in this chamber recognises that. If someone owns their own home, it means they're more likely to have—please don't leave, Minister. I've been enjoying this.

Let's keep comments through the chair.

Sorry, Acting Deputy President. I'm regretting Senator Ayres leaving after that high-intellect contribution earlier!

Homeownership provides security in retirement. Homeownership provides the foundation that families need to have confidence to enlarge their families through having children or adopting children. Homeownership also provides the security to build communities and invest in communities. That's why the level of homeownership in Australia—not for a particular sector or a particular group of people but for all Australians—is so important. It's not just their financial health and wellbeing; it's the health of the nation.

Undoubtedly, homeownership is out of reach for too many Australians today, and this is an intergenerational failing. It's part of failings, I'll concede, on both sides of the aisle over probably two to three decades now. We have not been building enough homes. The problem with these sorts of schemes, whether it is the Housing Australia Future Fund or the Home Guarantee Scheme or the Help to Buy scheme, which is the subject of this disallowance motion, is that Labor's fixers are fuelling demand in certain sectors of the market, but all that does is push up prices. Perhaps the people they're helping today will get a foot on the property ladder, but they are pushing everyone who is not the beneficiary of this particular scheme on this particular day further down the ladder.

Fundamentally, every one of these policies has unintended consequences. We heard from the minister before that he recognises that supply is an issue. But, if that's the case, why aren't all these supply measures? They're all demand measures. The Help to Buy scheme, the Home Guarantee Scheme and the Housing Australia Future Fund—all we have is more government intervention in the market adding to demand.

When the coalition were last in office, we averaged—well, we weren't building the homes. We don't pretend that the government should be building homes. We think private capital and private investors and people who are seeking to build a home themselves should be building them. But home construction averaged 200,000 a year. Under Labor, so far it has averaged 170,000 a year. The most recent statistics from the ABS say that the number of new home constructions in the 2024-25 fiscal year is lower than in the 2023-24 fiscal year. In the first year of the housing compact, the housing targets, the Labor government is already 66,000 new home starts behind.

So it's all very well for the minister to say that this scheme will help nurses, cleaners, council workers or teachers. But, if all it is doing is pushing up prices for those nurses, for those council workers, for those teachers and for those cleaners and pushing up the prices for everyone else, then no-one is better off. At heart, philosophically, as a matter of policy, that is the problem with this government's approach to every issue. It's a reflexive reach for government intervention in a market. The first-order effects might seem positive, but the second- and third-order effects and unintended consequences are incredibly negative.

Take, for instance—I have to make sure I've got the names right—the home guarantee scheme. The home guarantee scheme is the deposit scheme. I think I've got this right. That was the home guarantee scheme, not the Help to Buy scheme, which we're talking about now. What we've seen since the home guarantee scheme commenced is, already, the biggest monthly rise in house prices across Australia in years. Cotality, the data collector and aggregator, confirmed that the strongest growth seen in housing prices was in the lower and middle quartiles of the housing market, the sorts of properties that first home buyers are targeting. Cotality research director Tim Lawless said this price growth was due to 'likely a pick-up in first home buyers taking advantage of the expanded deposit guarantee'. So what we've got with the home guarantee scheme and what we will soon have with the Help to Buy scheme is the government basically putting more money into people's pockets to purchase homes without creating any new homes. If you've got more money chasing a finite or fixed supply of goods, or even if you've got money growing at a faster rate than supply is, that is what constitutes inflation. Just today, we saw the monthly inflation figure at 3.8 per cent. Do you know why monthly inflation figures are so high? It's because real government spending is growing at four times the rate of the economy. Real government spending, four times the rate of the economy.

That macro picture is being replicated here at the micro level, at a sectoral level, in the housing sector. We have got more government money going into a sector without doing anything to address the supply side. We've got the so-called Housing Australia Future Fund. That is the supply-side measure. That's what's meant to be building homes. All we've got so far from the HAFF is that they have 'completed' 889 homes but they've failed to disclose, or refused to disclose, whether these homes had been built by the HAFF or had been acquired. When we last got a concrete figure on this from the finance minister, Katy Gallagher, she revealed, at last year's Senate estimates, that the HAFF had built zero homes—absolute doughnut. Instead, it had acquired—that is, it had bought or purchased—340 homes. So the HAFF scheme, the supply-side scheme, is only operating on the demand side of the market. We've got the home guarantee scheme on the demand side of the market. And now we've got—I've got to remember these names—the Help to Buy scheme, also only operating on the demand side of the market.

I can't be any clearer than this. More government intervention on the demand side is not the answer. All that will do is drive up prices further. Just as government intervention in other parts of the economy fuels inflation and pushes up prices, that is exactly what this scheme will do.

This disallowance motion is directed at the Help to Buy scheme, predominantly because the scheme seeks to exempt itself from the National Credit Code. The National Credit Code is there for a reason. It's there to protect consumers, and it's there to protect Australian financial interests. The regulatory agency ASIC knows that it was and has always been the intention of the parliament for the code to apply to credit provided by the Crown. The Crown is providing credit in this instance, and we in the coalition believe that this scheme should be subject to the normal oversight that applies to credit instruments in all their entirety.

Debate interrupted.

As this could very well be my last opportunity to have a say in this place this year, I wanted to end 2025 with a bang, which means that we have to talk about the biggest news story of the day. Just hours ago, Queensland's favourite son and Australian tourism icon Robert Irwin was crowned the winner of Dancing with the Stars in the United States of America. Robert Irwin really put the 'win' in 'Irwin'. He was an absolute soldier, performing a stellar routine while pushing through a serious rib injury, and his pain will likely be Australia's gain, because the US television show pulled in more than 72 million public votes, more than the previous record, which means we are now hoping to see a lot more American tourists down under, since Robert Irwin is also the face of Australia's latest international tourism campaign, Come and say G'day.

I was lucky enough to visit Australia Zoo's animal hospital last month, and I recommend making it your family's New Year's resolution to take a visit next year when you can, because a year with a Queensland holiday is always a good year. Just ask the schoolies who are holidaying on the Gold Coast right now. This is yet another story to celebrate, with Gold Coast police and schoolies event organisers giving them an A plus for their behaviour this year. So far, these young adults have exceeded everyone's expectations, which made me think: can we always say the same about the behaviour in this place? Is it better or worse than the schoolies'? I'll let us all ponder on that one.

My next festive thank you is to you, President. Thank you very much indeed for the way in which you have led this chamber this year, especially through some difficult moments. It is my hope for the New Year that some of the more colourful characters of this place will return next year with a new kind of respect for the high office of this Senate—though I only get one Christmas wish and I've got plenty of wishes this year. It is my sincere hope that the people involved in some of the antics we saw at this year's end will return with a new mode of collaboration in 2026, because that's exactly what the Australian people want to see of us. They want to see us working together for the benefit of the community.

In fact, in the five short months I have been a senator, I have been blessed to work with a great number of politicians from all walks of life and all parts of Queensland. I'd like to thank some of the outstanding Queensland mayors who I've found it a wonderful opportunity to work with since coming to office: Sunshine Coast regional mayor Rosanna Natoli, Noosa Shire mayor Frank Wilkie, Scenic Rim mayor Tom Sharp, Toowoomba mayor Geoff McDonald, Moreton Bay City Council mayor Peter Flannery, and Lockyer mayor Tanya Milligan, just to name a few. They have all been so gracious in inviting me out to their communities to celebrate the opening of some critical local infrastructure funded by the federal government. I think the greatest example of cross-collaboration I have seen is the power trio from the great Whitsunday region of Isaac, Mackay and Whitsundays, who have all worked together for the benefit of their regions.

My final shout-out is to every worker who will be working this Christmas to make the festive season everything we love. I recognise the important work of the SDA to protect retail and fast-food workers from the intense verbal abuse they receive from customers. Eighty-seven per cent of frontline retail workers report being yelled at, insulted or threatened at work. So you will see as part of the SDA's No One Deserves a Serve campaign that supermarket chain staff have been given badges to wear beneath their own name tags simply saying, 'I'm a mum,' 'I'm a dad,' 'I'm a daughter,' or, 'I'm a son.' This is to remind shoppers that the person in the uniform is a human being with a family and a life outside of that check-out. Incredibly, new research published in The Conversation showed that these tiny 20c badges have actually significantly reduced customer abuse. So I encourage everyone working in retail over Christmas to talk to their SDA organiser about getting themselves a badge, and I encourage shoppers to take a breath and think before they say something they might regret. Remember, the person in front of you is someone's family. They take pride in their work. They are doing their best to serve you and their community. No worker should have to brace for abuse when they put their name badge and uniform on, and no-one deserves a serve.

Thank you for your kind words, Senator Mulholland.

Right now Australia's hardworking families are being left behind. Under Labor the cost of living is rising faster than wages. Too many families feel like they're working harder and not getting ahead. People who make the difficult but deeply personal decision to work part time to raise their children, support ageing parents or children with a disability or special needs, or just keep the family show on the road are quietly punished by a tax system that doesn't see them. It's time we had a serious conversation about how our tax system treats families.

Australia's personal income tax system doesn't just raise revenue; it sends a message about what we value. Right now that message is outdated and unfair to those who structure their lives around caring for children, elderly parents or loved ones with a disability or special or additional needs. Imagine two families earning a combined $160,000 a year. In one, both parents work full time and earn $80,000 each. In the other, one parent earns $120,000 while the other works part time and earns $40,000, perhaps to handle school pick-ups, provide care for a toddler or support a child or elderly parent. Under our current tax system the second family pays more tax. Why? It's because our tax system treats individuals in isolation, rather than recognising the shared reality of household finances and caregiving. This is where household income aggregation, also known as income splitting, comes in. It allows a family to be taxed based on their combined income, with tax brackets applying to the average income per adult. It's a small administrative shift that would make a big difference for fairness and better reflect the way modern families live in Australia today.

Australia's system of individual income taxation takes no account of whether someone is supporting a household of one or a family of five. That means the more uneven the income split between partners the more tax the household pays overall. A family where one parent reduces hours to care for children or loved ones is punished financially, paying more tax than two full-time earners with the same total income. This isn't just about traditional single-income families; it's about modern families, where one partner goes part time to juggle parenting duties, support ageing relatives or just maintain a cohesive home. It's about giving households the freedom to decide what's best for them, without being pushed into a one-size-fits-all model by a cold and indifferent tax code.

Under the aggregated system, that $160,000 total income could be treated as two $80,000 shares, regardless of how the earnings are split. It doesn't mean families pay less just for being families. It simply ensures that caregiving, whether full time or part time, isn't penalised. At its core it's about fairness. Care work, whether it's raising children or supporting elderly parents, is real work, but, unlike paid work, it's not recognised in our tax system. Household income aggregation would give proper value to those contributions by reflecting the shared financial responsibilities within a household. It would also enhance flexibility. Right now the system creates a sharp disincentive for secondary earners—usually women—to work more hours. Even modest income increases can push families into higher tax brackets or result in benefit cuts. Aggregating income would smooth these cliffs, making it easier for families to decide what combination of paid work and caregiving suits them best.

Critics say the reform would be too complex or unfair to singles, but household aggregation could be made voluntary. It wouldn't affect those who prefer separate finances or who want to file as individuals. This isn't about creating winners and losers; it's about recognising the diversity of how Australians live. Working parents, carers, part-timers, stay-at-home mums and dads, shiftworkers—our tax system should respect them all.

As the financial pressure on families grows, it's time for a tax system that backs the quiet heroes—those who put family first. The current government will not fix this problem. The Liberal Party believes we must reward effort, respect choice and provide a fair go for families. A tax system that recognises caregiving is central to delivering a fairer future for Australia's families and building stronger communities.

Senate adjourned at 19:40