If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I rise to speak against the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025—a bill that is bad for housing, bad for Australians and bad for homeownership. In the middle of a housing crisis, the shadow minister for housing thinks it's a good idea to move a bill like this—a bill which seeks to allow the Senate to block housing reforms. Not content with spending the better part of 10 years of a coalition government doing nothing on housing, the Liberals spent the last three years in this parliament trying to block every single housing reform before this Senate, and we all know how that worked out for them. The Australian people showed the Liberals and their shadow minister the door at the last election for his personal antics on housing, along with the Greens spokesperson for housing. Both of them were shown the door at the last election.

They took an approach to housing policy at the last election that sought to do a number of things: cut the number of homes being built, scrap Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund, bulldoze tens of thousands of new and affordable homes, increase taxes on new and affordable rental properties and scrap the national $1.2 million housing target. In the first few months of the new parliament, they tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes and rip up Labor's build-to-rent laws.

Now the Liberals are trying to rip up Labor's five per cent deposits. This bill specifically seeks to give the Senate the power to disallow the five per cent deposit scheme, to scrap the Help to Buy program and to trash the Housing Australia Future Fund. This will make it even harder for Australians to get a home of their own in this country.

Already, 220,000 Australians have bought their first home with a five per cent deposit under Labor's policy. In my home state of Queensland, more than 50,000 people have used our five per cent deposit scheme to buy their first home. That's 50,000 Queenslanders that Senator Bragg, the Liberals and the Greens want to disallow from owning their own home. They want to stop working people owning their own home, because they have some philosophical opposition to people buying a first home with a five per cent deposit. They think that you shouldn't be allowed to do that. They'd rather that young people, families, single parents—all of them—get slugged with a 20 per cent deposit. And if you can't get the hundreds of thousands of dollars together to meet a 20 per cent deposit, there're quite okay with you getting slugged $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 and sometimes $50,000 in lenders mortgage insurance.

Senator Bragg thinks he knows better than the 220,000 Australians who have used our five per cent deposit scheme. He thinks it's a bad thing that they get to be in a home of their own. He wants to join up with the Greens in demonising those Australians who have used the scheme to buy their first home. We know that, on average, Australians are paying $23,000 in lenders mortgage insurance to secure a home loan, but Senator Bragg and the Liberals are quite okay with Australians being slugged with a tax from the bank. He doesn't support initiatives to put money in the back pockets of first home owners so they can get into their first home sooner.

Imagine the arrogance of putting a bill like this to the chamber—a bill that ignores the dreams and aspirations of Australians to get into their own home. Imagine an opposition, or whatever they're called these days, who want to make Australians feel bad for aspiring to homeownership, for wanting something to call their own, and who tell them they're doing something wrong by not paying outrageous taxes from the banks.

These are the kinds of out-of-touch musings from a Liberal Party that has lost its way, a party of people who just can't stand the sight of each other—the kind of modern Liberal Party with a bunch of blokes disappearing into a room to decide the fate of their female leader, with two shadow ministers sneaking off to those meetings behind the leader's back. I've said it before: I'll tell you what they weren't talking about in that house in the Melbourne suburbs. They weren't talking about housing policy. They weren't talking about how to get people into their first home. They weren't talking about easing the burden for Australians. They were talking about how to get themselves—blokes—into a better corner office in this building. It's disgusting. Shame on them.

Now they think they can get a say on the housing policy of this country, a housing policy that the Australian public roundly and loudly endorsed at the last election. We know how they operate. They have years of bad form in this place, of blocking, delaying and bulldozing housing at every turn, so do not give them another chance to send Australia backwards.

I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports. There's an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate's right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill.

In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens. The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it.

The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain. One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you'll first need to get the government's permission to modify your own home. You can't use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That's expressly forbidden.

Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can't help them. There is no part refinancing. You're trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots. Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you're paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one's own home. They're expressly prohibited. That's why we did not support the scheme.

We are proud we didn't support it, because it's a trap. It's not about letting our young get ahead; it's about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That's what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, 'promises'.

One Nation opposes the Albanese government's low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You'll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia's rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can't be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there's no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don't you just love this scheme! It should be called the 'making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates' scheme.

No wonder the government's support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It's the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters. One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business.

Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That's $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor! The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can't afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They've done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.

One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners' grant with secured equity from the person's own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won't this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration. A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It's shallow and hurting young people.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government's inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country. Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You're making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That's why we don't support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas.

Where else should the accountability be forced on the government? Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It's been halved; you've looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let's be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., 'We'll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.' Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor's dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half.

That's what 'build to rent' means. Whenever you hear 'build to rent' from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It's 'build to rent' forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum's agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.

The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners' tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That's the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That's why Labor's policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families.

Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both. Only One Nation's housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I'm going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg's dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don't mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what's wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party's build-to-rent scheme:

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, 'mum and dad' investors, not institutions. That is appropriate.

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.

Dr Murray—

a witness in the inquiry—

was critical of the Bill's attempted perversion of our tax arrangements:

'It's not clear to me why local investors shouldn't be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don't see that there's a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It's not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.'

That's similar to One Nation's housing policy. Here's another quote from Senator Bragg:

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia ('ASFA') suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation's landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a 'hobby activity'.

Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues:

This is the view of a vested interest—

that Labor is cuddling up to—

Most Australians would not agree with this proposal.

Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese. A witness said:

… pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we're seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There's just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what's coming …

Hence the need for Senator Bragg's bill. His dissenting report said:

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia's housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership:

'… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.'

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues:

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre—

Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party!

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned the committee:

I find it interesting because we've already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What's even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We've got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we're now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they're already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill.

It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from 'Vaccines R Us' but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said:

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market.

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office ('the GAO'), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.

Prime Minister Albanese's housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it's the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that's the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government.

Senator Bragg continues:

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly.

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.

One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired)

I've been listening with interest to the comments from Senator Roberts, the senator for One Nation, on the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025. I note with interest—this wasn't how I intended to start my speech—that he said that only One Nation has a plan to solve Australia's housing crisis. Yet, throughout his speech, he's quoted Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg and his dissenting report. So I'm curious as to how—

They're Liberals!

Right? It's curious as to how it's One Nation's plan when it's actually the words of Senator Bragg that Senator Roberts is using.

Let me be very clear: One Nation has no plan for anything in this country aside from dividing Australians. And to suggest that migrants in this country are responsible for the housing crisis is false and lazy. The fact we do not have enough houses in this country is a failure of housing policy, not the fault of any single migrant that has come to this country. I take offence to it, Senator Roberts, as I'm a first-generation Australian. My parents were migrants who came to this country in the 1960s and worked their guts out. I don't know if it's perhaps One Nation policy that I should go back to where they came from, even though I was born here. Perhaps I'm occupying a house that I shouldn't be occupying.

So let me talk about homeownership in a legitimate policy discussion. The problem with homeownership in this country is that we do not have enough houses. The problem is with supply. We need legitimate, robust policies to create more houses in this country so that young Australians—all Australians—can realise their dream of homeownership. That is our job here. It is not to divide Australians and not to point blame at individuals on the street as to why someone may or may not be able to buy a home.

Our concern and the reason for my colleague Senator Bragg's private senator's bill is that we do not believe that the Home Guarantee Scheme is going to help. The Home Guarantee Scheme will create more demand—and it has created more demand—without addressing the underlying lack of supply. This is not something that just Senator Bragg is saying. This is not something that just the Liberal Party is saying. The Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, has confirmed that there would be, in their view, a price increase for first home buyers as a result of this scheme.

We absolutely want more young people, more Australians, to be able to own their own home, but we have to address supply. We don't have enough houses in this country because it is too hard to build a house in this country. The building code and the relevant regulations and requirements are so difficult to navigate that it is so much harder than it should be to build a dwelling in this country. That is something we have to address.

This is something we took to the last election. We campaigned on freezing the NCC. When we did that before the last election, Labor accused us of wanting to build dodgy homes, shoddy houses: 'You want really bad houses.' No, we don't. We want good-quality houses that actually get built, instead of winding Australian homebuyers and builders in this never-ending cycle of red tape. But guess what? Labor now want to freeze the NCC because they understand now what we understood before the last election—that it is too hard to build houses in this country.

I've spoken in this chamber many times about the challenges that Australians are facing from the construction industry because of the prevalence of unacceptable conduct by the CFMEU. That is something else that needs to be addressed. There are rogue elements of this union that make it harder and harder and harder for houses and units to be built in this country. They interfere in the process. Independent analysis has confirmed that the cost of the dwellings inside an apartment building can be up to 30 per cent higher where the CFMEU is involved. Are we just going to blindly pretend that that is not happening or are we actually going to address that? We know that. We've heard it over and over. You should have a look at my social media; I get attacked by people on there all the time in relation to this topic.

I am not talking about the rank-and-file members of the CFMEU, the hardworking people who need the protection of a good union to ensure that their rights are realised on a worksite. I'm talking about the people that do the wrong thing and use the money and resources of the CFMEU as if they were their own. They use it to bully, they use it to intimidate and they use it to line their own pockets, and they do that at the expense of everyday Australians who go to work and try to do the right thing, and everyday Australians who try to own their own home but can't because it's getting far too hard. We can't ignore that anymore in this chamber. We can't pretend that it's not happening, because it is.

We've been speaking a lot about build-to-rent as well. Build-to-rent is not the solution to the housing crisis in this country. Liberals believe that, if someone would like to buy their own home, they should be able to do that. The solution is not to say, 'It's too hard and too expensive to own your own home, but what we're going to do is assist you into a cycle of forever renting.' There is no issue with renting long term if that is what you want to do, but that should not be your only choice.

The Liberal Party believes in choice. We believe that you should be the person that determines what you are going to do with your life. So if you want to own your own home, you should be able to do that. You shouldn't be told: 'No, no, no: owning a home is not for you; renting is for you. We would like the super funds to own the homes, and you can rent your home from the super fund.' But, mind you—and I've spoken about this many, many times, and I'm going to get cranky messages and cranky emails about it—I don't hate superannuation. Let me be clear, and let me start with that. Superannuation is important, but it is not the answer to all the problems. When superannuation started in this country, most people who wanted to own their own home were able to. That is no longer the case. We need to look at the circumstances we face today. Again, I've spoken about it many times.

The largest-growing cohort of homeless in this country is women over 55. A 55-year-old woman cannot access her super to help her buy a home so that she has housing security in retirement. However, 10 years later, she can access that super to pay rent to someone and diminish her super asset in paying rent. But she can't use it to buy her own asset. That is fundamentally wrong. We cannot pretend that is okay.

People suggest that, because I speak about that, I hate super, or that Senator Bragg hates super. But we actually see that there are problems in the way this system now operates. Like any system, over time, changes need to be made. Yet superannuation has turned into this sacred cow that nobody is allowed to touch, despite the fact that we know that the one single thing that has the most import impact on someone's security in retirement is owning their own home. We are no longer focusing on the importance of acquiring that asset but, rather, saying, 'Here's some superannuation, and you have to put your money into that rather than putting it into your own home.' You don't get the choice. I don't understand that.

I think what's really hard for me to understand is why this government won't allow a pathway that creates that choice for Australians. My view, and the view of my Liberal colleagues, is that it is the job of government to create frameworks for individuals to ensure that they have every opportunity to do what they need to do and then to get out of their way. It is not our job to interfere, it is not our job to tell people how to live their lives, and it's not our job to tell people, 'You can own a home only under the criteria and the circumstances that we tell you that you can do that under.' That's why we think this scheme isn't a good one, that in fact it is probably a reckless one.

Yesterday we saw interest rates rise, and it's probably not going to be the first rise we see. Inflation has gone up to 3.8 per cent, and the Reserve Bank has indicated a view that it might go up to somewhere around 4.2 per cent. That is an example of the impact of this type of housing policy. We said this last year. We said this would happen, and it has happened. The Reserve Bank said this was likely to happen, and it has eventuated.

So, again, when those on the other side suggest that Liberals do not want people to own their own homes, that is wrong. We absolutely do. I heard numbers being spouted yesterday about X thousand people who wouldn't have been in their own home, that we tried to block that. No: what we did was try to explain that you can't address the housing crisis by simply facilitating greater entry and not addressing supply. You must address supply. That is what we are trying to do. It's not what One Nation are trying to do, despite what Senator Roberts might suggest. The problem is: who ends up paying for all of this? It's Australians who do. The Australian taxpayer does. We have to pay higher taxes to fund this largess. I think one of the things that we need to consider and that we need to do—and this bill from Senator Bragg does—is ensure Australians are protected from whims of government making really significant decisions without meaningful consultation or parliamentary oversight. That is what has happened here.

Regulation should be about filling in the detail and making things clearer and simply, but not making substantive changes to the way our actual economy functions, interfering the supply and demand mechanisms of housing, which is what has happened here, and, again, it's interfered with the demand mechanism without allowance or appropriate supply.

For the Liberal Party, our priorities are to boost housing supply, to boost development, to boost homeownership and to reduce the red tape around construction to ensure that quality dwellings are built, are built in a timely fashion and are built without consumers and builders being run around in circles on what they can and cannot do on their own land. Recent ABS data showed us that home completions In the September quarter of last year fell by almost 4,100 dwellings compared to the year before. At a time where we have a crisis of supply, that's 4,000 fewer dwellings over a 12-month period. This indicates to us the significance of the problem coupled with the fact that now we have a scheme that brings more people in without the requisite supply, with diminishing supply, and the cost burden of that demand driven scheme lies squarely at the feet of the Australian taxpayer. That is unacceptable.

In just three years this government has presided over a huge increase in Australia's population whilst overseeing a collapse in construction. This needs to change, and this needs to be seriously addressed, and I believe it is incumbent on those of us on these two sides of the chamber to do that together to ensure that every single Australian that would like to own their own home can do so without being pointed to a build-to-rent scheme.

The government will not be supporting this bill, the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, because the government is in the business of helping first home buyers buy their own homes. The government is in the business of delivering social and affordable housing. The government is in the business of building more homes and giving renters a fair go. The government is not in the business of holding up housing. Unlike those opposite, who have continually voted to stop young Australians from accessing secure affordable housing and who are now, instead of real policy, doubling down with obstruction dressed up as accountability.

Let's be absolutely clear what this bill is actually about and what it proposes to do, because the consequences are really serious and can be catastrophic for those who are seeking a home. The Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025 would once again give those opposite the opportunity to block real progress on housing. If this bill were to pass, it would open the door for the Senate to disallow key housing programs that Australians are already relying on. That includes the home guarantee scheme, a scheme that has already helped more than 185,000 Australians into homeownership since Labor came into government—gone. It would allow the opposition to scrap Labor's help-to-buy scheme, which is designed to help another 40,000 Australians buy their first home. That would be gone. It would allow them to dismantle the Housing Australia Future Fund, one of the cornerstone programs delivering on our commitment to build 55,000 social and affordable homes across the country—gone.

Now let's talk about what this means in real terms for actual families and for first home buyers. It would mean tens of thousands of first home buyers finding it harder to buy their own home, because they would need to save significantly larger deposits. It means that every first home buyer would be forced to fork out an average of $23,000 in lenders mortgage insurance just to get a foot in the door. Saving for a full deposit or saving for a deposit plus mortgage lenders insurance can take first home buyers a decade, which is why our reforms have sought to intervene in this process to make it easier for these people. It's demoralising and it feels out of reach for so many. That is what this government is actually addressing.

This bill before you would mean social and affordable housing projects that are already under construction would be delayed, forcing more Australians to wait even longer for secure housing when they are already under pressure—and we know we are facing a housing crisis. Without Commonwealth support to help community housing providers close the funding gap, the construction of thousands of social and affordable homes would simply stop. That is the reality of this bill. It does not build homes, it does not help renters and it does not support first home buyers. It would be a disaster.

Clearly, those opposite haven't listened and they haven't learned any lessons from last year's election. The Australian community were pretty clear. They voted for an ambitious housing agenda. They voted for a party with a plan. Those opposite didn't have a plan ahead of the election, and they don't have one now. They're blocking and bulldozing. Senator Bragg thinks it's the Liberals' greatest-hits album. Well, the voters put this tired old track in the reject bin at JB Hi-Fi, and that's where it is going to stay. It's got all of the noise of a construction site but no houses at the end of the track.

Our government has no illusions about the challenges that many Australians from all walks of life are having in accessing a house—renters, young people, families, older women—and it can't go on. This is a life-defining challenge for many Australians, and it is a generation-defining challenge for this country. If those supporting this bill in the chamber think it will get Aussies into more homes, they really need to get real. The reason why we are in this position today is that the coalition government tapped out of housing altogether. They didn't lock in, and now Australians are locked out.

When people say 2026 is just 2016 again, they're talking about 'Lush Life' by Zara Larsson, and Snapchat filters. They are not talking about the utter void of housing policy presented by the coalition government at the time. Now it seems those opposite are not satisfied with sitting on their hands for a decade. Now they're on the opposition benches they have found the strength and willpower to do something about housing, but that something is bills like this one—bills that try to slow down our housing build and stop young Australians from buying their first home. They want to scrap Help to Buy. They want to scrap the Home Guarantee Scheme.

I know that many people out there in our community are sitting on their couches tonight and every night with Domain and real estate ads open, planning what inspections they'll go to on the weekend. They're looking at the price ranges and deciding which houses they've got a fighting chance of buying on auction day. The housing policies of our government are what get them to those Saturday auctions and inspections and help them to find their very first home of their own. And so they should. We want to find first homes for our Australians.

The last thing that young Australians need when they are planning those inspections is to hear that Senator Bragg and those opposite don't want them at those inspections. Those opposite want to see young people like them stuck in dodgy rentals instead of a home that they can call their own. Those opposite want to see families with young kids continue to live with their parents as they desperately try to scrape together a deposit for a house. The only brags that I'm interested in are the humble brags shared on Instagram by happy homebuyers in front of a 'for sale' sign.

The bill keeps those Australians in limbo, and our government wants no part of that. We can't ignore the generational dimensions of this crisis. A generation ago, families could reasonably expect that hard work and saving would result in a home of their own. Today that expectation is not a reality for some. Young Australians are being forced to delay milestones that previous generations took for granted, like starting families, investing in their futures and building equity. This isn't just about bricks and mortar; it's about opportunity, security and fairness. When the doors to homeownership close on a generation, the consequences ripple across every aspect of their lives and across the life of this nation.

These are the same tactics those opposite used in the last term, and make no mistake: it held us back. If not for those tactics, we would have seen more social housing built by now. If not for those tactics, we'd see more first home buyers in their own homes right now. They may as well just be honest with those who are counting on the housing policies of this government. They might as well tell them that they have no problem playing politics with the housing crisis. They are happy to let these programs disappear into the ether, and they don't care about putting an alternative on the table that is going to work for those who need it most. They think that playing SimCity with this is the issue.

We are talking about getting real people who want real homes into those homes, and it is well and truly time that we just got on with it. We want to get on with it, and we are getting on with it. That's why we funded and legislated the programs that get people into homes. It's this agenda that is worth $45 billion. It's an agenda that is the most ambitious of any Commonwealth government in the post-war period. It's an agenda that helps first home buyers into a home of their own by helping them with a five per cent deposit. We took that plan to the election, and I reckon people agreed with that plan. I reckon people just want us to get on with it—an agenda that builds more homes.

Housing supply also has a phenomenal impact on the price of housing in this country. If we want to improve housing affordability in this country, the answer is simple: we need to build more houses. So we're building 1.2 million more. We're cutting red tape, we're training more tradies and we're building the infrastructure that is crucial if we want to hit that goal. It's an agenda that delivers 55,000 social and affordable homes, and these homes are important. I think about the essential workers—teachers, nurses, early childhood educators, social workers—that our communities desperately need. These are hardworking people who serve our community. They are doing everything right, counting every penny, and still can't afford to buy. They can't afford to buy the security that homeownership provides in the places where they want to live and in the communities that they serve.

Through no fault of their own, these essential workers can't afford to live near where they work, and that is just not on. Those opposite want us to hold all of these new social and affordable homes and the people who want to buy them hostage. It is out of step with what the community needs, and it is out of step with what the community wants. Those homes are not just bricks and mortar, as I said; they provide stability, they provide safety and they provide dignity. The schemes that get Australians into those homes are a lifeline. Five per cent deposits free young people from the cycle of renting and waiting as they try to climb the mountain to save for a deposit. Families can plan their futures, and they can gain stability in the communities where they work and where they live. Getting those people into homes is our focus, not playing political games.

Let's not forget that, at last year's election, those opposite promised that they'd cut the number of homes being built. They promised that they'd scrap our Housing Australia Future Fund and the tens of thousands of social and affordable homes that it enables. They promised to increase taxes on new, affordable rentals. They promised that they'd dump this government's national housing target of 1.2 million new homes, so we know exactly what the opposition stands for when it comes to housing. They have been completely transparent about what they think about first home buyers. It's par for the course when you remember that the coalition built only 373 social and affordable homes over the decade that they were in government.

But let us remember: they brought those promises to the election, just as this government did. The voters have spoken, and their voices were heard loud and clear. They rejected the politics of obstruction and embraced a plan of construction. Being elected to this place to represent our communities is a privilege, and the role of those of us with that privilege is to listen to the voters. They never get it wrong. I have said it before, and I will say it again: the voters have asked us to stop playing politics with this issue and just get on with the job. The voters have rejected the housing policies those opposite brought to the last election. This bill suggests that those opposite are in denial about that, and it's condescending to the people of Australia, quite frankly.

Already in this new parliament, they've tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes. Now they're trying to rip up Labor's five per cent deposit for all first home buyers. It's really quite bewildering that they think that this is an appropriate course of action. As I've already outlined, the consequences of this are real. If the bill passes, tens of thousands of first home buyers will need larger deposits, every first home buyer will be forced to pay on average an additional $23,000 in mortgage insurance, and the social and affordable housing projects that are under construction right now will be delayed. That is the reality of this bill. It does not build homes, it does not help renters and it does not support families. It puts roadblocks where there should be doors.

This government is building homes. Those opposite are continuing to build the roadblocks. If those opposite were serious about addressing the housing crisis in this country and were ready to start listening to voters, they would stop playing these political games. Housing is this generation's defining issue, and I hope that none of us here in this place look back upon this generation and know that we could have done more and regret that we did not.

What a bunch of baloney we've heard from those opposite. The Liberal Party opposed Labor's various attempts at housing policy because they are failed policies that we knew were going to be failed policies when they were introduced to this place over the last few years. History has now shown that they are failed policies, and we have been proved correct.

Let's start with the Home Guarantee Scheme, which independent experts and people such as the Reserve Bank have acknowledged has poured petrol onto prices in the housing market, causing them to rise by as much as 10 per cent. If you have forced up the cost of a house by 10 per cent and 95 per cent of that is going on people's mortgages, that, in the face of rising interest rates, is a direct hit on young Australians who are aspiring to homeownership. It's a way of making them poorer. In fact, lenders mortgage insurance, which those opposite jump up and down about in this place, was one to two per cent of the total house price. Property prices have gone up by 10 per cent under this Labor government's policy. That's 10 per cent against a cost of one to two per cent. That's the economics of this Labor government. That's the impact of this Labor government on young Australians who are aspiring to enter the housing market—which we support. The Liberal Party supports 100 per cent the aspirations of all Australians to enter the housing market.

What Australians don't want is to be renting. They don't want their landlords to be overseas corporations or the government. They want to own their own home. But they want to do it in a way that's affordable, and the way to do that is to address the supply side of our market. The one policy that the Labor Party has adopted in that respect was copied directly from us at the last election. It was a policy to cut red tape in the housing market, which they demonised during the election campaign, but post-election they have now suddenly, mysteriously adopted it. That is the only part of the Labor Party housing policy that is worthwhile. Young Australians do want to get into the housing market, but getting into the housing market at any cost is not good policy, and the Labor Party's policies in this respect, particularly the Home Guarantee Scheme, have been shown to push up the cost of the housing market.

We've got a situation in the broader economy where the Reserve Bank is currently trying to slay the dragon of inflation, trying to fight the fire of inflation, which is on the increase again. The Reserve Bank yesterday increased interest rates. But Michele Bullock in her statement after the announcement also said that they expect inflation to rise even further. That is very, very bad news for all Australians because what it does is smash standards of living, reduce the disposable income of households and, of course, put further upward pressure on interest rates. Many commentators are expecting not just the interest rate rise that we saw yesterday but a succession of interest rate rises over the year ahead. That will have a devastating effect on those young Australians who have been induced into the housing market by Labor's offer of a five per cent deposit, which has increased the cost of the house they bought in the first place and now, flowing through to inflation, is increasing the costs of their mortgage, as interest rates rise over time.

The trouble with this government's approach is that, while the Reserve Bank is attempting to slay the dragon of inflation and put out the fire, this government is running round with a can of petrol, pouring it onto the fire. Things like the Home Guarantee Scheme and the increases in government spending across the board are putting upward pressure on demand in the economy, which is putting upward pressure on prices, particularly in the housing sector. Nothing this government is doing is helping the Reserve Bank. We have fiscal and monetary policy working in opposition to one another.

We've seen this before under Labor governments—they can't seem to understand. While the Reserve Bank is trying to put downward pressure on inflation in order to contain rising interest rates, they are just throwing money into the economy, and that is having a very negative impact on all Australians. Standards of living are being destroyed. Household spending—the available family budget—is reducing. Pay packets are not keeping up with the inflation in the market and the rising interest rate burden on average Australians who own their own homes and are paying off a mortgage.

If the interest rate rises that are currently predicted come about, Australian households with a mortgage will be significantly worse off over the next 12 months, and that is on the back of the first 3½ years of this Labor government, which saw one of the fastest declines in the standard of living and in disposable household incomes that Australia has ever seen. Household budgets were smashed over the first three years of this Labor government, and, with rising interest rates, the damage to those household budgets will be even higher.

Other parts of the Labor Party policy which are also failing include their promises to build houses, which are proving to be extraordinarily expensive and slow. That's not surprising when you have a Labor government in charge of building anything. They want to have foreign corporations and superannuation funds building Build to Rent properties. I understand the idea probably came out of a Labor government focus group. It sounds good, but, in the end, Australians do not want to live in those sorts of properties; they aspire to own their own home.

Policy should be directed at reducing costs, and that means lowering the red tape burden on construction. It's also means getting the criminal elements out of the construction industry—yes, the CFMEU, but, if there are criminal building companies, they should be out of the construction industry, as well. We need to clean up the construction industry. We need to remove the extra costs that are present in that industry, and that will give Australian young people and Australian families the chance to get ahead, without having to pay the extra tax of the construction industry in Australia, with the criminality that has been very clearly demonstrated through the CFMEU activity and the fact that the Labor government was forced to put that union into administration. If there are other criminal elements within the construction industry, they also need to be found and drummed out.

The fact is, we are never going to solve these problems unless we can reduce costs that way. We also need to reduce the burden of red tape. It shouldn't take as long as it does to get a proposed housing development from a greenfield or brownfield site to construction on houses being underway. It simply takes too long in this country to get those projects underway.

We need to see a real effort at bringing that supply into the market so that younger Australians, in particular, can aspire to have their own homes and to have a mortgage that they can afford to pay. Instead, we see this government pulling on all the wrong levers, pouring fuel on the fire of inflation in the marketplace and pouring fuel on the fire of house prices, which makes it even less possible for younger Australians to get into the market. We see this government delivering very, very little in terms of their overblown promises to actually build houses.

In fact, they've purchased more houses—in competition with Australians—than they have built houses. They've gone out into the marketplace and purchased houses that Australian families, Australian young people, would have been bidding on. Rather than see those houses in the hands of those Australians, they have purchased them to put on their ledger that they've got some houses. That is not good policy. The Labor Party's policy suite has failed. It's visibly failed. It's demonstrably failed in the marketplace. It needs to be completely rethought. Throw these policies out and start again.

Let's be honest about what this bill, the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, would do. It would make it harder for first home buyers to buy their own home. This bill by the Liberal Party—by Senator Bragg—will make it harder for first home buyers to buy their first home and will stand in the way of the delivery of affordable housing for Australians. That's what this bill will do.

There's the saying, 'I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed'—but, no, I'm actually pretty angry. I think Australians who are looking to get into their first home have the right to be angry too, because what's really clear with this bill before us is that the Liberal Party are only here to play politics. At least they're consistent. They will continue their record of doing absolutely nothing to help address the housing crisis that their government left us in. Only Labor has got a plan to build more homes. Only Labor will get renters a better deal. And only Labor will help more Australians into homeownership.

Housing is one of the biggest challenges facing Australians. People are working hard, they're doing everything right, but too many still can't afford a place to call home. Young people are lining up, down the street and around the block, for rental inspections. In fact, one of my young staff told me yesterday that she and her housemate had been to 100 rental inspections between them in Perth. That is just extraordinary. Families with kids, the kinds of families who, a generation ago, would have been quite easily able to own their own home, can't get a foothold in the housing market. I hear it from young people in my home state of Western Australia all the time. They feel they will never get the opportunity to own their own home. We hear it from parents who worry they can't give their kids the stability they received as children.

We know how tough the housing market is, and that is why we are throwing everything at it. We have an ambitious $43 billion housing agenda, which is having an impact right across the country. We've taken the Commonwealth from being, frankly, a negligent bystander in housing to delivering the boldest and most ambitious housing agenda this country has seen in the postwar period. Under the Prime Minister, we've made a real switch and we're tackling the housing crisis from every angle. Our Housing Australia Future Fund is a $10 billion investment to build 55,000 new social and affordable homes over the next five years. It's the largest national investment in housing in a generation. It's a permanent, ongoing source of funding to increase supply—that is, build more houses—but also to create jobs and to make housing more affordable for Australians who have been priced out for too long. It is our long-term commitment to rebuild our social housing system.

Meanwhile, those on the other side of the chamber are actively trying to make it more difficult for Australians to own their own home. They are actively trying to make it more difficult for us to build more houses. They are standing in the way of more affordable housing for Australians, and, without a credible housing policy of their own, all they do is block and bulldoze. For almost a decade while they were in government, the Liberals and Nationals were completely tapped out of our national housing challenge. They completely ignored it, shut their eyes, turned away, turned their back on Australians and showed no leadership on housing. They had no plan and they made no investment into improving housing supply. For most of their nine years in government, the coalition didn't even have a housing minister. Can you imagine? It's extraordinary.

It's no wonder that, when we came to government, this country had nothing to show on housing for the nine years that those opposite were in government. After almost a decade in government, the Liberals and Nationals had built only 373 social and affordable homes. Again, I'm not disappointed anymore; I'm angry. Australians are angry, young people are angry, and they want us to take action.

But, at the last election, those opposite actually made a promise to cut the number of homes that would be built, because they wanted to scrap our Housing Australia Future Fund and bulldoze the policy of tens of thousands of new social and affordable homes. They promised to increase taxes on new affordable rental properties, and they promised to scrap our target of building 1.2 million homes. In the first six months of the new parliament, my first six months here, I must say I didn't have high expectations of those opposite, but I have been shocked that they tried to bulldoze 80,000 new rental homes that would offer more security and more affordable rent for Australians, when they attempted to block and undo our build-to-rent laws. I've been shocked and angry that they have voted against every single housing measure that we have brought before this place. And now the shadow minister for housing and homelessness, Senator Bragg, is trying to rip up our plan for five per cent deposits for all first home buyers. It's surprising to me that, after an election where Australians resoundingly rejected the politics of delay and destruction peddled by those opposite, they are still sending a message to young Australians that they haven't listened and haven't learnt. Instead, they've reverted to their usual tactics of blocking and bulldozing at every single opportunity.

The true test of a housing policy, if we get to the real thing that we need now, is getting more people into homes. We don't need more bureaucracy and we certainly don't need more paperwork. This Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill proposed by Senator Bragg would allow the coalition and the Greens to team up once again to block real progress on housing. If we were to pass this bill, it would give the Senate the opportunity to disallow the Home Guarantee Scheme, which has already helped more than 185,000 Australians into homeownership since we came to government. I'm going to say that number again because it's a really impressive number—185,000 Australians into homeownership since we came to government. If this bill were to pass the Senate, it would allow the opposition to scrap Labor's Help to Buy program, a program which will help another 40,000 Australian families into homeownership.

What will this mean for Australians who are working hard and doing everything right? The Liberals want to make it harder for tens of thousands of first home buyers to get into their own home, by increasing the amount they need for their deposit. Every Australian first home buyer will be forced to fork out an average of $23,000 for lenders mortgage insurance if they try to buy a home. The social and affordable housing projects that are under construction right now will be delayed or stopped, making more Australians wait longer for secure, affordable housing, when they're already doing it tough. Without the Commonwealth support that community housing providers need to plug the gap, the construction of thousands of social and affordable homes around the country will just stop. That would be the impact of this bill if it were to pass this place.

My message to those opposite is really simple. You don't fix the housing crisis by blocking the building of new homes. You don't fix the housing crisis by bulldozing plans to construct the homes that we need. No-one is pretending that this is a simple task—to build the housing at the scale that we need to fix this crisis.

Debate interrupted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide to be moved immediately and determined without amendment.

I was just speaking on this issue. We won't stand in the way of this suspension. We're happy to facilitate it. The issue is obviously a really important one for this government and one that Minister Keogh and the government have been passionate about delivering on, and the sentiment in Senator Lambie's motion is a very important one. But our preference is always for these matters to be dealt with in an orderly way, rather than disrupting government business, so we would have preferred that Senator Lambie had engaged with us and found a more appropriate part of the day for this to be debated. But, having said that, we recognise Senator Lambie's determination and passion about this, so we're happy for this to proceed now.

The Liberal Party will be supporting the motion to suspend the standing orders. One of the things I would say is that suspending standing orders, as we know, is not something this chamber should do lightly. But, when you are presented with a motion such as this, this is the opportune time to say that we should deviate from the business that we had ahead of us and look at this motion in detail. When an issue is urgent like this one is, when delay carries real consequences and when the Senate does have a responsibility to act rather than defer, standing orders must give way. Senator Lambie, this is one of those opportunities. We should suspend the current business of the Senate. As I said, the Liberal Party will indeed support Senator Lambie's motion.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That a motion relating to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide be moved immediately and that the question be put after 30 minutes of debate, allowing five minutes per speaker.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate notes:

(a) the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found the veteran healthcare system is fragmented, difficult to navigate and characterised by poor continuity of care which increase the likelihood of veteran suicide.

(b) there is an urgent need to overhaul the veteran healthcare system to properly compensate providers, ensure the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) fee schedules should at least match those of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, eliminate unnecessary administrative complexity to ensure long-term sustainability and deliver timely, appropriate and effective healthcare outcomes for veterans;

(c) it is essential claims are processed expeditiously, as prolonged delays cause further damage, undermines veterans' financial security, compounds stress and directly harms their health and wellbeing;

(d) the ongoing shortage of accessible psychiatric hospital beds for veterans is unacceptable, forcing vulnerable veterans to go without the timely and life-saving care they desperately require;

(e) the persistent delays, confusion and distress caused by DVA policies and administrative failures, including preferential provider arrangements that restrict choice, disrupt long-term therapeutic relationships and retraumatise veterans, cannot continue; and

(f) calls on the government to immediately implement the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommendations, recognising that further delay is placing veterans' lives at serious risk.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found that the veteran healthcare system is still quite broken. Actually, the commissioners at the time said it was 'fragmented', but I'm saying that it's still quite broken. It's extremely chunky, and it's rigid. We still have veterans having to fight through a sandstorm of bureaucracy to get the help they need, especially if that is help for their mental health. Veterans often struggle to find GPs and specialists who understand the military culture. We used to have these professionals inside Defence. You've got to start picking your game up. You are slacking. What's new for Defence? Get those psychiatrists back on the inside. You are shameful. As per usual, you got the biggest asset we had and you reduced it. Honestly, Defence, you're your own worst enemy.

The royal commission also said it is 'difficult to navigate'. For a lot of them, it's still bloody impossible. They also found that there was 'poor continuity of care', which contributes to suicide risk, and there is. And I tell you what: don't ask for a liaison officer in any of our public hospitals around Australia. I don't know what's happened to the veterans liaison officers in public hospitals, but it seems I'm doing their job as well. It's not good enough. The commissioner's highlighted poor funding, poor data sharing and a lot of informed, tailored care. I've been waiting for data from the Department of Veterans' Affairs for two months. It is sensitive data, and I need it. There is no excuse. That is your only warning today. Otherwise, I'm going to have to make the minister come in here and have a few words about what is going on in that department. Do not make me do that.

It's been well over a year since the commissioners handed down their report, and the government released its response in December 2024. You've now had nearly 14 months. I've given both the department and the minister time. Veterans and advocates have been contacting me for weeks now. The system is still riddled with issues that are once again causing confusion, anxiety and frustration for veterans, their advocates and their doctors. My Christmas break was spent finding psych beds for four veterans who were extremely fragile, because they couldn't get through to DVA.

Where's your helpline? It's simple. They pay the price at Christmas time. Why would you not have more beds available? Why am I ringing wards for them to tell me that there's a three-week wait? Seriously, it got to a point where I was going to fly them down to my house. How embarrassing would that have been for the department? That's your last warning. Next time, I am flying them down. I will fly them down, and it will be a media crap-storm. I swear to God! Use your brains. You had a terrorist attack, and they hate Christmas. What do you think that's doing to them? Jesus—get out there with your boots on and start talking to them. Stop sitting at those little tables with those service organisations and what you think are 'experts'. This is where your problem is. It always has been.

I do, however, want to shout out to all those amazing healthcare workers who worked with me to get this help for these veterans over Christmas. I have to say I want to thank Spencer Clinic in my own backyard, who had a veteran up there that was in dire straits. That veteran, unfortunately, had to be put in a room. He's a former Navy veteran. You can imagine the abuse he put up with in the Navy and over 12 years of service, now a fireman. He was put into a room with no windows. You can imagine what that does to a Navy veteran that has PTSD in that state. Honestly, our public system is not for veterans. It is not, when it comes to their mental health. They are not equipped for it. As much as they're trying, when I'm getting a call to come up there and settle that veteran down—and I don't have a problem with that—it just goes to show they cannot go in the public system. Our public system is struggling to hold its own in mental health. So you need to look after the veterans, and you need to take that off public health, because it's not fair on the civilians in that hospital with our veterans. It's not fair when they're that gone and they cannot get help. That psychiatrist goes, 'I just don't know what to do; I'm not trained in helping these veterans.' That's fine; you can get a hold of me. But this is not the way it should be, and it's really starting to put the pressure on our health system. And, when you're Tasmanian and you have not a very good one—we don't have beds as it is—putting them in that public system sends them off their heads. It has got to stop. You are not getting the job done quick enough, DVA. We're going back to, 'Hello, I don't want to answer your questions.' We are not going back to this. We're just not. You're bloody halfway there. Keep persisting and keep moving quicker. No more of the hiding. Enough.

The opposition, as I said, will be supporting the motion that Senator Lambie has put forward. In doing so, I do it with a very, very clear message: Australia's obligation to our veterans is not optional; it is enduring, and it must be matched by systems that work when people need them the most. The reason that we live in what I like to continue to say is the luckiest country in the world is our veterans. It is because of the people who fought for this country. It is because of the people who died for this country. And we owe them a debt. We owe them a huge debt. Every morning when I wake up, I say thank you. 'Thank you, Lord, for giving me the opportunity to live in the great country of Australia.' I am someone who, throughout her life, starting when I was 23, has had the opportunity to now visit Gallipoli three times. When you stand in those trenches, it dawns on you (a) what those people were going through, fighting for the freedoms that we have today, and (b) if it were not for the people who were prepared to fight for this country, to die for this country, to fight for the freedoms that we have in Australia, quite frankly, we would not be living in the greatest country in the world. So this motion is the right motion to pass through the Senate.

I want to give a message on behalf of the Liberal Party to every Australian war fighter and every Australian veteran warrior who has worn the uniform. Our message is clear: we see you, we respect you, and we will fight, just like we did when we were in government, to make sure the system that's meant to support you does. It's great when something's there—and that's always the answer; 'We have the system in place.' Then you listen, though, and hear how the system is actually not just not working for veterans but failing veterans on a daily basis. We need to unite in this chamber, put politics aside and actually ensure the system that is in place, that's meant to support our veterans, actually works for those veterans. Again, on behalf of the Liberal Party, we will continue to push for the reforms that have been recommended as a result of the royal commission. We will continue to push for them, for the reforms that make one thing clear to every serving member and veteran—that you should never, ever have to choose between your career and your care, you should never have to fight your own system for the support that you have earned. Our country owes you not just a debt of thanks and of gratitude for the great country that we live in; we also owe you the debt to ensure that, if you need care, that care is provided to you properly by the systems. They should never have to fight. How ironic—they continue to fight. They fought for us and then we make them fight again for proper care. They should never have to fight for a system that they have, quite frankly, earned by fighting for this country.

When we were in government, we ensured that we put in place the veterans royal commission. We did it. Why? Because, quite frankly, the rate of veteran suicide and the stories that were being told publicly across Australia by their families demanded a national, independent investigation that could tell the truth and chart a path forward. We also moved to create enduring architecture for prevention and not just a response.

So I would now say to the Labor Party: you are in government. The Liberal Party acted. We built the reform infrastructure. We pursued long-term change because veterans' wellbeing cannot be treated as an afterthought. In supporting Senator Lambie's motion, I say to the government: you now have the clearest road map. The findings are stark. The recommendations are substantial. The stakes are, quite literally, life and death, as Senator Lambie has articulated. We as the opposition stand here ready to work with you as the government to implement the agreed response to the royal commission in full. Our veterans, quite frankly, deserve nothing less.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting this motion. I want to make it clear that the timely medical care and income support veterans need but also the support families need to see that their loved one who is a veteran is getting the health care they need is a core part of the work my office does. I can't tell you how many veterans not just in New South Wales but across the country who are having enormous difficulty just getting to see a GP let alone specialist care contact my office. Indeed, the lack of psychiatric care is not only a crisis situation for veterans; it's a crisis situation for so many people across the country.

But one of the things that keeps coming up when we speak with veterans and when we speak with health providers in in this space is the differential between what DVA pays and what the NDIS pays for the same service. If you come in under the NDIS, the health provider—the GP, physiotherapist or psychiatrist—gets a higher rate for providing services under the NDIS than they do for providing services to veterans. What that means is that veterans go to the back of the queue, if they can even get into the queue. This has been a long-running problem for veterans across the country. We hear it.

I want to give a shout-out to my team who provide that support to the veterans who contact our office. I also want to give a shout-out to the veterans organisations and the families of veterans—that support network that has been wrapped around veterans because they need it just to navigate the system. That is a problem with the system. If you need that kind of support network, if you need the support of your partner, your kids, your parents or advocacy networks just to navigate the system, that shows there's a problem with the system.

But one of the core things the government could do—and I know it's a budget cost—and must do is at least make an equivalence between the rates that are paid to medical providers under the NDIS and the rates that are paid to medical providers when they are helping veterans. That is a matter of urgency. That in and of itself could make a significant difference, and we support it.

I appreciate the lived experience of Senator Lambie and particularly the experience she has told us over the last few weeks and months about veterans not having access to psychiatric beds and psychiatric care. We know that one of the risks of serving can be significant psychological trauma—PTSD and other trauma. If we are going to ask veterans to serve knowing that's a likely risk of service, there must be a commitment to providing the health supports they need when they are in service and when they end service. That should be a non-negotiable. If we ask people to do this work and know that risk is in place, the services need to be there and veterans need to know that those services are there.

When it comes to (f)—calling on the government to immediately implement the royal commission's recommendations, recognising that further delay is placing veterans' lives at risk—we absolutely support the intent of that. My only minor quibble is that I actually don't think we can 'immediately' implement all of them, because they require co-design with veterans, and they require some time. I think that is important. In this space, we've seen the government previously, at the end of the last parliament, rush forward ahead of that co-design. That creates suspicion, and it creates anxiety. Absolutely the recommendations need to be implemented. They need to be implemented urgently. But they need to be implemented with the veterans' community. They need to be implemented with the advice from those support organisations, and they do need to be implemented urgently.

I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing this motion and I want to indicate our party's support for the care that veterans need. And I stress again: if nothing else comes from this motion but an urgency in the government to ensure that the same rates are paid to veterans as are paid under the NDIS, that will be a win for veterans.

I'm very pleased to rise in support of this motion. And, through the chair, perhaps I can say to Senator Lambie: it's good to see you back, good to see you in fighting form, fighting for our veterans. So, thank you very much for raising this issue.

I've had discussions with the Australian Medical Association in Queensland, and I am very disturbed by a number of matters they've raised with me. So I hope the minister's staff, or the minister, are listening to this discussion. We've got Senate estimates next week. Please expect some probing questions in relation to some of the information that was conveyed to me by the Australian Medical Association in Queensland. Get your briefs ready. I'm going to give you some topics that you need to prepare on.

Why is it that there are preferential arrangements in terms of fees with some service providers over other service providers? And I'm not just talking about small differences; I'm talking about orders of magnitude in relation to service providers that are providing the same services. Why isn't there an equality of fees paid in relation to the provision of the same service? So, Minister, minister's staff: please do some digging; get on the department, because I'm told there are huge discrepancies in relation to what a psychiatrist in a particular organisation may charge as opposed to a psychiatrist in another organisation, based on the particular tender. So, get digging, Minister; get ready, because you're going to be asked questions about that.

You're also going to be asked questions about how it is sustainable. It is not sustainable that people who are providing specialist services, including psychiatrists, to veterans are not paid at rates that are paid in other situations. The NDIS has been spoken about, but let me talk to you about WorkCover. Let me talk to you about the difference in WorkCover. I'm advised that the psychiatrist fee for a standard assessment is $805 under the current DVA arrangements and is proposed to go up to $1,082. South Australia WorkCover lists a fee of $2,047—twice as much. A complex assessment costs $1,500 under the DVA current schedule, and this is proposed to go up to $2,800. And additional reading time, under South Australia WorkCover, is charged at $618 per hour. There is nothing from the DVA, and here we're talking about extremely complicated conditions.

The same applies in terms of WorkCover, where you get paid for each condition, not a global amount. Quite recently I met a veteran who has multiple conditions, as so many of them do. With the DVA, it doesn't matter whether you've got one condition, five conditions or 10 conditions; the multiple-condition assessment fee is the same: $754. But, under WorkCover Queensland, it's $927 for one condition; DVA, $754. For five conditions, WorkCover Queensland specialists are $4,600; DVA is $754. For 10 conditions, WorkCover Queensland specialists are $9,270; DVA proposed $754. It's the same amount whether it's one condition, five conditions or 10 conditions. How can they get in the front door with that sort of fee arrangement? It's absolutely appalling.

The last point I want to make is the way that health practitioners in this area are being treated. I've been told that specialist health practitioners in this space, who do it out of love for trying to help veterans, are sometimes treated like criminals when all they're trying to do is work their way through very complicated fees. They're getting mixed messages from the department, and then they get hit with letters that basically accuse them of fraud, and they've had a gutful. We need to do everything we can to support these specialists to continue to work for our veterans. They deserve nothing less.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraph (f), substitute:

(f) calls on the government to implement the government response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide recommendations, recognising that further delay could place veterans' health at serious risk.

This is a very important issue, which the government is very passionate about and which Minister Keogh has been delivering on as part of the Albanese government. We want to turn attention to the record of what we have done in ensuring that we want all Australians to see serving in our Australian Defence Force as an option and be safe in the knowledge that, whatever may happen in their service, they and their families will be looked after and acknowledged by a grateful nation.

The Albanese Labor government has undertaken significant work to enact real, meaningful and enduring reform for Defence personnel, veterans and their families following the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. The final report of the royal commission was delivered in September 2024 and included 122 recommendations. The government responded in December 2024 agreeing or agreeing in principle to 104 recommendations and noting 17 for further work. At the end of December 2025, 32 recommendations had been implemented and work is underway on a further 89, including some that were initially noted for further work. We anticipate that two-thirds of the recommendations will be implemented by the end of this year. We have taken action on some of the most important recommendations of the royal commission. The new Defence and Veterans' Service Commission is now up and running as at 29 September last year and will provide independent oversight and evidence based advice to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the Defence and veterans community.

We have provided significant funding of $44.5 million over four years for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and we will introduce standalone legislation to ensure the independence of the commission. We have released the Defence and veteran mental health and wellbeing strategy and have begun work to establish a new wellbeing agency by mid-2026 to better support personnel and veterans. We are working on a range of preventive measures to minimise exposures to activities with a link to causing brain injury and establishing a comprehensive brain injury program to improve prevention, early detection and treatment pathways for current and former ADF members with neurocognitive issues.

This follows our significant work following the interim report of the royal commission to reduce the claims backlog at the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the passage of the new VETS act. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide found that the veteran compensation scheme was so complex it contributes to suicidality in veterans, highlighting the need for this to be simplified and harmonised. The passage of the VETS act will streamline the current three legislative acts into one single ongoing act so all veteran claims will be assessed under the same scheme from 1 July 2026, ensuring that it's easier to make a claim and faster for DVA to process. This will see support reach veterans and families of veterans more quickly. In the meantime, we've significantly improved the time it takes for claims to be processed for veterans; however, we're working to improve this.

The Australian government is committed to ensuring that veterans have access to quality health services and acknowledges the thousands of providers who treat veterans and their families. In the 2025-26 MYEFO the government provided $58.3 million over three years to strengthen mental health support for veterans across the continuum of care, including expanded access to mental health treatment clinics. These new arrangements will commence from 1 July 2026.

As the minister announced in his speech to the National Press Club at the end of last year, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is updating their fee schedule for report writing, ensuring payments for reports are more consistent with other equivalent jurisdictions and better reflect the actual cost to practitioners. The Department of Veterans' Affairs will publish this guidance shortly. The department also works with hospitals across the nation to make sure appropriate mental health beds are funded and available for veterans when they need them.

In addition to DVA working to expand innovative mental health programs in the country, reducing the need for inpatient admissions, we're working to improve the availability of appropriate training, and therefore care for veterans, through the Military and Veteran Psychiatry Training Program, which provides services training placements in military and veteran mental health. This initiative seeks to improve access to psychiatrists with specialist training in veteran and trauma focused care, decreasing the need for inpatient mental health beds. I'd like to remind families needing mental health support to contact Open Arms on 1800 011 046.

The Albanese government is committed to ensuring Defence and veterans' families receive the care, services and supports that they need and, more importantly, that they deserve.

I support Senator Lambie's motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who've talked about the system.

The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, 'We send them, we bend them, but we don't mend them!' That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They're feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They're feeling lost and broken. They're very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.

These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn't cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do—overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.

There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge's warnings, after the previous crash—in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they're trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.

We've had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We've got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I'm saying is that this is systemic. It's not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It's about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that's fixed, this will never be fixed.

This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It's an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk.

Order! The time for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

I spoke earlier about the rationale behind this. This is Labor taking failed coalition policy for administrative review designed to punch down on migrants out of the deep freeze, whacking it in the microwave and reheating it. It is bad policy of the then coalition, now Liberal Party, punching down on migrants in the ART and deciding to take away basic rights when it comes to challenging visa refusals and basic procedural fairness. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 primarily seeks to amend the Administrative Review Tribunal Act to expand the circumstances in which the tribunal can make a decision on migration matters based on the papers without ever hearing from the applicant and without having the benefit of an oral hearing.

Currently, the ART can only review a case on the papers if all parties consent. There may be occasions when all parties consent to something being done on the papers. There may be a clearly defined, narrow case in which you're legally represented and you know you've got a narrow issue—an interpretation issue or a narrow factual issue—that can be decided on the papers. If parties agree, then, by all means, do it. But, overwhelmingly, when it comes to migration matters, people are not represented. Overwhelmingly, there are significant cultural barriers and barriers to understanding how the legal system works. The benefit of an oral hearing, particularly with a translator, can be that people who are unfamiliar with the process and don't have legal assistance can actually get a fair go, because the tribunal has an obligation in an oral hearing to try and understand what the issues are before it, to tease them out with an applicant and to fairly decide the case. But, if you remove oral hearings, you remove that chance for fairness.

This bill seeks to change it so the ART can consider any case on the papers if the tribunal thinks it can be 'adequately determined' on the papers and that 'it is reasonable in the circumstances'. That change is to all migration matters. That will be a significant change to current practice and will negatively impact the most marginalised people, as the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre made clear when they said:

Our view is that oral hearings are … critical to ensure that people seeking asylum receive a fair assessment of their protection claims.

And I endorse what the ASRC say.

But this bill also proposes changes to the Migration Act to require—to force—the tribunal to make certain decisions only on the papers and to not permit an oral hearing. Specifically, it proposes that as a blanket requirement to review classes of migration matters that are going to be set out in the regulations, but we know it's going to start with student visas. I want to stress that it starts with student visas but it can be expanded under the regulations to any other visa class.

Not protection visas?

The earlier changes can apply to protection visas; this particular part can't apply to protection visas.

The government is claiming these changes are needed for efficiency; however, the Immigration Advice and Rights Centre pointed out this in its submission:

… the Bill sacrifices the objectives of being fair and accessible for alleged efficiency

When you look at the bill more closely, the problem with the delays and the increased backlog in the ART—which is real—is not the result of the way in which oral hearings are happening; it's not the result of that part of the ART's structure. The problem is twofold. One is that this government has failed to appoint enough tribunal members for the ART to be at full strength and able to deal with it. That's pretty shameful. The ART is wildly understrength, and no doubt we'll explore this next week in estimates. The last time I looked they were some 200 members short of what their full appointment should be.

Two hundred? I thought it was closer to 100.

It was closer to 200, but we'll see next week, in estimates, the full-time equivalent gap between what they're meant to be budgeted and resourced for and what they're actually budgeted and resourced for. Whether it's 100 or 200—even 100 members short is, I reckon, a pretty bad call. Then the government come in and say, 'Oh well, they might be 100 or 200 members short, but the problem is how the hearings happen, not the fact that we don't appoint tribunal members.'

If you look closely, the problem also lies, probably even more fundamentally, with the Department of Home Affairs. Evidence given by the ART revealed that lodgements in the ART for review of Home Affairs student visa refusals have increased exponentially. As the CEO and principal registrar of the ART said, in 2022-23 there were 2,057 student visa refusal matters; in 2023-24 it was 11,668; in 2024-25 it escalated to 32,198; and in the first two months of this financial year there were 5,755 cases lodged. That surge of refusals from Home Affairs also means that student visa reviews have taken up a greater and greater percentage of the ART case load. Mr Hawkins, the CEO, said:

… in 2024-25, it was about 37 per cent; in 2023-24, it was 22 per cent; and, in 2022-23, it was 4.6 per cent.

I said that the wrong way around, but I'm just repeating the way in which Mr Hawkins gave evidence. So it went up from 4.6 per cent of the case load in 2022-23 to 37 per cent of the case load in 2024-25—dealing with student visas. Not only has the sheer number of student visas reviews increased, such that they now consume over a third of the ART's case load, but the quality of decisions made by Home Affairs, as measured by the overturned rate of review, has dramatically fallen.

The ART's chief lawyer, Ms Haddad, told the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:

I've got the percentages for student visa refusals. For 2022-23, the number of set asides was 43 per cent. For 2023-24, the number of set asides was 46 per cent. For 2024-25, it was 47 per cent, and for the first two months of this year it's 46 per cent.

What were they before COVID? Ms Haddad said:

They were closer to 25 per cent.

The historical norm is that one-quarter of refusals get overturned and visas get granted, but Home Affairs are now churning them through at a massive rate. They are not applying due diligence and they are often refusing matters because a document is missing. Rather than giving the opportunity for the document to be provided, they're just refusing them, in the tens of thousands, and passing the buck to the underresourced, understaffed ART. That's what's happening.

From the dissenting report:

It turns out that Home Affairs has decided to refuse thousands of student visas because of missing documentation. We were told that the 'common reasons for remittal in the student space include objective material—assessable items such as confirmation of enrolments, penal clearances, English assessments, financial capacities, medicals and biometrics'. If these documents are 'not provided to the department as part of the primary application … then the visa application will be refused'.

So what we're seeing is Home Affairs moving their administrative problem and, rather than doing due diligence, checking for documents, giving people a chance, they just refuse it, move it on, whack it into the ART and say it's all the ART's problem, and then the government doesn't even resource the ART. To continue:

So, thousands of lodgements are being filed in the ART because Home Affairs has decided to refuse the applications that are missing one or two documents. Rather than Home Affairs giving visa applicants fair notice that their applications are missing documentation, and then a chance to correct that, instead they are just refusing them—

And that's what is leading to tens of thousands of lodgements in the ART, and that's why half of them are being overturned and sent back to Home Affairs—

The obvious answer to this mess lies in Home Affairs reforming its processes, giving applicants natural justice and fair notice, not in stripping away rights once their bad decisions are reviewed in the ART.

Furthermore, the high set-aside rate for student visas shows that proper hearings are essential. Removing oral hearings will likely lead to more judicial reviews, which would in turn create more inefficiency, not less. As the Migration Institute of Australia pointed out:

'The ART's high set aside rate of 47% in student visa refusals, suggests systemic challenges in primary decision making. Removing oral hearings would prevent affected appellants from properly challenging adverse decisions.

Appellants denied an oral hearing may be more likely to seek judicial review, increasing pressure on the courts and undermining the Bill's stated efficiency objective.'

Also, National Legal Aid Point out:

In 2022/23, NLA supported the trial of paper-only decision-making through the Independent Expert Review program to assist with the backlog of [National Disability Insurance Scheme] matters in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This included legal assistance prior to paper review. This trial was ended after nine months as it was not found to be an efficient way to clear the backlog of cases.

So there has been a trial of paper-only reviews in the NDIS space, and it did not work, even with legal assistance. As the Refugee Advice and Casework Service said:

There is no evidence to suggest that the removal of an oral hearing has a positive causative impact in reducing backlogs or increasing efficiency in processing appeals.

At the core of this bill is an issue of the long wait times at the ART, which have grown significantly, and we acknowledge that. For example, the number of refugee cases on hand in 2012-13 was just under 2,000, and it has grown to some 40½ thousand in the most recent annual report. Annual reports show that the average wait time was 243 weeks, up from around 30 weeks a decade ago. If you want to know the cause of much of that, it has been both Labor and the Liberal Party withdrawing legal assistance to applicants in the ART, withdrawing legal assistance from people who are challenging ART matters. When you withdraw legal assistance, you draw out cases, you increase wait times and you get in this mess.

I want to thank groups like the Migrant Workers Centre, the ASRC, National Legal Aid and others who pointed out that this bill is not the solution. That's why the Greens won't support it. You don't just punch down on migrants, you don't just take their rights away; you fix the problems. The problems here are a lack of resourcing the ART and the mess in Home Affairs.

There is some, or even a lot, that I support in the contribution that was being made by my friend and colleague Senator Shoebridge. I think that he has made a positive contribution and raised a number of material issues in relation to this debate on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

However, there is a key point that we teased out from the Department of Home Affairs during the last Senate estimates, and I do want to talk about this. One of the attributes of our administrative law review system is the ability of applicants seeking review to introduce new evidence. The Department of Home Affairs were quite clear that one of the issues they are facing in relation to documents which haven't been presented at the initial application stage for a student visa is that it isn't necessarily that the documents exist and they haven't been attached. It could well be—and this is the issue the Department of Home Affairs raised—that they haven't got their enrolment, because they haven't satisfied the particular requirements of the visa. They've lodged the application without meeting those requirements, so they get refused, but then they can go into the ART system and they have that period, which is now, on average, over a year—one year and three months—to get the document. If they have the document then, it goes back to the Department of Home Affairs.

We have a system where, if someone applying for a student visa doesn't have their proverbial ducks in a row, with all the documents they need to have, and the Department of Home Affairs rejects the visa, the applicant can go to the ART, knowing the ART has to consider all new evidence, which could include the meeting of the omissions which prevented them from getting the student visa in the first instance. This is a fundamental issue in relation to how the system works. You can put in an application without all the relevant information, because you don't have it—you don't meet the requirements. When you get knocked back, you know you can appeal to the ART, and you've got an extra year and a half, or whatever it is, to get the omissions filled. You'll either get the visa or it will go back to the Department of Home Affairs. The system can't work that. It's breaking.

The numbers are extraordinary. I try to avoid hyperbole, but in this case there's not enough hyperbole. Consider this: 2½ years ago in the Administrative Review Tribunal, as Senator Shoebridge touched on, there were 2,278 cases where people were seeking a review of decisions on cancellations or refusals of student visas. That's 2,278—just hold that figure. Only 2½ years later, as at 30 November—and I checked the latest figures—there are 48,826 cases. It's extraordinary. It's gone from 2,278 cases 2½ years ago to now 48,826 cases that have to be resolved in the ART. These are effectively court cases that have to be resolved by the system.

In our last Senate estimates—and Senator Shoebridge was there—we were asking questions of the always helpful registrar of the ART. He told us that, as at 31 October 2025, there were 46,590 cases. I checked the figures yesterday, and in just one month that had increased by 2,236 cases. In just one month they'd got an additional case load equal to the amount they had in total 2½ years ago. In just one month it's gone up 2½ thousand. I don't know what it's going to be when we go into estimates next week, Senator Shoebridge, but it won't surprise me if the number is over 50,000, given this rate of increase. It's quite ordinary.

And they would have decided some of them, too.

Well, they're coming in far quicker than they're deciding them, and it's a major issue in terms of the fact that they have all of these vacancies, as Senator Shoebridge alluded to. I thought the figure was a hundred, which is bad enough, but it may well be higher than that. There were some good members of the ART who lost their jobs when the AAT changed into the ART. There were really good members who were vindictively targeted and lost their jobs. They could have been deciding these cases. So we're in this situation.

The other point I want to make is something that Senator Shoebridge touched on, and to some extent it touches upon what Senator Lambie raised about veterans. Consider this: the Administrative Review Tribunal is there to provide administrative review of decisions in relation to migration, NDIS, social security and veterans matters. It's so important that all Australians have access to the Administrative Review Tribunal and get their matters heard as quickly as possible.

More waiting time!

Exactly, Senator Lambie, and the waiting time can be deadly. Two and a half years ago the student visa appeals constituted three per cent of the case load of the ART; it's now 38.4 per cent. It was three per cent and it's now 38.4 per cent. That means that you might be waiting for an NDIS decision, a Veterans' Affairs decision, a social security decision, a tax decision, another migration decision—say, for a skills in demand visa—but the ART is absolutely overwhelmed with these student visa applications. It's extraordinary.

Then there are the wait times. The latest figure I've got in terms of wait times for these matters to be resolved shows it's now out to 66 weeks for these student visa applications. At the rate of lodgement, it's just going to blow out further. That's one year and three months.

One year of school you're not doing.

Exactly. And what happens when someone puts in their application for the student visa appeal to be considered? They get on a bridging visa. Bridging visas are meant to be part of the migration system to provide an interim measure for people to be able to stay in the country while their migration status is resolved. They're not meant to be a long-term solution to resolving migration status. But we now have an extraordinary statistic. At 30 June 2019, there were 180,000 bridging visas. That's about 5½ to six years ago. We now have in this country 402,000 people on bridging visas. Nearly half a million people in this country are on bridging visas. That is not sustainable. It's not sustainable to have that many people in the country on bridging visas. So 180,000 has gone up to 402,000, and it keeps going up. People's migration statuses have to be resolved fairly and efficiently, and we need to limit the number of people in this country on bridging visas. The system is breaking. The system isn't working. And these figures tell the story.

This leads to another issue. The Centre for Population within the Department of the Treasury provides very useful analysis with respect to demographic observations for Australia. They released their last statement last month. This is the 2025 Population Statement. This issue with respect to the resolution of appeals made in relation to student visas and onshore protection visas and the growing numbers is having an impact on the Centre for Population's ability to actually forecast population. That's how bad it's getting. I want to quote to you from page 1. It makes the first page in the overview of the Centre for Population's statement. It says:

NOM—

net overseas migration—

is forecast to decline further in 2025-26 and 2026-27, driven by fewer migrant arrivals and an increase in migrant departures.

We have seen NOM coming down over the last three years. The last final figure at 30 June 2025 was 306,000. But this is the issue. It says:

However, departures are expected to be lower than in the 2024 Statement as migrants on temporary visas are departing at lower rates than experienced in the past.

On page 5, the statement says:

However, there is considerable uncertainty in the outlook for departures. Departure rates are lower than prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting Australia's relatively favourable economic conditions, including the low unemployment rate.

In the population statement for 2025, they actually refer to this issue of the explosion in active student visa refusal cases. This is one of the issues. This is making it difficult for the Centre for Population to actually estimate what net overseas migration is going to be year to year. And why wouldn't it when you see that explosion in bridging visas, from 180,000 to 402,000, and the explosion in cases before the ART, which are upwards of 48,000 and on the way to over 50,000? It will be interesting to hear the latest figures. So that's the context in terms of student visas.

In relation to the provisions, I listened carefully to what Senator Shoebridge said. I am all for procedural fairness—absolutely—but we actually have a crisis in terms of dealing with this workload. It's actually a crisis. It's gone up from just over 2,000 cases to over 48,000. These cases need to be resolved, and they need to be resolved efficiently and effectively. So I want to make this point. In these cases, those seeking a review of their case will still have the right to put their case, and obviously they will. It's just that, in the vast majority of cases, the case will be resolved on the papers. So whoever is the decision-maker doesn't have to go through the administrative burden of having to get a hearing room and having to make appointments with all the representatives and then, if maybe one of them doesn't show up or there's an issue, having to do it all again. That all adds time. The main point is that we have a system which makes sure that people seeking for their case to be reviewed have an opportunity to put their case, and they will be able to put their case under this bill. That's important.

Secondly, the ART has the power under this bill to consider a hearing if it's appropriate in all the circumstances. So the ART will still have that power through a particular process to hear a case if they consider it's appropriate in all the circumstances.

Then, in terms of process, there are safeguards. The ART must invite the applicant to make submissions and provide evidence. The ART must give adverse information. That's information that will be used against the applicant, such as the student seeking their visa. The ART must give adverse information to the applicant. That's the way it should be. The applicant is to have access to written material which is used in relation to the case. So there are safeguards in relation to the process under the bill, and I support those safeguards. I think they should provide comfort to senators who are faced with this situation that needs to be addressed—over 48,000 cases.

The last point that I'll make is that it's quite clear—on my reading of the legislation, at least—that this process of hearings on the papers will not apply to appeals in relation to protection visas, humanitarian visas or permanent visas. So we're talking about student visas and perhaps other classes of temporary visas. We're not talking about protection visas, where issues of vulnerability are particularly relevant, and we're not talking about permanent visas. We're talking primarily about this particular cohort of student visas.

I now want to say just say a few words quickly on the ART reform process. I argued, when it was proposed that the AAT be replaced by the ART, that it was unnecessary. I said you could make really decent reforms to the AAT without abolishing it and going through all of that hullabaloo. I really genuinely thought there was an opportunity to make those reforms. But what are the results? When the AAT was abolished, there were 67,000 cases on hand. As at 30 November 2025, the new Administrative Review Tribunal has 126,658 cases on hand. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025. I want to recognise the contribution of colleagues in this debate and the very important points raised by both Senator Shoebridge and Senator Scarr.

At its heart, this bill engages with the question of how we balance efficiency in government decision-making with fairness, accountability and access to justice for individuals. The ART is the place people can turn to when the power of the state has been exercised against them and they believe a decision is wrong. For many Australians and the many citizens of other countries living in Australia, it is the final opportunity to be heard. The ART reviews decisions that affect every aspect of people's lives—visas, social security, disability support, veterans' entitlements, workers' compensation and more. These issues determine whether someone can stay with their family, continue their studies, access support or remain in work. When we change how the tribunal operates, we change how justice is delivered in this country.

The tribunal was established barely a year ago, following the abolition of the deeply flawed AAT. I welcomed the decision to abolish the AAT on the basis that it had been deeply infected by political appointments and so had lost public trust. The promise of the ART was clear—a system that was more independent, more transparent and, importantly, more accessible. It was meant to restore confidence in merits review and to put fairness back at the centre of administrative justice.

The problem this bill seeks to address is very real. The tribunal is facing an extraordinary backlog. Delays are long and growing. People are waiting months and sometimes more than a year for decisions that shape their futures. An old idiom rings true here: justice delayed is justice denied. A significant driver of this backlog is the surge in student visa appeals, which now account for roughly 40 per cent of all applications before the tribunal. These delays impose real costs on students, whose lives are put on hold; on families and employers living with uncertainty; on universities and businesses; and on the public purse. The status quo is clearly unacceptable and needs to change. So I welcome the intent of this bill, and I understand the desire to improve efficiency, reduce backlogs and improve the integrity of our migration system.

But efficiency is not a value that exists in isolation. It must be considered in light of the need for fairness, and speed shouldn't come at the cost of fairness. The changes made by this bill represent a substantial shift away from oral hearings and towards paper based decision-making, particularly in migration matters. In many cases, deciding matters on the papers will be entirely appropriate. Written processes can be faster, cheaper and less intimidating. They can help the tribunal deal with the high volumes of straightforward cases more efficiently. The tribunal should absolutely have the flexibility to use these tools where they make sense. But a blanket removal of oral hearings for entire classes of cases raises serious concerns.

Almost half of student visa decisions reviewed by the tribunal are overturned. That alone should give us pause. What I take it to show is that these decisions are not always straightforward. Student visa applications are frequently by young people. Many are navigating complex legal processes for the first time, often without legal representation. Many people do not have English as their first language, and oral hearings allow tribunal members to ask questions, clarify evidence and ensure applicants have a genuine opportunity to present their case.

There is also deeper issue at stake here: who decides how justice is delivered, and executive overreach. The power to expand paper-only decision-making to other visa classes is left to the minister through delegated legislation. That's an extraordinary amount of discretion over a fundamental feature of the tribunal's operation. Decisions that remove the right to be heard should not be made by regulation as a matter of administrative convenience. They go to the design of the system itself. They should be determined by parliament. They should be subject to debate like this and subject to amendments, with, ultimately, the parliament deciding. This should not be up to the executive. I think we are seeing a worrying trend of the executive giving itself more and more powers in this country. From talking to people I represent here in Canberra, they recognise this trend, they're concerned about this trend and they would like the government to not continue down this path.

While recognising the need to reduce the backlog, we should also be honest about the broader risks. If people feel that they have not been given a fair hearing, they are more likely to seek judicial review, as has been pointed out in this debate. So there is a risk that the changes will shift the burden to the courts, increasing costs and prolonging uncertainty. We've seen this before. Paper based systems that prioritise speed over fairness often end up slower and more expensive in the long run.

In case this bill does not get a committee stage, as unfortunately we're increasingly seeing with this government, I want to foreshadow that I will move two amendments. The first would allow the president of the Administrative Review Tribunal to determine that an oral hearing should be held in student visa matters where fairness, complexity or individual circumstances warrant it. This approach—put forward by the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney, in the House of Representatives—preserves efficiency as the default while restoring discretion where justice demands it. The second amendment would introduce a statutory review of these changes. This was proposed by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, in the other place. It would require parliament to revisit the operation and consequences of these amendments after a set period, and that matters. The ART is a new institution. We should not be locking in structural changes without committing to review their real-world impact.

These amendments are not radical proposals. They do not undermine the purpose of the bill. I believe they strengthen it. They recognise that good policy is adaptive, evidence based and accountable, and I encourage colleagues to support these changes. Ultimately, this debate is not about being for or against efficiency. It is about recognising that administrative justice is not just a processing function. The speed of decisions must be improved and backlogs must be reduced, but, if we hollow out fairness in the name of speed, then we erode trust, not just in the tribunal but in government itself. I hope the government will engage constructively with these amendments, which they have seen in the House. There is an opportunity to improve the functioning of the tribunal without risking the principles it was created to uphold.

For Australians out there, the Administrative Review Tribunal, also known as the ART, is the old AAT. They just took one of the A's out and replaced it with an R because, over time, political appointments were once again made in this place, and the ART was stacked with people who probably weren't qualified for and shouldn't have been in those chairs. However, when you remove people and change your name, you may want to put in place people who are qualified to be there. That would have been a good start. I have to say, your new attorney-general's been in there for seven or eight months, and we still have not stacked that in with members who need to be in there. I'm sure there are plenty of retired judges who would be happy to come in and do a few hours a week to get it down.

My other problem is with Home Affairs and the 'ticking and flicking'. If I'm hearing right, doesn't Home Affairs write back to applicants and say, 'I'm sorry, but, for us to process this application, we need more documents,' or do they just say a straight no'? Honestly, if it's not giving them a chance to say yes, then that's why you're filling up the ART. Maybe they need more discretion. Instead of just saying no to the visa, maybe they should tell the person why and explain that they would need further material to assess their application.

The ART is currently managing a significant backlog—I think we've heard about that. It's estimated to be around 112,000 to 127,000 matters. Nearly half of those are student visa decisions, which are about 38 per cent—or higher, as we've heard this morning—of the tribunal's total caseload.

This bill is to help clear the apparent backlog. Instead of having oral hearings, the ART would review this backlog on the papers. I don't really have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with expanding the circumstances when it comes to complex issues, whether it's the NDIS, Centrelink or veterans, especially when we're talking about medical conditions, psychiatric reports and things like that. I'm sorry, but, firstly, if you have to deal with DVA, you can guarantee that, whatever they're supplying the ART, they're only supplying what they need to. But sometimes the papers you want to supply don't get in there. We can't take our own lawyers into the ART. We have the Veterans' Review Board that comes under that and we're not allowed to take our own lawyers in there. The Commonwealth can have its lawyers, but we can't. We can take in an advocate. We're already disadvantaged when it comes to the Veterans' Review Board. It's very unfair. To enforce decisions on us when we go through the AAT without having all of that, without hearing us out, is not on. I imagine it's the same with people who have complex medical conditions under the NDIS and, of course, Centrelink.

In other words, the aim of this amendment is to ensure that the bill's provisions permitting the ART to determine matters on the papers without oral hearings are targeted and applied to certain areas, not to all of them. Sure, do it with student visas. They should be pretty straightforward; they shouldn't be complex issues. Either you want a visa or you don't. If you haven't supplied enough information, then get Home Affairs to ask them for more information if that's not the way it's working.

I also have an amendment that seeks to remove the power of the minister to make regulations to expand the scope of matters to be determined without an oral hearing. It seems like I'm not the only one who's a bit unsatisfied with that from the government. Like I said, it's not just student visas this legislation would capture. It also includes over 400 Commonwealth acts, ranging from taxation, Centrelink disputes and NDIS entitlements to workers comp matters. You're going to tick and flick this on the papers, are you? Yeah, I'll tell you what: it hasn't worked well in Veterans' Affairs and, at times, with the VRB.

Again, I have no problem with clearing a backlog, but this bill, in its current form, has the ability to remove natural justice from the applicants. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills stated:

… the conduct of oral hearings enhance public confidence, transparency, efficiency and the accessibility of proceedings and may, in some cases, be required for procedural fairness.

We've seen the transparency from this government. It's already been determined, it's out there in paper and it's black and white. You are the worst when it comes to transparency. You are worse than these guys were for those 10 years by double the amount. You are absolutely shocking. You fibbed to the Australian people that you would give us more transparency, and you did not. That is disgraceful and shameful on your behalf.

Given your government's very poor record on transparency over there so far in the past four years, you would think that you wouldn't want to do anything that further undermines Australia's public confidence in an important institution like the ART. I ask you to have a look at this and I ask you also to target it because this is not going to be uniform right across the bill. It just won't. It won't work in some areas. You're asking for trouble. Seriously, I have to say about the load on student visas, my goodness, is the right hand not talking to the left hand or something? What's new in this place?

I want to focus on one group who will be disproportionately affected by this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025, and that is migrants who speak English as a second or additional language. There is no question that improving the efficiency of government processes is important. A system that works faster and uses public resources wisely benefits everyone. But efficiency cannot come at the cost of fairness, nor can it come at the cost of transparency and accountability. A review system that is faster but inaccessible or that shifts responsibility onto others is not efficiency; it's a failure. This bill proposes the removal of oral hearings, replacing them with reviews conducted largely on the papers. We are told this is about streamlining process, yet, for many migrants navigating the system in a second language, written-only processes are not faster; they are inaccessible. Oral hearings matter. They allow individuals to explain their circumstances in their own voice with interpreters present and give decision-makers the opportunity to ask questions and clarify misunderstandings. Limiting that safeguard may save time on paper, but it risks unjust outcomes. Efficiency must not replace fairness.

The most serious flaw in this bill is not only who it disadvantages but where the burden is being shifted to. By moving to reviews that are conducted on the papers, the government is not actually reducing work; it is transferring it onto migrant and refugee services, community legal centres, settlement organisations and NGOs. These organisations are already underfunded, overstretched and operating at capacity. This is not an unintended consequence; it is entirely foreseeable. When people are denied oral hearings, they do not suddenly gain the skills to prepare complex written submissions in a second language. They'll return to community organisations for help drafting submissions, translating documents and navigating procedural requirements. That's not reform; that is cost shifting. It's the government quietly outsourcing its procedural responsibilities to the community sector without providing additional funding or support.

So I ask: has the government modelled the increased demand this bill will place on migrant and community services? Has it consulted with the NGOs expected to absorb the workload? And, if it has, why is there no funding allocated? A system that relies on unpaid labour to function is not efficient; it's irresponsible.

This bill also forms part of a broader pattern. Only recently, under legislation passed in the context of hate speech laws, this parliament removed the right of migrants to seek review of visa cancellation decisions made personally by the Minister for Home Affairs. Independent review is being curtailed, and access to oral hearings is being wound back. These are core accountability mechanisms being dismantled, not minor procedural adjustments.

The same problem appears in this bill's delegation of power. It allows the expansion of 'on the papers' reviews by regulation rather than legislation. That means that future decisions to limit oral hearings could be made by the executive, with minimal scrutiny, rather than being debated in this parliament. Any extension beyond the categories currently proposed should be subject to proper consultation, transparency and the possibility of a disallowance. Efficiency cannot justify bypassing parliament or undermining procedural safeguards.

This must also be seen in the context of broader transparency concerns. Proposed changes to freedom-of-information laws would require people to pay to access government documents. For Australians on low incomes, that cost is a true barrier. If you cannot afford to know how a decision was made, accountability becomes theoretical. If oral hearings are removed, we must be honest about who will be affected. It will not be well-resourced applicants with legal teams. It will be migrants trying to navigate a complex system in a second language while working, raising families and relying on community organisations that are already stretched to breaking point.

Finally, what consultation has been undertaken with migrant communities and service providers? Were their concerns heard? If the feedback exists, it should be tabled. If it does not, this legislation has been developed without regard for those who will be forced to make it work. Administrative review is meant to safeguard fairness and accountability. It's not supposed to shield government decisions from scrutiny or offload responsibility onto charities and community organisations. Efficiency is important, but it must strengthen the system, not erode it. I urge the government to reconsider these measures and to ensure that any efficiencies achieved do not come at the expense of fairness, transparency or the integrity of the review process.

I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. The Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 supports the tribunal to deliver efficient and high-quality reviews of government decisions. The bill enhances the tribunal's powers and procedures so that merits review processes are proportionate and efficient. Efficient and timely decision-making is particularly important in the context of the tribunal's review of migration decisions, such as reviews of decisions to review visas.

Delays in decision-making can cause backlogs, which creates an access-to-justice issue for genuine visa applicants while incentivising non-genuine applicants to apply for a merits review in order to extend their stay. The bill supports the tribunal by expanding its ability to make decisions based on written materials without holding an oral hearing. The government has considered the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee following the inquiry into the bill. The government agrees with recommendations 1(b) and 2 of the committee's report and will be proposing amendments to the bill to implement those recommendations.

The bill itself would amend the Migration Act 1958 to require the tribunal to make decisions without conducting an oral hearing in reviews of certain migration decisions—specifically, decisions to refuse to grant a student visa. Subject to the passage of government amendments, the new procedure would only apply to reviews of temporary visa decisions prescribed in regulations. The proposed amendments give effect to recommendation 2 of the committee's report. The committee recommended 'that the government consider amending the bill to require a decision to refuse to grant a student visa to be prescribed in order to be an "application to be reviewed on the papers"'. The government's intention is that student visa refusal matters will be the first visa type prescribed to be subject to this process.

Reviews of temporary visas such as student visas are suitable to be determined on the papers, and that's having regard to a couple of things: the nature of the issues of the review, the short-term nature of these visa times, and the low volume and complexity of relevant materials. Applications would still be required to be reviewed on the papers. They would be subject to a new review procedure set out in the Migration Act. The review would be conducted entirely on the basis of written materials without the tribunal having to hold an oral hearing. That means that the applicants would be given the opportunity to present their cases in writing. There would be no limit on the information that they would be able to present to the tribunal to support their case.

Key features of this review procedure include requiring the tribunal to invite an applicant to give the tribunal written submissions and evidence on certain matters relating to the issues under review; requiring the tribunal to give certain information to an applicant and allow the applicant to comment on it; enabling an applicant to request the department to provide access to material given to the tribunal for the purposes of the review; retaining the tribunal's ability to request or obtain additional documents or materials by other means; and requiring the tribunal to make its decision after considering any submissions, evidence and comments given by the applicant and any other material that's given to the tribunal without holding an oral hearing.

The bill would also amend the ART Act to give the tribunal additional flexibility to make a decision based on written materials and without holding an oral hearing in relation to other kinds of cases. The tribunal would be able to do so if it appears to the tribunal that issues can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties and it would be reasonable in the circumstances to make a decision without holding a hearing. This new discretion recognises that whether procedural fairness requires an oral hearing will depend on the circumstances of each case. It will ensure that simple matters with straightforward issues can be determined as efficiently as possible, enabling a proportionate allocation of tribunal resources. An important safeguard is that, before deciding to dispense with an oral hearing, the tribunal must consult the parties about this and take the party's submissions into account.

The government will propose amendments that would implement recommendation 1(b) of the committee's report. The committee recommended that the government consider, in consultation with the ART, 'amending the bill to further improve the operational efficiency of the tribunal'. These amendments would give effect to the recommendation by enabling a non-judicial deputy president to be appointed to act as the president when the president is absent or unable to perform the duties of the office for a period of up to three weeks. The committee also recommended that the government consider, in consultation with the ART, amendments that might assist the president to better and more efficiently carry out their functions—for example, by expanding the powers that may be delegated to a deputy president.

The government proposes amendments that would enable the president to delegate certain powers related to the management of member performance and conduct to non-judicial deputy presidents. It is appropriate for non-judicial deputy presidents to be able to exercise these powers in association with their existing functions for the management of member performance and conduct. The government has considered the committee's recommendations that the government consider amendments that would give the tribunal greater flexibility to provide oral instead of written reasons while ensuring that the tribunal is required to provide written reasons if a party to a proceeding requests them. The government will further consider and consult on this recommendation.

The government has also considered dissenting reports through the committee process, and the government disagrees with the recommendations in those reports. Recommendation 2 of the dissenting report from the Australian Greens is that the government restore legal funding for applicants in the ART for review of migration decisions. The processes and procedures of the tribunal are designed to promote an informal, less-adversarial tribunal environment to reflect that a large number of applicants across this varied jurisdiction are self-represented. Recommendation 3 of that report also recommends that the Department of Home Affairs urgently review its decision-making procedure to allow for natural justice for applicants, including an express opportunity to provide evidentiary material to reduce the unreasonable case load of the ART. I can say that the department is taking steps to support continuous improvements in its decision-making processes. This includes implementing recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, learning from a merits review report in relation to incorporating tribunal outcomes in continuously improving processes.

The Administrative Review Tribunal has a crucial role in enabling members of the community to seek fair, quick and inexpensive review of government decisions. This bill further strengthens the tribunal by empowering it with the tools necessary to make decisions in an efficient and timely manner while also ensuring that applicants have a meaningful opportunity to present their case to the tribunal.

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (3) on sheet GJ111 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 23 to 24), omit "relates to a refusal to grant a student visa or another decision", substitute "is for review of a decision relating to a temporary visa, and is".

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraphs 367C(2)(a) and (b), substitute:

(a) the decision is a decision relating to a temporary visa; and

(b) the application is of a kind (if any) prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.

(3) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Other amendments

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024

22 Subsection 212(2)

After "President" (first occurring), insert "in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) (vacancy in the office of President)".

23 After subsection 212(2)

Insert:

(2A) A person must not be appointed to act as the Presidentin the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (1)(b) (absence, etc.) unless:

(a) either:

(i) the person is qualified, as mentioned in subsection 205(3), to be appointed as the President; and

(ii) the Minister has consulted the Chief Justice of the Federal Court; or

(b) the person is a member who is a Non-Judicial Deputy President.

(2B) An appointment of a member who is a Non-Judicial Deputy President to act as the President as mentioned in paragraph (2A)(b) must not be for a period of more than 3 weeks.

24 Subsection 212(7)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(7) The extension must not be for more than:

(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—12 months; or

(b) in the case of a Non-Judicial Deputy President appointed to act as the President as mentioned in paragraph (2A)(b)—3 weeks.

25 After paragraph 279(2)(a)

Insert:

(ab) other than in accordance with subsection (2A)—a function or power under section 200 (giving directions) or subsection 203(3) (restricting member's duties); or

26 Subsection 279(2) (table items 8 and 11)

Repeal the items.

27 After subsection 279(2)

Insert:

Functions and powers that may only be delegated to a Non-Judicial Deputy President

(2A) The President may, in writing, delegate the President's functions or powers under section 200 (giving directions) or subsection 203(3) (restricting member's duties) to a member who is a Non-Judicial Deputy President.

I also table the supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments which I have moved to the Administrative Review Tribunal and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

I ask that, when we get to the vote, amendment (3) be put separately to (1) and (2).

The amendment refines the original bill by replacing references to student visas with temporary visas for decisions to be reviewed on the papers. In doing so, it broadens the scope to include temporary visa refusals rather than restricting it to student visas only. It also allows for prescribing of additional types of decisions eligible for on-the-papers review. The amendments also introduce provisions to assist the president in their functions, including rules for acting appointments and delegation of powers to non-judicial deputy presidents. The opposition supports measures that make the review system faster, fairer and more efficient.

By embracing on-the-papers review, the ART can direct its limited resources to matters that genuinely need oral examination while resolving simpler disputes promptly. However, as noted in the Senate inquiry report, there are concerns about delegating power to expand on-the-paper reviews via regulation rather than by legislation. Any future extension beyond student and temporary visas should be subject to clear consultation, transparency and disallowance. Parliament, not the executive, should determine when the right to an oral hearing is limited.

This bill serves as an admission that the opposition has been right all along on the ART. It acknowledges Labor's failure in replacing the AAT with the ART, which was promised to be faster and more efficient. Instead, under Labor, the ART has become slower, more expensive and overwhelmed by a record backlog, with case times ballooning and the case load growing significantly. The bill acknowledges that Labor's changes have not delivered the promised reforms, and the system is now struggling.

I note the summary provided by Senator Kovacic, and I agree with the factual summary about the effect of these amendments. Amendments (1) and (2) remove the express reference to student visas from the bill and, instead, give a broad regulation-making power to expand the types of matters that can be decided in the ART on the papers. The history shows that both Labor and the Liberal Party will use that power to expand the number of matters and the classes of cases that will lose the right to an oral hearing and be determined only on the papers. Given that both Labor and the Liberal Party are of one mind about removing the rights, the pretend protection by putting it in the regulations is no protection at all.

The Greens will be opposing government amendments (1) and (2) for the clear reasons we said in the contribution in the second reading. People should have a right to an oral hearing. Oral hearings are important for justice. We keep hearing the refrain of 'faster, fairer and more efficient'. Well, it might be faster in the first place, but it sure as heck isn't fairer, and, by the time you take into account judicial reviews and the broader unfairness in the system, it sure as heck won't be more efficient at the end of the day. Amendment (3) gives some greater flexibility to the president to delegate powers. The rationale for that was set out in the report, and we don't oppose amendment (3).

If there are no further contributions from senators on those amendments moved by Senator Green, I will put the question as per Senator Shoebridge's request. I will put the question on amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GJ111 separately, and then we will come to amendment (3).

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet GJ111 be agreed to.

The question now is that amendment (3) on sheet GJ111 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3527 and amendment (1) on sheet 3528, circulated in my name, together:

SHEET 3527

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must complete the review before the end of the 3-year period staring on the day this section commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

Minister to table copy of report of review

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

_____

SHEET 3528

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (after line 20), after paragraph 367C(3)(a), insert:

(aa) the President of the ART notifies the following, in writing, that the President considers that in all the circumstances Division 4 ought to apply in relation to the application instead of this Division:

(i) the applicant;

(ii) the decision-maker;

(iii) any other person who is made a party to the proceeding for the review by an Act or an instrument made under an Act; or

Minister, I'm interested in your view on having an independent review of the operations of those amendments. What is the government's position?

While we appreciate the arguments that you quite often make about reviews of certain legislation, the government will be opposing this amendment.

With respect to these reforms, it may give you comfort to hear that the ART regularly publish data on case loads and are accountable to the parliament through Senate estimates—they will appear next week. These processes provide clear insight into the effectiveness of these measures, both on managing the tribunal's case load and supporting access to merits review that is quick, informal and effective. The government also notes that the Administrative Review Tribunal Act already contains an independent statutory review at section 294A, which states:

The review must start within the 3 months before the fifth anniversary of the commencement of this Act.

Finally, the Administrative Review Council, which was re-established by this government, serves to provide continued scrutiny of our system of administrative law. The ARC is already reviewing migration related provisions of the ART Act. On this basis, there is clear scrutiny of the tribunal, and it's enabling our legislation. The government considers it is unnecessary for there to be a further statutory review on top of this scrutiny.

The amendment on sheet 3528 would allow the president of the ART to determine that an oral hearing should be held in student visa matters where fairness, complexity or individual circumstances warrant it. This would better balance the need for fairness with the need for faster decisions. Will the government support this amendment? If not, why not?

The government will be opposing this amendment. The government considers that review on the papers is an appropriate and proportionate method of review for temporary visa refusal matters. Having a standard process for these matters, particularly student visa matters, ensures there is certainty and consistency in how the tribunal deals with this high-volume cohort.

Giving the president discretion to exempt individual matters would likely result in a high number of applications to the president for that exemption, which would be time consuming and undermine the efficiency gains of this new process. Further, an applicant could seek judicial review of the president's exercise of discretion, or their failure to exercise discretion, in relation to this case. This would likely give rise to significant litigation and further delays in the resolution of matters.

Importantly, the bill already gives the Governor-General the ability to make regulations to proscribe certain types of applications, which would be exempted from the on-the-papers process. This gives the government flexibility to adapt these new procedures if it becomes clear, based on operational experience, that hearings would be preferable for certain cohorts.

The opposition does not support this amendment, which introduces mandatory, independent review of the operation of the amendments made by the bill within three years of commencement. The opposition is concerned it will add additional administrative burden on an already stretched ART.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3527 and amendment (1) on sheet 3528 be agreed to.

We will now move on to senators' statements.

If you haven't already bought a house in Sydney, it's basically impossible to do it now. Even with two wages, most families can't manage the obscene mortgages required for what used to be called a first home. Workers have been pushed hours away from their workplaces, having to start and end days with hours stuck in banked-up traffic, losing precious family time. Our city's losing the people that make it function and make it special.

But now an opportunity does present, with Defence no longer needing Victoria Barracks in Sydney, and in other big cities like Melbourne and Brisbane there's some prime publicly owned land that could deliver genuine public housing. So what does Labor do? They reach for the same tired playbook of privatisation and giving a gift to their developer mates. Instead of seeing this as a chance to recycle public Defence land for other public housing and other public good, we see Labor having a national sell-off of prize Defence land and prize assets to their developer mates for private profit, not public good.

Privatisation is not a successful housing policy. It's handing public assets to developer mates and hoping that a few crumbs of affordable housing fall from the table. For those being pushed out of the places they call home by spiralling costs, a tiny number of apartments are available at 30 per cent below market rent for maybe 10 or 15 years. That's not a plan for housing; it's an embarrassment.

Victoria Barracks in Sydney is a beautiful public space—green open space, beautiful built heritage. That's exactly why it must be used for maximum public benefit, not to maximise private profit. Build public housing here, real public housing—hundreds of homes owned by the public for those who need it the most and kept in public hands for generations to come. But we also say this: density done right means public parklands, not concrete jungles. It means communities can breathe, children can play, families can thrive and heritage is respected.

Labor keeps telling us that only private developers can deliver housing at scale. That's simply not true. Governments built hundreds of thousands of public homes in the postwar era. We did it before. In fact, there's a working model for Commonwealth public housing right now, with Defence Housing building thousands of homes for the defence community. We can do this. But Labor would rather just give developers profits than community benefit. A national flog-off of public land for private profit—it has Labor written all over it. If Labor were serious about delivering public housing, truly serious, they'd prove it here with Victoria Barracks. They'd keep the land in public hands. They'd build bold. They'd build green. They'd build for the future. Instead, they're preparing to flog it off to the highest bidder for grossly unaffordable private housing, and they call it progress. Well, we call that out.

Pauline Hanson says she fights for battlers and for ordinary Australians. She says that the people to blame for the fact that you're doing it tough now are immigrants. When was the last time you flew to a party on a billionaire's private jet? Is that something your neighbour has ever done? Last October, while you were struggling with the cost of living, Senator Hanson was on Gina Rinehart's private Gulfstream G700, jetting off to Trump's Mar-a-Lago for a Halloween party. Conference tickets were 25 grand a pop. That's the Pauline Hanson's One Nation idea of struggle. She's skipped representing the community in this place so she could be there. She missed votes in the Senate on things like housing and health care. She didn't even initially declare she was off on a private jet from a billionaire. Where do One Nation get their funding? Many people, including three rich fund managers, donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to One Nation after Gina Rinehart wined and dined them with Trump on a luxury yacht.

Let's be clear. Gina Rinehart cares about politics so she can use it to shift blame for hardships from billionaires like herself and the corporate profits they're reaping to migrants who are struggling right along with everyone else. It's One Nation's trick too. Housing crisis? Blame migrants. Cost of living? Blame migrants. Can't find work? Blame migrants. Senator Hanson blames migrants for problems created by billionaires, then she takes those billionaires' money and takes those billionaires' jets. It'd be a joke if it weren't real.

Today, on Tamil Oppression Day, the Greens stand in solidarity with the Tamil people, who continue to endure systemic oppression and denial of their fundamental rights. It's not merely a historical tragedy; it continues today. The Tamil homeland remains one of the most heavily militarised regions in the world. Security forces occupy private land; they suppress cultural expression. Tamil political prisoners languish without charge or trial—many for decades—in jail, and journalists documenting those abuses face intimidation and violence. We see land seizures fragmenting Tamil communities. Just in recent days, large protests have erupted across the north-east against the Kivul Oya irrigation project—another development scheme that Tamil communities warn will bring further land appropriation, forced displacement and demographic change. We see families still searching for disappeared loved ones, while mass graves remain uninvestigated. They're not isolated incidents; they form a coordinated pattern that international legal experts recognise as indicators of a past and ongoing genocide.

The Greens believe human rights are universal. We can't champion justice while remaining silent on genocide or promote a rules based order while ignoring these fundamental principles. Australia must not be complicit. We must suspend security cooperation with institutions implicated in these abuses, support international accountability mechanisms and protect Tamil asylum seekers here in this country, not forcibly try and return them to danger or displace them off to cruelty in Nauru. The Tamil struggle is a struggle for survival, for cultural preservation and for the right to exist on ancestral lands—principles we hold sacred. I've got to say the Tamil community in my beautiful hometown of Sydney provides so much spark, so much colour and so much positive energy there. We call on the Australian government to uphold its obligations under the genocide convention and the refugee convention. We call on this parliament to use its voice for moral authority and to demand justice, and we note today as Tamil Oppression Day for that purpose.

While I am speaking here, hundreds of people from the broader Kurdish community across Australia are gathering outside the parliament. They're gathering outside the parliament, asking us to shine a light on what's happening in north-east and northern Syria. I want to note that strong Kurdish Australian representatives such as Councillor Mira Ibrahim from Liverpool; Young Greens Kurds like Baran Sogut from the Federation of Democratic Kurdish Society; Brusk Aeiveri, the Co-chair of the Federation of Democratic Kurdish Society; and Greens councillor and proud Kurdish representative Ismet Tastan, from the Inner West Council, are here in numbers. They're saying the struggle for gender equality, for religious freedom and for people to live a respectful life, regardless of their ethnicity, their gender and their religion, is a struggle that's happening right now in north-east Syria.

I travelled last year to the democratic autonomous region of north-east Syria, and I saw firsthand a regime that was putting in place radical gender equality in that region. All of the key positions have co-chairs—a man and a woman. I saw, as well, that the whole rainbow of Syrian society—not just Kurds, not just Syriacs, not just Arabs, not just Yazidis—was being represented.

Right now, that experiment in democracy and gender equality is facing brutal repression. We know that there are about a million people in Kurdish-majority Kobani who are being surrounded. The reports that have come to my office of some of the violence that's happening in the surrounding villages are deeply disturbing. The violence reminds that community of the appallingly violent takeover of ISIS and the fight—led in many cases by strong Kurdish women—to defeat ISIS, and they fear its return. What has the Australian government said? Not one word. In the north-east of Syria, where the Kurds and their allies have been keeping the world safe from tens of thousands of ISIS fighters—initially with the support of the United States, but recently they've dropped them like a gun—they're being abandoned again.

The Kurds, the Yazidis and their friends have been on the front line of fighting ISIS, and they're asking the world not to be blind to what's happening now—to see what's happening and to ensure that their rights are respected. I join their call. Our government's silence must end. We must be a force for good and for understanding this unique achievement in north-east Syria.

Yesterday the Reserve Bank of Australia delivered the verdict that Australians had feared and that the Albanese Labor government pretended would not come. The Reserve Bank lifted the cash rate by 25 basis point, to 3.85 per cent, in a unanimous decision of the board. To the average household, that decision will mean around $100 more every month in mortgage repayments. This is the first rate rise since 2023, and it comes for one reason only: inflation remains out of control, stubbornly above the Reserve Bank's target band.

The rate rise did not come out of nowhere; it did not fall from the sky. It was a predictable consequence of Labor's economic mismanagement and reckless spending, and it is interconnected with another major policy failure: energy. Energy is not a side issue; energy is not symbolic. Energy is the economy. It flows through every household bill, every business cost, every inflation point. Yesterday's decision confirms what Australians already knew: the Albanese Labor government has lost control of the economy, in large part because it has lost control of energy prices.

If energy policy were judged on speeches, symbolism and international travel, the energy minister's 2025 performance must be declared a triumph. He has announced, promised and travelled and he has basked in international admiration. But, for Australian families, manufacturers and workers, it's outcomes that matter—affordability, reliability, confidence and economic security. On every one of those measures, Labor's energy plan is failing. Minister Bowen is the architect of an extraordinarily ambitious transition—a 62 to 70 per cent emissions cut by 2035; 90 per cent renewables; a sixfold increase in storage; and the wholesale restructuring of industry, transport and the grid. While he may want history to crown him the author of Australia's climate future, 2025 revealed a very different reality. That was of a minister driven by ego and ambition, increasingly detached from economic realities and unable to deliver on the commitments he has made on behalf of the Albanese government. Australians were promised cheaper, more secure energy. Instead, power prices have surged, volatility persists and Labor's $275 power bill reduction promise hangs around its neck as a symbol of broken trust.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms that electricity prices surged 19.7 per cent in the year to November 2025, including almost seven per cent in one single month. This is not a smooth transition; this is a price shock. The ACCC's inquiry into the national energy market similarly confirms that electricity costs rose throughout 2024 and 2025. The consequences are now being felt not just in power bills but in household debt. The Australian Energy Regulator reports that average residential energy debt on the east coast now sits at $1,367—up a staggering 38.6 per cent since Labor took office. Small businesses are carrying average energy debts of $2,516. More than 205,000 Australian households are now on official electricity hardship programs, with hardship debts rising sharply year on year.

The minister insists, with increasing theatrical confidence, that decarbonisation now can be accelerated at more than double the current pace. Yet emissions progress has stalled at around 28 per cent—well short of the government's own pathway. If Labor can't deliver on near-term commitments, why should Australians trust even grander promises? This government is racing ideologically ahead without regard for cost, without regard for reliability, without regard for delivery capacity and without regard for investor certainty.

Business leaders warn that Labor's ambition requires hundreds of billions of dollars in capital as well as unprecedented coordination. The former chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has described this transition as the 'most difficult economic transition' in human history. The minister talks about this in routine terms, but it is now economically treacherous. When coal exits faster than reliable replacement enters, Australians pay the price in higher bills, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Renewables without adequate firming are not a transition; they are a gamble. That gamble is costing Australians every month through their mortgages.

Labor fails not just on policy but also on transparency. When the incoming government brief for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water was finally released—after months of Senate pressure from my colleagues and me—we discovered that 97 per cent of that document was redacted. But what did remain was a telling truth. The brief warned of further significant increases in retail electricity prices this financial year. It conceded that emissions reductions needed to accelerate rapidly for targets to be met. In other words: higher prices, slower progress, deeper failure.

And, while Australians struggle, Labor's priorities remain misplaced. At Senate estimates, officials confirmed that $1.6 million was approved to send 43 bureaucrats to COP30 in Brazil—nearly $40,000 per bureaucrat. A further $1.36 million was allocated for a pavilion to 'tell Australia's climate story'. These climate theatrics occurred while households were pushed closer to hardship and, from yesterday, closer to default by another interest rate rise.

As I noted earlier, this energy crisis is part of the inflation crisis. Yesterday's Reserve Bank decision makes that crystal clear. In December 2025, the consumer price index showed inflation at 3.8 per cent—well above the Reserve Bank's band of two to three per cent. That CPR result ended all talk of rate cuts in 2026. Markets immediately priced a 70 to 75 per cent chance of a rate rise because energy driven inflation has proven structural and stubborn under Labor.

Yesterday, the Reserve Bank confirmed what everyone was fearing. Australians have now endured 13 interest rate increases under the Albanese government and only three reductions. That is not global bad luck; that is domestic policy failure. The Reserve Bank has made it clear that inflation—not wages, not productivity—is the core problem. Experts have been warning Labor for months. Some of the nation's leading economists had questioned the Albanese government's fiscal settings ahead of yesterday's RBA rate decision. Government spending as a share of GDP averaged around 22 per cent for decades. Under Labor, that figure had ballooned to around 28 per cent, a level not seen since the Second World War.

The Chief Economist of AMP, Shane Oliver, put it bluntly yesterday. He said that the best thing the government can do to bring down inflation is to cut spending. He noted that government spending had boomed over the past six or seven years and never properly retreated after the pandemic. The Chief Economist at IFM Investors, Alex Joiner, has warned that the government's 'fiscal guardrails have come off', and EQ Economics's Warren Hogan said that the government needs to tighten fiscal policy, even modestly, to stop inflation becoming entrenched. But Labor refuses to listen. Instead, it fuels inflation through reckless spending and then forces the RBA to take the responsible path.

The result is an additional $1,200 a year for the average mortgage holder on top of power bills that are already hundreds of dollars higher than promised. This comes after the very Christmas when Labor failed to deliver its promised power bill relief. Australians are now being squeezed from both sides with higher power bills and higher interest rates. The consequences of Labor's failure now extend beyond mortgages and power bills. New national data shows that Australians are being forced back into the workforce at record levels to cover their cost-of-living expenses. (Time expired)

This week, school gates have swung open across the country. Families are back to that familiar rhythm. This moment always feels like a reset, but it's also a reminder of something deeper: education isn't one stage of life; it's the thread that runs through it. From early childhood, through primary and secondary school and on to vocational training and university, education is foundational to lifelong learning. As students head back into school, we recognise the scale of the work underway to lift outcomes and ensure that no child is left behind. Through the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, we have, with the states and territories, made the biggest new investment in public schools ever—$16½ billion over 10 years.

This funding is not a blank cheque but is linked directly to practical changes that make a difference: year 1 phonics and numeracy checks, because you want to identify problems early so that you can intervene most impactfully; evidence based learning and teaching, such as more individualised supports like small group tutoring so students can catch up and keep up; greater wellbeing support—parents have been crying out for greater mental health support for students, and we're providing it through counsellors, wellbeing coordinators and mental health workers—initiatives that help attract and retain teachers and school leaders, including rewarding and recognising experienced teachers, as they are a national asset; and providing professional development for teachers through free online courses in areas such as phonics, STEM, leadership, explicit teaching and classroom management. You can go and check these out online. They're run by the University of Adelaide.

These changes, driven by a $16½ billion investment in public education, won't just succeed on paper; they will succeed in classrooms, delivered by teachers. There is positive news here: more Australians are choosing teaching. Say it from the rooftops! More Australians are choosing teaching. There is no more important job in the world than being a teacher. A teacher has the ability to change the trajectory of a child's life. Every Australian, no matter their age, remembers one or two teachers in their childhood who had an impact in their life; I certainly do. In that regard, they are social engineers and should be revered by us, thanked more often than just on 5 October, on World Teachers Day, and treated with the utmost respect.

Since 2023 there has been year-on-year growth in applications to study teaching. Those increases in 2024 and then in 2025 mean that we now have more teachers in the pipeline. New data shows applications to study undergraduate teaching for 2026 are up 6½ per cent and domestic university offers are up 6.3 per cent. That matters. It has happened because this Albanese Labor government has backed in aspiring students with practical support, including Commonwealth teaching scholarships worth up to $40,000 and Commonwealth paid prac so teaching students aren't forced to choose between completing their placements and paying their rent. This has been taken up, by the way, by 56,000 students from teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work. These are workers who are essential to the functioning of our economy.

Education ministers have agreed to progress work on a new Australian teaching and learning commission to ensure that our national effort is coordinated. We are undertaking keyhole surgery on the maths curriculum in the first three years of school. Those are formative years, and it's important that we get those foundations in numeracy and literacy right, because they shape everything else that follows. We are also revising the national teacher standards. These standards outline what makes up quality teaching. These will be reviewed for the first time in 15 years. This is an important opportunity to reflect on what modern teaching is and how we best support it. This is nation-building stuff.

While seeing more Australians take up teaching is great, we realise that retention remains an issue. Thirty-nine per cent of teachers intend to leave the profession before retirement. It's at an all-time high, and something has got to give. This is why we are investing in reducing burdensome paperwork through the Workload Reduction Fund. This fund enables the states and territories to pilot new approaches to reduce teacher workloads and to maximise their valuable time in the classroom with face-to-face contact with children. And we are investing in teacher welfare through programs such as Be You with Beyond Blue, which provides tools and resources for educators to create supportive communities for both students and educators.

When we talk about education, we're talking about the long arc of life. We're talking about the early childhood educator who helps a child find their voice, the teacher who notices a student slipping behind and turns it around, the TAFE teacher guiding apprentices who will build our homes and energy infrastructure, and teachers helping students become the thinkers, artists and innovators we will be relying on heavily in the decades ahead. Building a better Australia starts with making sure every child in every community has access to a quality education that puts them on a pathway to a better future.

How our plastic waste is recycled is big business for Circular Plastics Australia, based in Altona. This world-first collaboration between Asahi, Coca-Cola, Pact Group and Cleanaway recycles 20,000 tonnes of plastic per year, but it needs more. Plastic bottles come from across the country from as far as WA but also from places like Vanuatu. Why? It's because Australians are not returning enough plastic for recycling. Plastic container returns of around 70 per cent in the last quarter of 2025 mean that 30 per cent has gone missing, likely gone to landfill. We need to put our plastics into our recycling bins or, in Victoria, use the container deposit scheme. What I saw was genuinely impressive, a true closed-loop process. Used plastic bottles are sorted by an infrared scanner, shredded into flakes, washed and extruded into thin filaments and chopped into tiny pellets for reuse. These pellets are turned into test tube like moulds, which are then blown into new food-grade plastic bottles.

The wider problem of plastic waste is sobering. This is why the Albanese government has invested $1 billion with the states and territories in the Recycling Modernisation Fund. More than 50 new and upgraded recycling infrastructure projects have been completed, with more than 80 in the pipeline. Facilities like Circular Plastics Australia represent sovereign capability creating local jobs and turning a waste problem into an economic opportunity. To everyone at Circular Plastics Australia: thank you for having me. I thoroughly enjoyed the visit.

Australians have the highest uptake of rooftop solar in the world, with more than one in three homes now with solar panels. But after 25 years of powering homes many of these solar panels are reaching their end of life. Approximately four million solar panels entered the waste stream in 2025. We estimate that more than 100,000 tonnes of solar panels will enter Australia's waste stream by 2035. Right now, only 17 per cent of these solar panels are being recycled. South Australia, Victoria and the ACT have banned sending solar panels to landfill, because they are packed full of valuable materials like copper, silver, aluminium and silicon.

The Albanese Labor government is investing $25 million over three years to deliver a national pilot program to recycle solar panels, establishing 100 pilot collection sites throughout the country. This will mean less waste, more recovery of valuable minerals and a stronger clean energy supply chain. There is also a huge economic prize here: we stand to unlock up to $7.3 billion from reducing waste and keeping these materials in circulation. This is a great career pathway for young Australians to consider. Find out more at the Australian Resources Recovery Council website.

Queenslanders are doing it tough right now—really tough. I know that, after a summer of being battered by a monsoon troughs, floods and extreme weather, Queenslanders are calling out for relief. Times like these bring our communities together. We see the very best of what Queenslanders and Australians are. But unfortunately when they look to this parliament over the next week, what they'll see from those opposite is nothing but division and disunity.

At the same time, they'll see that our Labor government is solely focused on delivering for them. Our No. 1 priority remains the here and now for every Australian, while working to set up a better future for all. We'll continue to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief, including delivering a tax cut for every single taxpayer, with another cut coming in July.

At the same time, we're working hard to strengthen the budget. We have found, since coming to government, $114 billion in savings including $20 billion in the most recent budget update. On top of this, we're addressing our longstanding productivity challenges. These investments that we are making are targeted and designed to take pressure off families. The question for those opposite really is: which part of this relief would you roll back?

We will see a pay rise for minimum- and award-wage workers, taking the total increase under our government to over $9,000 for the lowest-paid workers in our economy. For new parents we've expanded paid parental leave to 24 weeks, and we're making sure that super isn't sacrificed, by ensuring super is paid on all government paid parental leave.

We've delivered even more energy bill relief, with $150 off power bills for every household and one million small businesses. For apprentices building the houses that we need in this country, we're delivering a $10,000 bonus to top up their wages and incentivise their apprenticeships. And for those households who took up solar power, we've taken 30 per cent off the cost of batteries to permanently cut their power bills.

For those studying vital subjects like nursing, teaching, social work and midwifery, we're delivering paid prac so that placements can be taken without the stress of working a day job.

We've boosted Medicare with $1.8 million in extra funding, helping Australians get the quality, affordable health care that they deserve. We're delivering more choice, lower cost and higher quality care for Australian women, finally. Since 1 January, we've delivered the next stage in our plan to make the biggest cut to the cost of medicines in the history of the PBS. Thanks to the Australian Labor government, bringing the cost of medicines to $25 or less is making a real difference to family budgets. It is the cheapest that medicines have been in over two decades. Cheaper medicines alone will save Australians $200 million a year at a time when they need it the most.

The question, again, for those opposite, is: which part of this relief would they roll back? We know that Queenslanders and Australians deserve a government that works hard for them. I'm proud of that work, I'm proud of the work that we have done over the summer, and I'm proud of the work that we will do here in this parliament. I'm proud to represent regional Queensland and to come from a place like that to deliver for the communities that I call home, here in this parliament.

Meanwhile, those opposite, who say they stand up for the bush and say they stand up for regional Queenslanders, have spent their time here fighting each other. Those opposite remain a will-they won't-they opposition, more focused on fighting each other than fighting for Australians. They are tripping over their own feat to get to Sky News to make their case for their next job and to make their case against getting back together. They are meeting in secret men's clubs to plot to get rid of the Leader of the Opposition. They are splitting up and getting back together and arguing about committee positions. It is a disaster over there. They are so consumed by themselves that there is no room left to focus on the real priorities for Australians. The Liberal Party and the National Party— (Time expired)

Queensland is embarking on a bold and ambitious vision for Brisbane 2032 with the construction of the new Brisbane Stadium at Victoria Park, an investment that's going to shape our capital city and our state for generations. This $3.6 billion project will be the centrepiece of the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games, delivering a 63,000 seat stadium and transforming the Victoria Park precinct, including the creation of a national aquatic centre. Together, these projects will leave a lasting legacy for all Queensland athletes, all sports fans and the broader community. Not only will the new, state-of-the-art stadium cater for the Olympics but it will also serve as the new home for AFL and cricket in Queensland.

As the federal shadow minister for the games, I congratulate Premier David Crisafulli, Sports Minister Tim Mander, Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie and the entire LNP government for acting decisively to put these plans in place. Their $7.1 billion Games Venue Infrastructure Program will ensure Queensland is ready to host the world's best athletes at what will be one of the world's best Olympic and Paralympic Games. This progress stands in stark contrast to the previous Labor government, whose years of inaction and indecisiveness cost us three years of preparation and placed the very future of the games at risk. After more than 1,200 days of Labor chaos, the LNP government has moved swiftly to select the Victoria Park site, secure funding and get on with the job at hand.

I need to mention another broken Labor promise—and there are so many. This one goes back to March 2021, when Anthony Albanese said a Labor government would produce an annual state of the cities report. Nearly four years after they were elected, Labor is yet to publicly release a single report. This is despite the fact that Labor's own National Urban Policy relies on a 2024 report that remains under lock and key in the minister's office. The Australian public deserves access to this report so they can understand Labor's policy decisions and how they are affecting urban Australia. As shadow minister for urban infrastructure and cities, I call upon the Minister for Cities to get on with the job and release this report. If she doesn't, I have an order for the production of documents before the Senate this afternoon, demanding the report's release. This is another broken promise from a prime minister who leads a government that is defined by broken promises.

As acting shadow minister for local government, I would like to give a shout-out to the many councils, councillors and council workers across Far North Queensland, North Queensland, Central Queensland, the gulf and the peninsula, who are currently dealing with the impacts of recent flooding. Over the past few months, these regions have endured extreme weather conditions that have destroyed infrastructure, property, lives and livestock. Communities in my home state have been ravaged.

At times like this it is important that Queenslanders come together and do all that we can to support each other. I do want to praise the response of the Crisafulli LNP government, who came so quickly to the aid of those affected and continues to come to the aid of those affected. Much of the clean-up and rebuilding will be the responsibility of local government. Local governments across Queensland have been working overtime to get their communities back on their feet, and there is still much work to do. Dealing with such devastation is a gruelling job that's both physically demanding and emotionally draining.

To all the local government workers, councillors, mayors and emergency service workers who've been coming together to help rebuild their communities, on behalf of the LNP and on behalf of the Senate, I would like to say thank you. Your efforts will help us build back bigger and stronger and make sure that Queensland is an even better place to live in.

The hospital funding deal between the Commonwealth and the states has now been agreed to. It's been signed, sealed and sold as a win. But, for Tasmanians who rely on our public hospitals every day, there is very little here that inspires confidence. Yes, the agreement includes additional funding, and, yes, Tasmania is expected to receive around $700 million over five years. That funding is definitely welcome. Our health system needs it. What we don't have is clarity.

We still don't know when Tasmania will receive the money. There's no clear schedule, no certainty year to year and no guarantee that this funding will arrive in time to address the pressures already overwhelming our hospitals. That means Tasmanians could be waiting years before this agreement translates into real improvements, while emergency departments remain overcrowded, ambulances continue to ramp and waiting lists grow longer. Tasmania cannot afford to wait.

We're the oldest state in the country. We have poorer health outcomes than the national average and higher rates of chronic disease. Demands on our hospitals are increasing—not gradually, but rapidly. Yet, Tasmania's public hospitals receive around 40 per cent of their funding from the federal government, while other states receive over five per cent more. That gap has real consequences—fewer beds, fewer staff, longer waits and worse outcomes—simply because of geography.

The funding looks better on paper but still undeniably worse on the ground, and that's why funding alone will never be enough if we don't also fix the infrastructure problems. Tasmania cannot retrofit its way out of this crisis. You can't build on top of something that already can't hold itself together. Our hospitals were not designed for today's healthcare demands. They certainly weren't designed for an ageing population. Continually patching up old buildings might keep the lights on, but it does not deliver safe, modern and efficient care.

What Tasmania needs is three new fit-for-purpose public hospitals, planned properly, built properly and located where people can actually get to them. We need a new hospital on the north-west coast, serving a region that has been asked to make do for far too long. We need a new hospital in Launceston, in the north, designed to meet growing demand and improve access for surrounding communities. We need a new Royal Hobart Hospital in the south, built on a greenfield site, delivered by 2035 and designed from the ground up for modern health care. These hospitals must be planned with our ageing population in mind: accessible, well connected and able to expand as demand grows. This is not about prestige projects; it's about safety, capacity and dignity for patients and health workers alike.

But hospitals don't exist in isolation, and I want to turn to another part of this agreement that carries serious risks if we get it wrong—the Thriving Kids program. The decision to delay its rollout until October, with full implementation from 28 January, was necessary because the stakes here are incredibly high. We cannot risk children being removed from the NDIS and being placed into a new program that does not actually work. Families are already worried—worried their children will lose access to early-intervention occupational therapy, speech therapy and other vital supports, and be shifted into a system that is still undefined and untested. If the Thriving Kids program fails, the consequences will be real and immediate. Children will miss critical developmental windows; families will be left without support; and the pressure will flow straight back into schools, hospitals and the broader health system.

This must not become a cost-cutting exercise disguised as reform. We still need clear answers about eligibility, service delivery and outcomes. Consultation must be genuine and ongoing, not just with advisory councils but with families and the professionals who keep this system running, including occupational therapists and other allied health workers. If Thriving Kids becomes a pathway off the NDIS without a genuine, effective alternative, then it will have failed before it even begins.

Finally, none of this can be separated from the broader funding picture. Tasmania needs a renegotiated GST deal that makes things better for Tasmanians in the long term. Tasmanians don't expect miracles, but we do expect fairness, transparency and solutions that actually work.

I rise today to speak about something that affects every Australian family: access to affordable health care. I've just come from the ABC Heywire Regional Youth Summit showcase of young people from regional Australia putting forward their policy ideas. I want to give a shout-out to Monty Lawlor from Aramac in Queensland. She's a 17-year-old who musters cattle for seven months of the year in cattle stations. She also likes to go feral pig shooting every Friday when she has the day off. Monty's words to me were about access to affordable, accessible health care in her local community in regional Queensland. It was extremely compelling. But, as I started to talk to Monty about some of the other presentations by young people, there was a really key theme. Young people speaking at that event today were talking about access to health care, whether it's timely endometriosis diagnosis for young women or having urgent care closer to home in regional and rural Queensland. I really thank Monte and her friends for their presentations today.

I really hope that, with the work that we do in this place, the generations to come will remember the Albanese Labor government as a government that saved bulk-billing from the coalition's cuts and neglect, because Medicare is one of the symbols of fairness in our nation. It's a promise that you don't have to check your bank balance before you check your symptoms. But for years that promise was quietly eroded under the coalition. Bulk-billing rates were in freefall under the coalition. It was the direct result of the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates. And we can put a price on how much the coalition cost Australian households in out-of-pocket medical costs. Australians paid $8.3 billion more than they would have under Labor.

In 2022 this government said, 'Not on our watch.' In budget after budget, Treasurer Jim Chalmers and the Albanese government have invested record amounts to strengthen Medicare and restore bulk-billing, including the largest investment in Medicare since its creation over 40 years ago. In the 2025-26 budget alone, we committed $7.9 billion to ensure 90 per cent of GPs will be fully bulk-billing by 2030, saving Australians hundreds of millions of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.

This matters for everyday Australians, especially working families, single parents and seniors. It means families don't have to choose between a GP visit and putting food on their table. It means pensioners can see their doctor without a gap fee. It means people in regional communities are more likely to get the care they need closer to home. Everywhere I go in Queensland, the real impacts of the health benefits this Labor government is delivering are free to see. Australia is healthier under Labor not only because of the investment in Medicare but because of our forward-thinking investment in urgent care centres, Medicare mental health centres and women's health.

Just last week I was with Emma McBride and our new federal member for Petrie, Emma Comer, to open the brand-new Deception Bay urgent care clinic. The assistant minister also committed to opening a perinatal mental health service in Moreton Bay to service the communities in the seats of Petrie, Dickson and Longman. We also announced $1 million for headspace Caboolture to move to a brand-new space. This is a critical service in this young community. While in Caboolture, I also visited the Bertha Street Medical and Dental Centre and celebrated that clinic becoming a 100 per cent bulk-billing practice. I also met a grey nomad who was about to go on an adventure around Australia, panning for gold. He was really pleased to be able to get his medical check-up before he hit the road. We have also help opened new healthcare facilities in Morayfield, including an urgent care clinic. It is one of the busiest in the country.

Up on the Sunshine Coast, we opened an urgent care clinic in Sippy Downs. We also announced additional funding for headspace Maroochydore, which is getting a $1 million boost to provide better care for young people on the Sunshine Coast. Out west in Toowoomba, I visited Drayton's free endometriosis centre, which is delivering specialist care to women across the Darling Downs. So women in Dalby, Warwick and Oakey no longer need to go all the way to Brisbane.

These are not just buildings; they are lifelines. They are places where people can walk in with worry and walk out with care. They are the embodiment of a Medicare system that puts people before profit, and we're not stopping there.

Every day, First Peoples are under attack and dealing with racism in this country, whether it is what people say to us in the street or what they at the supermarket, online, in our workplaces or in schools. What I've been seeing and hearing from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across this country shows that this has been relentless. For First Peoples, this isn't new. Every day is Invasion Day. This violence takes its toll on our minds, our bodies, our families, our children and our health. When that violence escalates, when our people are attacked, terrorised or killed, the response is silence. We lock up 10-year-old children in this country and we torture them. We put them in the back of a ute like a dog and we imprison them at 10 years of age.

When we talk about attacks, we know about the recent Boorloo terror attack and the Camp Sovereignty attack. Not only is there silence on those 10-year-old babies being tortured in this country for being black, but there's silence in this place. There's silence from the so-called Prime Minister. The silence on the recent events tells the perpetrators that, when they commit violence against us, they will not be held to account and that violence against us is completely normal. Violence against our people is not seen as serious enough to warrant proper police investigations, justice in the courts or media attention. This country's history books, parliamentary debates and media are littered with evidence of genocide, racism, apartheid and White Australia policies—all deliberate attempts to erase us and reduce our power.

Guess what Gough Whitlam's Minister for Health during the 1970s said? He's your icon prime minister. The Minister for Health under him called for the sterilisation of First Peoples to stop Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander babies being born. This is an act of genocide. Not to mention that Gina Rinehart's father said exactly the same thing: poison the waterways and sterilise the Aboriginal population.

These ideas haven't disappeared; they've evolved. They become law, bureaucracy, policies. And the world can see it for what it is. Last week the United Nations evaluated the human rights record of this colony. I wrote to every embassy asking for urgent intervention to hold so-called Australia accountable for its breaches of international law against First Peoples in this country. I did this because Prime Minister Albanese represents a state that, according to the Bringing them home report and the Europe justice commission, has committed genocide. It's been proven. In the UPR, country after country at the United Nations made recommendations addressing the mass incarceration of First Nations people, calling to raise the age of criminal responsibility and for this government to implement a federal human rights act. No single policy will end racism. We need a national anti-racism framework that has teeth to be implemented and enforceable, and we need a human rights act that actually protects people in this country.

To First Peoples, to my mob out there: I stand with you in solidarity. I know what you're dealing with, with the racist online trolls, the racist media and a government that does not care. As Aunty Rosalie Kunoth-Monks says, we're not broken, and we are not the problem. We have to continue to fight for justice on our own terms, remembering who we are and what our old people fought so hard to protect.

I rise with a heavy heart to reflect on the Bondi Beach massacre. On 14 December 2025 at Bondi, our country changed forever. As a nation, we are still reeling from the shock and pain of the act that has shaken the very core of our collective spirit. We continue to mourn, reflect, honour and reaffirm the values that bind us together as Australians.

On 14 December 2025, Bondi—a place synonymous with sunshine, community and joy—became the site of a calculated and senseless act of violence. In a matter of moments, lives were lost, families shattered and our sense of security challenged. The attack was a deliberate targeting of innocent people, including members of our Jewish community, that sought to divide and instil fear. The grief we felt that night and feel today is deep and far-reaching. Every Australian has been touched by this tragedy, whether through the loss of a loved one, the suffering of a neighbour or the heartbreak we share as a nation. Families now face empty chairs at their dining tables. The Jewish community in particular fears a burden of sorrow that is both personal and profound. We acknowledge the unique pain experienced by those targeted and we grieve with them and for them.

Yet, in our darkest hour, we have also witnessed extraordinary acts of courage and kindness—the outpouring of support from across our vast land—in a testament to the empathy and solidarity that defines us as a people. And it has gone beyond our borders. We pause to remember those whose lives were cut short and those who now fight for recovery, both physically and emotionally. To the family and friends in mourning, we offer our deepest condolences. Your loss is our loss, and your pain is shared by millions.

Amidst the chaos, the countless heroes emerged, from the emergency service personnel to our police to the ambos to those who cared for the wounded—our doctors, our nurses, the paramedics. They have all worked tirelessly, and we rely on them every day. But every Australian that was a bystander on that terrible day acted to support their fellow Australians. They became rescuers, they became friends, and they were comforters. We say to you: thank you for your courage and your bravery, because that bravery and compassion embodies the very best of Australia. We've demonstrated that time and time again. But, in the aftermath of this tragedy, let us remember who we are as a nation built on fairness, compassion and tolerance. We do not allow hate to define who we are. We do not allow violence to tear our communities apart. Instead we stand together, united in our grief and resolute in our response.

That's why it is so important that the people in this chamber and the other place and everyone who's elected as an official and community leader have to be so mindful of the words that they use. For those who continue to use this as a political weapon: shame on you. You will be ultimately judged by what you do and what you say going forward. Any attack on an Australian citizen and an Australian resident is an attack on all of us. We are community leaders, and have to show that leadership, now and going forward. We have done some good things as a government in our response. The New South Wales government has. We've changed legislation around gun ownership. We've changed laws. We are working every single day to ensure that we remain a safe and united country. The message today is that we stand together.

There actually have been two interest rate decisions this week, and I wanted to highlight the lesser known interest rate decision in my contribution today. Understandably the focus has been on the Reserve Bank's decision yesterday to increase interest rates by 25 basis points, adding something like $1,000 a year in extra mortgage repayments to the average homeowner. Most homeowners are already suffering under Labor's cost-of-living crisis. Now they're suffering because government spending is out of control, and the Reserve Bank has had to increase interest rates as a result.

There's a lesser known interest rate change this week, though, that was almost buried in reporting today, and that is that the Labor Party minister for industry and innovation, Tim Ayres, has announced that he's actually cutting the interest rate that large, often-multinational solar and wind developers will have to pay to borrow from the government to fund their projects. So, in the very week that the Labor Party's spending is pushing up interest rates for average Australian families, that same Labor Party is making a decision to slash interest rates for massive companies putting forward multibillion dollar projects. As I said, most of these investors come from overseas. Almost all the products, the wind turbines and the solar panels, are made overseas. The Labor Party is slashing interest rates for them! How about the Australian family? How about they get a break? Why do they have to pay higher interest rates while these other spivs and businesses get lower interest rates? Just to make clear what has happened today, I'll read out what the government has done from the Financial Review. The Financial Review reports:

On Wednesday, Ayres will announce that investments made under the Net Zero Fund, which will begin mid-year, will only have to achieve a rate of return of 1 per cent below the five-year rate, which today would be just over 3 per cent.

Given the Net Zero Fund is financed by government bonds, Labor is in effect willing to lose money on renewables projects. For example, taxpayers could pay 4.3 per cent annual interest on $100 million …

It's actually 4.8 per cent at the moment on 10-year bonds. It would only have to return 100 basis points below, or 3.3 per cent, if it were 4.3 per cent.

They're slashing this. The previous advice on this was that, if someone wanted to borrow from this fund—as this article makes clear—they would have to pay two to three per cent above the bond rate, not one per cent below it. What Labor's done here is they've slashed interest rates by three full percentage points—that's 300 basis points. Interest rates for homeowners have gone up by 25 basis points. As I said, that's a big hit to a struggling family. For someone struggling, $1,000 a year is going to be very hard to find. They're going to have to cut back on essential things just to stay in their home. Meanwhile, a large, international, publicly financed, massive company building multibillion-dollar projects gets their interest rates slashed by up to three percentage points, or 300 basis points. So it's 25 basis points up for the average Australian family and 300 basis points down at least—potentially 400 if it were a three per cent premium—for the large company.

Where are this government's priorities? Why are they funding and rolling out massive subsidies to these net zero renewable projects, which are not lowering power prices? That's definitely not happening. They're just funding the profits of large businesses, often overseas companies, that aren't really investing back into our nation. Why is that happening? What's happened to the Labor Party? They used to be the people who support people who are struggling, who are doing it tough. But now they go to these conferences with all these international businesses. They get wowed by these corporate gobbledygook words like 'net zero' and 'ESG'. They get dollar signs in their eyes, seemingly. They get hypnotised into giving these large companies massive amounts of taxpayer support and money. This has got to stop.

The reason the interest rates are going up is that the Labor Party can't stop themselves from handing out money to these green net zero initiatives. They've had massive blowouts on their battery schemes and their electric vehicle schemes. All these schemes are going to rich people; it's rich people buying electric vehicles and batteries. Your average struggling family cannot afford a $10,000 battery even after the government subsidies. We've got to end the Labor Party's obsession with and addiction to upper-class welfare and start thinking about the lower and middle classes in this country. Slash these ridiculous government subsidies.

Could this be the worst economic management of the Australian economy in history? It has to be close. Let's start with forecasting. One of the most important jobs that the parliament has is to decide on the direction we want to take the country, figure out how to get there and tell everyone what it's going to cost them. It is of vital importance to the country that we get those costings right. After all, it is the Australian people that pay for the decisions of the government.

What has Labor's record looked like since they've come to government? They've missed their budget forecast in five out of seven budget releases, with the last four adding an average of $30 billion to net spending. These are historic misses. Labor chronically understate their outrageous spending, only admitting the true cost when they can no longer hide. The 2025-26 MYEFO includes the single largest adjustment in history—$47.8 billion in the space of six months. That sort of blowout would get anyone in the real world sacked on the spot. There would be investigations, investors would lose faith, share prices would tank, auditors would be sacked and regulators would get involved.

How can this government defend this negligence to the Australian people? They are spending like drunken sailors, with no signs of slowing down. But is that additional spending going to those who are doing it tough? No. Their policy blowouts are going to fund tax cuts for luxury items. Look at the government's FBT tax break on electric vehicles. It is a tax break for some of the wealthiest Australians, which was forecast to cost the government a mere $90 million. Instead, it has cost 15 times that, clocking in at $1.35 billion.

Or how about the home battery scheme? They've had to raise it from an initial $2.3 billion to $7.3 billion. That's an additional $5 billion of taxpayer money exclusively to those who can afford a home and then can afford the home batteries. It's too bad if you're struggling to pay the bills with Labor's rocketing energy prices and you don't have a spare $10,000 to spend. Labor have no idea what their own policies are going to cost Australia.

At this point, they clearly do not care. It has gotten to the point where economists are doubting the forecasting abilities of the Treasury. No-one expects perfection, but understating government spending has become a habit. How do we expect the RBA to make timely, informed decisions when each release of the government financials contains massive blowouts?

Because of Labor's recklessness, Australians are heading into a cycle of fresh rate hikes. The rest of the developed world is heading for rate cuts. Enough of Labor's rhetoric around inflation being a global issue. It is now clear that this is a Labor government issue.

Day-to-day government spending is over 23 per cent of GDP, up from 19 per cent only a decade ago. That is a 21 per cent increase in the cost of government. And what do Australian people have to show for it? A housing crisis, a cost-of-living crisis and more rate rises. What a disaster!

Their forecasting is a basket case. What about debt? We're hearing the outrageous claims that debt is $177 billion lower than forecast—but which forecast? The 2022 pre-election fiscal outlook, during the doom and gloom of the COVID years. The reality is that they have saved nothing. They're using an outrageous comparison year to trick the Australian people into believing they have managed the economy.

The reality is that Australia's on track to hit $1 trillion in debt, with a record debt-to-GDP ratio outside of the COVID years. By the 2028-29 year, Australia is forecast to hit its maximum debt limit of $1.2 trillion and will need to either stop issuing debt or raise the debt ceiling.

There is no handbrake with Labor. They will burn the economy to the ground, crush the future of Australians and hand it over to another government to clean up the mess, again—all of this from a government that has slugged Australia with record total taxes in every consecutive year of government. In the last six months, they have upgraded the estimates of tax taken through individual and company tax by $6.1 billion for the 2025-26 year and $10.7 billion over the next two years. That's on top of already record taxation. That's money out of the pockets of hardworking Australians. Labor's only budget repair measure is bracket creep. What an outrageous way to fix their mess!

There is a way out of this economic ruin. There is a party that will make the hard decisions and get Australia back on track, and that party is One Nation.

On the day before One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson returns to the Senate, I'd like to reflect on just how Australia has changed during her absence. If a week is a long time in politics, seven sitting days was a generation, sufficient to span the most fundamental realignment of Australian politics in 80 years—which Senator Hanson was free to facilitate, thanks to the Senate suspending her for those seven sitting days. The ALP-LNP uniparty still doesn't understand the concept of unintended consequences. Everyday Australians were outraged at the suspension, and their actions inspired many to speak out in her place.

Senator Hanson left with the LNP coalition intact, and she led a party of four senators. She now returns, seven sitting days later, with five members of parliament and party status, and riding a tidal wave of success. Meanwhile, the opposition is in tatters, and the National Party's conscience and engine room, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, has brought his impressive policy and political skills to One Nation.

In May last year, One Nation received the first preference of six per cent of Australian voters. In November last year, that was 15 per cent. Today, polls show it sitting at 26 per cent, and the pundits have stopped asking if One Nation can win lower house seats and instead are trying to work out how many we'll win.

Those seven sitting days saw an Islamic terrorist attack on Australian soil in Bondi and the abject failure of this Prime Minister to show compassion towards the victims, or accountability, or justice against the perpetrators. We've seen rushed legislation that ostensibly protected the public, yet, in reality, took away freedoms we all used to enjoy. One Nation would have taken away the perpetrators, and those who incited their terror, and would have left Australians alone to enjoy their lives in peace, freedom and prosperity—concepts which seem foreign to the uniparty.

The bill that Senator Hanson presented last November was designed to ban face-coverings on Commonwealth property and has proven prescient—the right measure at the right time. It would have not only unmasked Islamists; it would have unmasked Nazis—a point the internet failed to grasp, because nobody bothered to read the bill. This was not an anti-Islamic measure; it was a measure against those on both sides of the political spectrum who would seek to harm Australians. It's a fundamental belief of One Nation that all Australians should stand equal before the law. No religion should be untouchable. No race or gender should be favoured over another.

A One Nation government would sweep away DEI, gender quotas and the gravy train of victimhood. We have one law which should apply equally to all. This is why Senator Pauline Hanson made her stand—all the work that went into that bill in One Nation's office, all the to-and-fro which went on with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the hardworking staff of the drafting office—to produce a bill that was conforming, constitutional and within the Senate's accepted purview. (Time expired)

I shall now proceed to two-minute statements.

The science has weighed in, and it turns out that the right of politics is the more pleasing to the eye. Research in Politics and the Life Sciences journal has now found that the more attractive crowd leans conservative. It's not just your imagination: physically strong men, especially those with serious upper body muscle, are generally more conservative. Broad chest? You've got yourself a right-winger. Weak, doughy dudes? Well, they're apparently more into wealth redistribution, largely because they need help carrying their own groceries.

Why the pattern? Well, it's called the halo effect. The good-looking, fit people get more opportunities; that's why. More opportunities, bigger pay cheques, fewer excuses, and their wives don't have boyfriends—you get it. That's the way it works. Success breeds success; that's classic conservative energy. Fitness itself screams discipline, delayed gratification and personal responsibility. Progressives? Well, they're often spotted clutching their oat milk lattes while protesting.

But, of course, exceptions exist. Beauty is subjective and politics isn't just a bodybuilding competition. But the data keeps flexing in one direction, and that is that commonsense right-wingers show up looking as if they skip the excuses and hit the weight pile. So there you go. Trust the science. The right's better looking—sorry, lefties! I'll leave you with this: may your reps be high and your taxes be low.

I rise today in the Senate in memory of a Labor true believer, patriot and friend to many. Her name was Faye Dapiran, a woman whose contribution to this parliament was matched only by the generosity of her spirit. Faye passed away last year in September, surrounded by family and close friends. She was a caring mother, a devoted grandmother and a cherished sister, aunt and friend.

I came to know Faye while working for the former member for Chisholm, Anna Burke. She was a thoughtful and considerate individual. When my mother passed away in 2005, Faye offered comfort without fuss and strength without judgement. In moments of grief, it's often the quiet kindness of others that sustains us, and Faye embodied that kindness. I will be forever grateful.

She was a very proud Labor woman, shaped by the great movements of the 1960s and 1970s through opposition to the Vietnam War, a commitment to civil rights and a belief in fairness and collective responsibility. She lived these values through her lifelong service to the Labor movement, working for a number of Labor MPs, contributing to election campaigns and, of course, participating in ALP branches.

For Faye, Labor values were lived daily through her loyalty and care for others. She also brought warmth and humour to the workplace. She was a devoted Geelong Football Club supporter, and it's fair to say we enjoyed many exchanges about the footy—she with confidence in the Cats and me defending the Collingwood Magpies.

Faye's life reminds us that public service is not only about policy and process but also about people, compassion, decency and care. Today I want to honour her service and offer my heartfelt condolences to her loved ones and to all those whose lives she touched. Vale, Faye.

Since the first colonial ships landed on this continent, First Nations people have been sent a very clear message: that their lives are not valued, that their safety doesn't matter and that their fear and trauma are not worth listening to. That message was solidified last week when, in Boorloo, a bomb was thrown into a crowd of First Nations people and their allies on the day of mourning, and the government, politicians and the media barely batted an eyelid.

Let me repeat that: a bomb was thrown into a crowd of First Nations elders and children and their allies. It was an attempted terror attack, and yet there was no outrage. There was no mass media coverage. There were no urgent statements made about community safety. There were no calls for action. If a bomb had been thrown into almost any other crowd, the response would have been deafening, but when First Nations people are targeted, exercising their right to mourn, to protest and to speak truth about this country's violence, there is silence. These double standards are not accidental. This hate is cultivated and stoked. It is used as a distraction from billionaires holding wealth, from fossil fuel corporations destroying the planet and from a system that exploits workers and communities alike.

First Nations people have a right to live in safety. They have a right to protest. They have a right to exist without fear. We can't change history, but we can—and we must—tackle all racism head on, remembering that there can be no racial justice without First Nations justice.

I rise to speak about an issue that impacts every single Australian, whether you're paying a mortgage, whether you're renting, whether you're running your own business or whether you're a family relying on food banks to put food on the table, and that is government spending. You might ask how government spending affects your everyday life. Let me tell you. I'll put it very simply. When the government spends too much, it adds to aggregate demand, and that's what the Reserve Bank responds to—aggregate demand. It puts pressure on inflation, and when inflation is high the Reserve Bank responds by raising interest rates. When rates go up, mortgages go up, rents go up and business loans get more expensive. That's what's happening right now. In fact, there have been 13 individual interest rate rises under this Labor government, and of course the most recent was just yesterday.

The average mortgage holder is now paying $23,000 more every single year on their mortgage than they were when Labor came to government. Twenty-three thousand dollars is not the sort of money that you find down the back of the couch. At the same time, under this Albanese government, government spending has gone up. It's now at the fastest pace, outside of a recession, in 40 years. That is not a coincidence. Government spending has jumped from 23.4 per cent of GDP to 26.9 per cent of GDP this financial year. That is not responsible economic management. It's like the government has its foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank puts its foot on the break, and it's Australians that will always pay the price for Labor's mismanagement of the economy.

Across Australia this summer, communities have endured floods, fires and searing heat, and in many places the challenge is not over. Across Victoria, in places like the Mallee, where I grew up, and Nicholls, we've faced record-breaking temperatures alongside devastating fires. It is in our communities that we have seen our nation's true spirit reflected—in the bravery, hard work and kindness of thousands of community volunteers. To the volunteer firefighters: we thank you. To the SES crews: we thank you. To the nurses, doctors and health workers: we thank you. To the community volunteers: we thank you. To our local councils: we thank you.

I especially want to acknowledge the inspiring effort to save the Natimuk aged care facility—a real community victory. As the fire closed in on Natimuk, staff remained with residents for more than 27 hours, caring for them through smoke and heat. Neighbours, visitors and even pets sheltered together, everyone protected as one community. Outside, CFA trucks were positioned to form a physical border against the flames, allowing firefighters to hold the line and, ultimately, save every life inside the facility.

These are the communities our government is proudly backing, with supports for emergency response, health services, community recovery and the infrastructure that keeps regional Victoria strong. We recognise what you do, and the Albanese Labor government is standing with you. In electorates like Mallee and Nicholls, and right across this nation, we look out for one another. Whether you were born here or drawn here or you've called Australia home for thousands of years, you are what makes our nation great.

The Albanese Labor government has failed the most basic test of economic management. Under Labor, inflation is up, interest rates are up, and families are paying the price. Australians are now experiencing the direct result of bad Labor government policy. Labor's reckless energy agenda has driven power prices higher and forced up cost of living across the economy. Where power prices rise, everything rises with them—food at the supermarket, freight logistics, construction, farming and manufacturing. Families feel it at the checkout and feel it again when the mortgage payment comes out. Small businesses feel it through higher overheads and weaker demand. That is how Labor's reckless energy agenda feeds inflation straight into household budgets.

Nowhere is this clearer than in New South Wales. Labor's net zero obsession is a disaster. Household power bills are through the roof. Labor forces industry to absorb skyrocketing power costs and then pretends to be shocked when businesses go under. I'm proud to say One Nation has the most comprehensive and practical plan to bring energy costs down, bring inflation under control and protect Australia from Labor's ongoing economic incompetence. This plan is on our website right now. I encourage people to go and have a look. We know that, if you want to defeat inflation and control interest rates, you have to start with energy. That means ending net zero mandates that force prices up, protecting reliable baseload, coalfired power and extending the existing coal generation across places like the Hunter.

Labor's ideological obsession with net zero is pushing power bills up. Families pay more and more, and small businesses get squeezed. One Nation will put Australians first by ending net zero, lowering energy costs and bringing inflation down.

I rise today to speak on behalf of the communities across regional Victoria who have endured an extraordinarily difficult and confronting bushfire season. Having visited the aftermath of the Longwood fires and seeing the devastation of families and communities who have lost everything, my heart goes out to them. It's not just Longwood but Ravenswood near Harcourt in central Victoria, Natimuk in western Victoria, Calder River in the Otways and Dargo in eastern Victoria. There are hundreds of homes and structures right across our great state destroyed or damaged and livelihoods disrupted. For those families, there are no words that can fully ease the shock and sense of loss that come with that destruction. Victorian farmers have endured lengthy drought conditions. They've then had a very good hay season with lots of fodder in the shed, only to see that go up in smoke.

I want to place on the record my deepest gratitude to our fabulous volunteers, firefighters and emergency personnel, who stood between the fire and our communities, often leaving their own families and properties to protect others, and to council staff, mayors and councillors who stood up to serve and provide support for their communities. The men and women of the CFA, the SES and other emergency services, many of them volunteers, worked hard in extreme heat. This was emblematic of the courage and selflessness that define rural and regional communities.

I want to pass on my thanks to Telstra, for their prompt action to install communication to several fire affected areas, and to Minister McBain, who responded quickly to my request once she got that information. I've been the emergency management minister—it's incredibly difficult—and I thank her for her response. To the Victorian state MPs who assisted, thank you too.

Here we go again—divorce No. 2 for the coalition. Clearly, they both have their divorce lawyers on speed dial! And it's been a bumpy ride. But wait—there is hope. Apparently, they were having amicable talks to get their toxic marriage back together, even though Mr Littleproud said just last week that the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, could no longer be leader if the coalition were to get back together. There's nothing like nasty divorces! Marriage counsellor No. 1, Mr John Howard, entered. He has probably been on the phone to Ms Ley every night this week and, I'm sure, during the day as well. Now I understand that Mr Barnaby Joyce's number has been deleted out of most of the Nationals' phone contacts, but I hear that One Nation has been acting as marriage counsellor No. 2, trying to woo Nationals to defect to One Nation. There's never a dull moment in this place.

Just when you think the Liberals and the Nationals no longer have any electoral credibility, three men come riding in on their white horses—or was it a white RAV4; I'm not really sure. The Liberal boys got together on the morning of the funeral for one of their former colleagues. They met to divide up their world—that is, the Liberal Party—to decide who would be the next ruler and to decide when they were going to bump off the very first female leader of the Liberal Party. Now, colleagues, we just have to wait and see what wedding date they set. I wish the new union to be months of wedded bliss. But while they keep fighting on the other side, the nation-building is being done by the— (Time expired)

Australia's Commonwealth laws still allow faith based institutions to lawfully discriminate against people, whether they be teachers at schools, patients in hospitals or people relying on essential services like housing. Let's be clear. Religious belief should not be a licence to discriminate. When an organisation provides education, health care, housing or crisis support to people, it should follow the same rules as everyone else. No-one should lose their rights because of the religious belief of the organisation that runs the service they rely on.

This discrimination, of course, impacts on the LGBTIQA+ Australians in particular. Students and teachers should feel safe at school no matter who they are. Patients should receive care at hospitals no matter who they are. People in crisis should never be excluded from support no matter who they are. The Australian Law Reform Commission has been clear: religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws undermine human rights and cause real harm, and this particularly applies to LGBTIQA+ Australians.

The Greens respect freedom of religion. Belief and worship are, and should be, protected. Australians are ready to move on from outdated carve-outs that allow discrimination on the basis of religion. Labor promised action. This term must be the term when Labor finally delivers. The numbers are there for reform in both chambers of this parliament—if only Labor would act. If Labor refuses to act, the Greens will. (Time expired)

Australia likes to think that it has a two-party system, but what we really have is a political photocopier. Labor presses the button, and the Liberals take the copy. Sometimes they change the letterhead, but that's about it. A two-party system only works when there is a genuine contest of ideas, strong values and competing visions—socialism versus capitalism, big government versus small, control versus freedom. But when the major parties mimic each other and quietly collude, that system collapses. That is exactly what we are watching in real time. The proof is in the polls. Voters are abandoning the major parties because they can see the game. Labor and the Liberals came together on hate speech laws to criminalise Australians for saying the 'wrong thing'. They came together on electoral reforms designed to lock new entrants out and lock themselves in. Time and time again, we see them nod along together to the World Health Organization, even the United Nations, like junior managers terrified of upsetting head office.

The two-party system has failed our country. It has failed Australia and must be torn down. But voting alone will not rescue Australia. People must get involved at a grassroots level. They must join parties, participate in preselections and put their hands up to run. That is how you break a duopoly. Reject the careerists, whose only ambition is to toe the party line and preserve their crappy jobs. The two-party system didn't fail because it existed; it failed because the two parties are almost identical. The jig is up, and it should excite anyone who genuinely cares about the future of this country. Both sides of this chamber have failed Australia.

On Boxing Day last year, Australia lost a visionary, an extraordinary marine scientist, a gifted educator and communicator, and a wife and mother: Professor Emma Johnston, AO. Her passing was felt not only across the scientific community but across every corner of the country that cares deeply about our oceans and our natural environment.

I met Emma in my role as Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef. Emma was a board member of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and her contribution to the reef authority and the Great Barrier Reef was second to none. Emma's work was defined by curiosity, rigour and deep compassion for our natural environment. She completed her doctorate in marine ecology at the University of Melbourne and built a career dedicated to understanding how human activities impact marine ecosystems from Sydney Harbour all the way to the Great Barrier Reef and beyond. She authored 185 peer reviewed research articles, supervised dozens of students and helped shape the very fabric of environmental science in Australia.

Emma has been remembered as a communicator who was tactfully able to bridge the gap between complex research and public understanding. Whether she was on television or in lecture halls, she communicated with the same clarity, warmth and passion that defined her leadership.

I was lucky enough to see Emma at the Prime Minister's Prizes for Science dinner in 2024. She'd just been appointed as the first female vice-chancellor of the University of Melbourne. My thoughts are with Sam and with her family, friends, loved ones, colleagues and the broader reef community feeling this loss. Vale, Emma Johnston.

February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, which is held each year to educate, advocate and elevate awareness of ovarian cancer. I recently met with a Canberran who shared the story of her daughter-in-law Heidi, a much loved young woman raised in Bungendore with a deep connection to our city. Heidi died in July last year, just three months after her stage IV ovarian cancer diagnosis in April. She was just 35 years old.

What struck me most about Heidi's story was how long it took for her cancer to be diagnosed, followed by how rapidly the disease progressed. Almost 2,000 Australian women and girls will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year. In most cases the cancer will be diagnosed at an advanced stage. The five-year survival rate for many gynaecological cancers is still below 50 per cent. This has been largely unchanged since 1975. It's worse if you're a First Nations woman, a woman who lives regionally or in remote areas of the country, or a woman just living in the wrong postcode.

We need to do better, and there is a way forward. We need to allocate the resources and invest in research, plug gaps in the coordination of care, upskill doctors at the front line and, importantly, just believe women when they say that something is wrong.

Heidi's mother-in-law, Belinda, who joined us this morning for the 12th annual Ovarian Cancer Australia parliamentary breakfast, asked me to speak her words to the chamber: 'I plead with those here today who have compassion and who are committed to Australian women and their families. Please put every resource possible behind halting this runaway train that is ovarian cancer. This appalling history of underinvestment and neglect of our daughters, sisters, mothers and partners must end here—in Heidi's name.'

King Charlie, old mate, how have you been? It's me, Lidia, the angry black woman from Down Under. I hear you have a new representative in the Northern Territory—David Connolly, a man with serious power, a man who will live in Government House and, officially, the man who represents you in the Territory. I'm sure you're aware that he's someone who's mocked Aboriginal culture, made fun of our language, blamed us for crime, joked about domestic violence and attacked trans people online. Oh, and let's not forget that one about the Prime Minister and the whale's anus. Surely you've heard about all of this, Charlie. After all, he is your new man in the Territory, your proxy—your vibe, right?

I'm sure you'd know that the Prime Minister signed off on David's appointment and that, since some of David's unsavoury views have emerged, the Prime Minister has refused to sack him. See, the PM says it would be unprecedented to do that. I guess he's right. There's not much of a precedent in this country for men of power and privilege being held to account for racism and bigotry. I guess the PM could try to change that precedent, but then again maybe he just doesn't care. Instead, old mate Charlie, I thought I'd ask you directly. King Coloniser, is this really the sort of person who represents you? Give me a buzz.

There's a longstanding convention that we refer to people by their appropriate titles no matter how we feel about them. I'm sure the King of England should be referred to appropriately.

Senator Thorpe, could you consider using the appropriate title as you proceed.

He knows that I call him King Coloniser. He was okay with it when I spoke to him, as we all know. So, King Coloniser, give me a buzz if you want to have a yarn.

Labor is bad for families. Inflation is up, four per cent is on the horizon and, according to the Reserve Bank's own analysis, it's likely to go even higher. Interest rates are on the rise once again, the cost of living is through the roof and the standards of living of every Australian family are falling. Labor is bad for small business. Electricity prices in particular are killing small business, such as the Albany strawberry grower I talked to who said his electricity bill is up by thousands of dollars per month, the potato grower in Pemberton who's seen an increase of $20,000 in a year and the grain processor in the Great Southern who sees an extra $4,000 every month on their bottom line.

Labor is bad for the bush. The killing of the live export trade from my home state has been devastating for the sheep industry. A 50 per cent decline in sheep numbers in Western Australia is on the cards in the very near future. We've seen the firearm changes, which again are going to make it harder for those living in the bush. Labor is bad for the weekend. The New Vehicle Efficiency Standard is going to price out for many families the four-wheel drives they use for recreation on the weekend and, incidentally, that they also need for their businesses in the future. I've spoken to the car dealers in Geraldton and I've spoken to the car dealers in Albany who talk about the fact that that $10,000-plus increase in those four-wheel drive prices will make a real difference and that Labor is bad for Western Australia. The reintroduction of the union movement to the mining sector is a disaster. (Time expired)

Last week, like thousands of children across Australia, my daughter, Zara, started her first year of primary school, excited to dive straight into learning. A lifetime of adventure awaits her. She is desperate to learn to read and write like her brother, to add and subtract, and to create lots of little friendships. As we take on this adventure as a family, I am so grateful for the foundation of the early education she had before. I've spoken in this chamber often of the transformational power of high-quality early education and how it can help unlock the magic of learning in the early years and unlock that incredible brain development that happens in the early years. Educators do life-changing nation-building work every single day, and we are grateful for every moment of their work.

It is my deepest ambition that every child in Australia can experience this too. Every child deserves access to a brilliant early education, and, if we can provide that for them, we amplify our power to smash intergenerational disadvantage, to create opportunity and to rewrite our country's future. It couldn't be more exciting and it is within our reach. From January this year, Australian children are eligible for three days of subsidised early childhood education and care because of our government. It's life-changing, it's good for kids, it's good for families and it's good for our economy. (Time expired)

We will now move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Across the government's housing funds, how many dwellings have now been completed because of Commonwealth support since Labor came to office? What is the number? I'm not looking for how many houses were funded, were approved or are in the pipeline. The question is: how many were completed and are available to occupy?

I wish I could ask Liberal senators questions because I would ask Senator Bragg why he, as a moderate, appears to have gone down the path that Scott Morrison was suggesting. It seems to be a very, very atypical—

I would take objection if I were you. I'd be very embarrassed. Where are the moderates?

I have a point of order on relevance. This so far has nothing to do with the content of housing.

Minister Wong had just started her answer, but I will draw her back to the question.

I can understand why you're embarrassed, Senator. I understand why you're embarrassed. I also understand why he's embarrassed too, as someone who has relationships with his community. I will now turn to the numbers that are—

I have a point of order. I ask you, President, to ask Senator Wong to direct her comments through the chair.

I'm sure that the senator knows that Senator Bragg and Senator Scarr are probably tough enough to handle me looking at them. But what I would say is this: there is a number that is very important, and that number is 373, which is the total number of social and affordable homes that the party you are a part of built in a decade. We are delivering—

I have a point of order on relevance. The question was about how many houses have been completed.

I think the minister was going to respond to your question.

We are getting on with the job of delivering 55,000 social and affordable homes.

How many?

Five thousand social and affordable homes have been completed through Commonwealth programs. A further 25,000 are in construction and planning, including over 18,000 through the HAFF, and 21,000 more social and affordable homes will be commissioned this year through the Housing Australia Future Fund.

The problem for Senator Bragg is that his is a party that has always believed that government doesn't have a role in housing, so, when he comes in here to have a go at governments doing something about it, people know he comes from a political perspective, which is apparently increasingly right wing. He is from one of the three right-wing parties. He comes from a perspective that says, 'Actually, government shouldn't have to do anything like this.' This is why he has voted consistently against what this government has brought to this chamber to try and ensure we increase supply. (Time expired)

Senator Bragg, first supplementary?

In MYEFO 2025-26, the government lifted Housing Australia's borrowing cap from $26 billion to $44 billion. How many additional completed dwellings will that extra borrowing produce and by what date?

I'm sure those details are something you will traverse ad nauseam in estimates, but what people will know is that we have completed homes and we have more on the way. What they will know about you is that you do not believe the government has a role in increasing housing supply.

Well, Senator—I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash.

That wasn't the question, Senator Wong.

It is relevant. It is relevant to the credibility of the housing spokesperson if they don't actually think government should be engaged in increasing supply. That's relevant to your credibility—or lack thereof.

Senator Bragg?

On relevance, the question was quite clear about how many dwellings will be built as a result of the extra borrowing.

Senator Bragg, I'm sure you're also aware that, if senators interject, it is quite proper for any minister to take those interjections, and Minister Wong was being directly relevant to the interjection. I would advise senators not to make an interjection.

We are unapologetic for making the changes that we believe are required to deliver the ambitious housing objectives we have. We are unapologetic for that, Senator. The reality is that we are clear that we are the only party in this place and in this country that is actually wanting to invest in and deliver more housing for Australians.

Senator Bragg, second supplementary?

I don't think you know the answer—okay. After orchestrating the largest population surge since the fifties whilst overseeing a historic collapse in housing construction, as well as driving up prices with the five per cent deposit scheme and now higher interest rates, do you now concede that Labor has failed on housing?

(—) (): Well, the answer is no. But, again, what I would say, Senator, is that you and your party have consistently opposed every aspect of our housing agenda from woe to go. You are consistent with that. It would be better if you could front up to the Australian people and say, 'Actually, you know what? We don't think that government has a role in ensuring more housing supply,' because that would be a more honest thing to do than coming in here and asking questions, pretending to care. You don't care because you don't actually believe that government should be doing this. We have a different view. We want to build more houses for more Australians because we understand what housing means to Australians. We want to provide more social and affordable housing. We want to add to the private housing supply. And we want to ensure that homeownership is within reach of more Australians. That is the difference between the Labor Party and the divided three parties on the right. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has focused on dealing with the inflation challenge across the economy and getting the budget into better shape. How has the government approached this task while maintaining low unemployment and growth across the economy?

I thank Senator Dolega for the question. It's an important question about how this government has managed the budget over the last three years and the approach we will take going forward.

Responsible economic management has been a defining feature of the Albanese government. December's MYEFO was the only one on record that delivered a better bottom line in every year of the forward estimates, less debt in every year of the forward estimates and net policy decisions that improve the bottom line. On this combination of measures, it's the most responsible mid-year update on record. Since we've come to government, we've delivered the biggest nominal turnaround in the budget in history—$233.5 billion improvement across the budget on our watch. We've found $114 billion in savings since coming to government. Gross debt this year is $176 billion lower than what we inherited when those opposite lost government in 2022.

The progress we've made on the budget means that we've been able to avoid more than $60 billion in interest payments alone. We've been able to do that whilst at the same time making sure that we have seen stronger jobs growth across the economy. Getting the budget in better shape has been important to that. Getting wages moving again has been important to that. Making sure women get a better deal across the economy has also been a key priority for this government. We will continue with this approach.

It's in stark contrast to what we saw when those opposite were in government. We saw deficits and promises of surpluses never delivered. We have delivered two surpluses, we have lessened the deficit in every year from what we inherited in 2022, we have been finding savings and we have been able to manage and progress through more in important areas. (Time expired)

Senator Dolega, first supplementary?

Job creation and getting wages moving again has been an essential part of the Albanese Labor government's economic plan. How has strengthening the budget supported these objectives while keeping the focus on lowering inflation and supporting households with the cost of living?

I thank the senator for his question because it is an important one, again, about jobs. We on this side of the chamber understand the importance of having a job and being able to create jobs in new areas but also support good wage outcomes, something that again those opposite ignored during their entire time in government.

It is important to recognise that we've been able to manage in this high-inflation time that we've had over the last three years an unemployment rate at 4.1 per cent—that is what it was in December—and a labour force participation rate rising to 66.7 per cent. In December, 65,000 more people were in work, which takes the number of Australians employed to a record high of 14,684,000. This shows that we've got a labour market that continues to grow, creating opportunities for all Australians, with full-time jobs accounting for the vast majority of the increase in employment over that month. (Time expired)

Senator Dolega, a second supplementary?

How will the Albanese Labor government continue strengthening the budget and delivering meaningful reform while also supporting Australians with cost-of-living pressures?

Thanks, Senator Dolega, for that question as well. The government, as we enter all of the intense work periods over the next few months in the lead-up to the budget, will of course be looking at how we can support Australians with cost-of-living pressures, how we manage the budget and how we find savings not only to return to budget to lower the debt and deficit that we inherited from those opposite but also to make sure that we have room for important priorities, whether they be in defence, health, dealing with the pressures in the NDIS, which Minister McAllister is leading on, or aged care. All of these are areas where we are seeing continued demand. We're managing that and providing cost-of-living assistance with the tax cuts that will come in. We have a load of measures that we've already introduced, including increasing PPL and issues like that, that we will continue to roll out to support households across Australia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, yesterday the Reserve Bank of Australia announced a decision that many struggling Australian families had feared but hoped wouldn't happen—a large interest rate rise. Yesterday, you did not know how much—or you refused to tell us how much—your government's interest rate rise would increase monthly repayments for someone with a $600,000 mortgage. Minister, how much more a month will the government's interest rate rise cost hardworking Australians who have a $600,000 mortgage?

I'm going to answer in the same way I answered yesterday, which is that it depends on a range of factors. I will leave it to Senator Scarr to work out the various scenarios if he chooses to do so. Our focus is on supporting households while they deal with cost-of-living pressures across the economy.

Yet Australians are still doing it tougher.

We recognise that people are under pressure. When we have brought measures to this chamber to support households with those pressures, what has happened over on the other side? What has happened, Senator Cash? You have voted no every single time, whether it be on energy bill rebates, housing investments or some of the investments we've done in health on cheaper medicines. Remember how they fought tooth and nail to make sure that we couldn't allow people to have 60 days prescribing to actually pay half the price of medicines? 'Oh, no. You're not allowed that. We want you to pay twice as much as you should'—that was the position over there. So I am not going to be lectured by Senator Scarr and others about how to support households when inflation is higher than we would like.

We on this side get that households are under pressure, and that's why all of us turn up to work every day not to fight each other in a race to the Sky interview room but to actually think about our constituents, the people that we were sent here to serve. That's what we are doing. Every single day that's what this group does. We talk about how to help people, and we watch in shock and horror as you tear each other apart. We cannot believe it—the indulgent exercise that we have witnessed for the last month or so as you tear each other down while we are turning up to work every day to make sure we look after people and do everything we can to help them at this point in time.

Senator Scarr, first supplementary?

Queenslanders will note that there was no answer to that question. Minister, how many more interest rate rises will hardworking Australians with a mortgage have to endure before you realise that your government's failure to reduce spending is causing this problem?

I think the people of Queensland are looking at you lot and are shocked, frankly, at the way you are behaving. I think that's what they'll be thinking right now.

I think it's clear from Senator Scarr's question that he hasn't read the Statement on monetary policy which was released yesterday alongside the bank's decision. If he had, he would have read the analysis that the bank put out about what they see as the most significant drivers of pressure on inflation in the economy, and he would have seen that, according to the bank, the upside surprise has been in the area of private demand. And, in fact, government spending doesn't feature as part of that. We will continue to do what we have done after inheriting inflation accelerating at six per cent and rising when you left government. It is much lower than that now, but the job is not done.

Senator Scarr, second supplementary?

Senator Scarr had read the statement, and he'd also read all the views of the expert economists as well. When will you say sorry to families who will lose their homes because Labor's policies are keeping interest rates higher for longer?

I do like Senator Scarr in the third person; thank you for that. The answer to that question is similar to the one I gave to the first question. We on this side of the chamber recognise that people are under pressure, and that's why we're doing something about it. We're not just acknowledging it; we're doing something about it. There are tax cuts for every taxpayer coming in July this year and next year. We've got our bulk-billing incentive. We've got the cheaper medicines that you opposed. You go and explain to a roomful of Australians why you wanted them to pay double for their prescription every month. Why did you take that position and then come in here and say you've got concerns about people under pressure? We're doing something about it. There are cheaper medicines. We're backing higher wages and we've cut HECS debt by 20 per cent. There are a range of actions underway by this government to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australian households.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher, representing the Treasurer. Housing cost is the single biggest contributor to recent inflation. The RBA governor yesterday singled out credit growth as a cause for concern. We know that property investors borrowed a record high $40 billion in the last three months of last year alone, and that was largely to buy existing homes, not new builds. Investors are flooding into the market at record rates, and the Labor government is giving them massive tax handouts to help them push up house prices. Will Labor use this budget to cut these unfair tax handouts for property investors and give renters and first home buyers a real shot at buying a home?

I thank Senator Waters for the question. This government is rolling out, as Senator Wong outlined in an earlier answer, a very ambitious housing agenda that we started in 2022 when we came to government, to make sure that we are doing everything we can to increase the supply of housing across the economy. That has been our focus. Our tax policies on housing haven't changed.

We've said a number of times—I've heard the Treasurer say it a number of times; I know it was raised at the Economic Reform Roundtable—that we do think there are intergenerational issues in housing. Our work over the last three years or so has been on the supply side and on making sure that we are doing everything we can, whether it's working with the states and territories to deal with some of the planning and regulation around housing that delay the construction of housing and add to costs or whether it is actually dealing with the social and affordable end of the housing market, which the Housing Australia Future Fund plays a role in. Our social housing accelerator is another example where we have, again, worked hard to target some of that assistance to deliver increased supply, and we are seeing some early good signs in terms of building approvals, new dwelling construction and dwelling commencements. We are seeing some pleasing signs in that area.

The measures that all governments across Australia—it's not just the Commonwealth government but all of us—are working on to deliver an outcome on housing are starting to work. There is more to do, and we will consider all of these things as we put the budget together over the next few months.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

There's speculation today that Labor will reform the capital gains tax discount in this year's budget. According to Treasury, an astonishing 54 per cent of this tax handout goes to the wealthiest one per cent and just four per cent of it goes to people under 35. This is the most unfair tax handout in the Commonwealth tax code. When will Labor scrap this handout to the one per cent?

As I said in answer to the earlier question, our tax policies haven't changed. In relation to tax reform, we do have a number of reforms underway, and we've said repeatedly that we're up to considering further work, particularly work that comes out of the Economic Reform Roundtable.

When we're looking at what we've got to do now, we've got instant deductions to implement, we've got better targeted super to get through the parliament, we've got the tax cuts that will come in over the next little while and we've got the low-income tax offset in super that we will also need to implement. All of that is underway. I think you can see that we have a range of areas of tax reform underway, but our position on housing and tax has not changed.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

On another unfair tax handout the Greens have called out for decades, scrapping fuel tax credits, which give cheap diesel to big mining companies, would free up around $8 billion a year, which could be used for cost-of-living relief to households. If Labor is going to cut spending to deal with inflation, will you cut this unfair fossil fuel subsidy for big mining companies?

I think, in the earlier answer, I covered the areas where we are currently working in tax reform. It's delivering on the tax cuts we took to the last election. It's our better targeted superannuation reform. It's the instant deduction, which was also an election commitment of ours. It's the low-income super tax offset that we have announced. All of those areas are the focus. In relation to other areas of tax, our policies haven't changed.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government is driving new investment in world-class industrial firms in regional Australia. The National Reconstruction Fund recently announced a $75 million investment in Alpha HPA, a high-purity alumina company in Gladstone, Queensland. Minister, why is high-purity alumina such a crucial part of our global tech supply chains? What will the funding mean for Alpha HPA? How many new jobs, in Gladstone in particular, will be generated by this investment?

I'd like to thank Senator Mulholland for her question about the National Reconstruction Fund's most recently announced project. Alpha HPA, in Central Queensland, is a fantastic development for Australia and a fantastic development for Gladstone and Central Queensland. High-purity alumina is a critical input in artificial intelligence data centre cooling systems, in semiconductors and in all sorts of pharmaceutical and battery supply chains around the world. And Gladstone, Queensland, will be the home of the world's largest high-purity alumina production facility because of the Albanese government's National Reconstruction Fund's investment in that facility, crowding in $225 million, which will open a factory that provides 420 construction jobs and then 120 permanent blue-collar, trades, production and engineering jobs, 80 of them in Gladstone in Central Queensland.

That is world-class manufacturing in a Central Queensland regional economy that the National Party in particular have left for dead. They have walked away from the key issues that will drive competitiveness and blue-collar jobs in regional areas. The local member, Mr Boyce—remember him?—has always opposed—

Well, he's doing a pretty good job of promoting himself. I watched his interview on Sky. We'll come back to him in a minute, I suppose.

Order! I'm waiting for order. Senator Watt and Senator McKenzie, order! Senator Mulholland, first supplementary.

It is refreshing to see a government interested in delivering regional jobs, not just getting more jobs for the boys, in this place. That is why the Albanese government set up the National Reconstruction Fund: to drive industrial investment, deliver good blue-collar jobs and make the economy more resilient and productive. As the Alpha HPA investment in Gladstone shows, the government is delivering for regional Queensland. Why is it important for the government to back Australian industrial firms in the regions?

Senator McKenzie, you may have moved down the chamber, but your interjections are just as loud. Some might think that's quite an achievement. I'm not one of them, and I'm asking you to lower your voice. Minister Ayres.

I suppose they'll get a question at some point this week, I guess. But the alternative views, the people standing in the way of the National Reconstruction Fund and the Future Made in Australia program—which is Australia's largest ever pro-manufacturing package—are poor old One Nation, Mr Boyce and his friends over here in the once-proud National Party, and the Liberal Party, who have opposed electricity development for industry in Australia, who have opposed the National Reconstruction Fund, delivering 520 jobs in this one announcement in regional Australia, and who have an utterly contemptible approach to industrial policy. You hear Senator McKenzie: 'He got a swing to him.' Well, what happened when he was in government? Industrial jobs flooded offshore—imported ideas, exported manufacturing jobs.

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary.

It's been a wild old week in this place. Senator Ayres, why do investors need clear and coherent policy to have the confidence to back Australian industry? And what parts of the community are affected if policy is incoherent?

Thank you, Senator Mulholland, again, for the question. What the Liberals and Nationals have done is import weird, extremist foreign ideas and export Australian manufacturing jobs whenever they've had the chance. This government, by contrast, is providing a partnership with the private sector in the investment community, which is delivering good-quality blue-collar jobs, good-quality engineering and trades opportunities, and good opportunities for start-up Australian businesses that will rebuild the manufacturing sector that Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie and all these characters over there have been utterly dedicated to destroying. We will work with industry to deliver the future electricity and future energy that is going to deliver manufacturing jobs for decades to come. That's what we're about.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Minister Gallagher. The Commonwealth Ombudsman found that in 2019 Services Australia became aware that its administration of child support was not compliant with the law, resulting in some parents who were legally entitled to child support not receiving it. The Ombudsman found that Services Australia made a deliberate decision not to apply the law as written and continued that practice for years. Minister, why was a government funded agency allowed to knowingly continue administering a program in breach of the law once that noncompliance had been identified?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. This is an issue that we have talked about, and indeed we have discussed at estimates some of the issues that have arisen around the implementation of income support payments and areas where agencies have been advised that they are not in compliance with the law and where the policy intent is not necessarily supported by the legal framework.

Since coming into this portfolio, I have been discussing this with Services Australia but also the policy department under Minister Plibersek to consolidate all the areas where there are concerns. There are some where it's around legal compliance. There are others where it's around policy compliance. We're trying to pull that all together and work our way through how we are addressing each one of them. There are a number of areas, and we have fixed up a couple of those in the bill that was passed in December. There is another bill coming in—I think it's coming into the House next week—that deals with a number of other areas. I think there will be further amendments that we will have to bring to this chamber to deal with it where the understanding was that there weren't any legal compliance issues but where new advice has provided that there are. We are working through all of those.

It is not discretionary about whether government agencies follow the law. They must follow the law. Where there are issues identified, where compliance has been questioned or not supported by legal advice, then the job is to bring it here and deal with those matters and address them through amendments or by changing the way it's implemented through Services Australia.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Minister, the Ombudsman found that this was not an administrative error or an IT failure but a conscious decision to continue a practice known to be unlawful. Does the minister accept that knowingly choosing not to apply the law is a failure of governance and, if so, who has been held accountable for that decision?

The issue that you talk about, which is covered by the Ombudsman report, dates back a number of years. Certainly, since I have taken the portfolio on, I have tried to coordinate and pull together all of the areas where there are concerns around the law and compliance with the law. I know Services Australia takes the Ombudsman's recommendations very seriously and is working to implement all of those recommendations. I am advised that all the recommendations will be implemented by the end of January.

There are further legislative amendments that I alluded to in my last answer that need to be prioritised and are being prioritised by the government, giving the relevant status to get those amendments in and before the parliament as soon as possible. But it is a big piece of work that we need to get done, and I imagine, as we continue, there will be other issues identified that get added to this coordination approach to deal with it. (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary?

So no-one has been held accountable as yet. The ombudsman found that the Department of Social Services was aware of this unlawful administration by 2020, yet detailed briefings to ministers did not occur until late 2025, more than five years later. Is the minister saying she was not informed for five years about a known, ongoing breach of the law, or that she was informed and no action was taken? In either case, how is that consistent with ministerial responsibility?

That is my understanding—the issue was first uncovered in 2019. Obviously, we were not in government until 2022, and I did not get the government services portfolio permanently until May this year. Since coming into government and into this position, and being briefed on some of these issues, I have, with Minister Plibersek, pulled together a range of issues. There are issues around legal compliance, and there are issues that can be fixed without amendments to the law and that need to be dealt with, and we are dealing with those. We're also looking at impact on customers as a way of prioritising that. I think in the last estimates we advised the committee there were more than 144 areas that we were working on—this is certainly one of them, and it is being prioritised. But I can only answer for the time I have been in the job. I would say we are holding the portfolio agencies responsible. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Banks are passing on interest rate rises, and families today are making more sacrifices to afford higher home loan repayments as a result of Labor's rising inflation. A family in Bendigo with a $500,000 home loan on a medium-priced property faces an extra $950 a year on repayments, and under Labor's big spending inflation is likely to remain above target for some time, with the risk of further increases in rates coming months. When will the government accept responsibility for its contribution to rising inflation, which will cause millions of Australian families, homeowners and small businesses financial pain?

It's a very similar question to the one Senator Scarr asked; obviously, you hadn't shared those questions. My answer is that yesterday's news will be very difficult for those households on mortgages, and we acknowledge that and we are acting upon it.

In relation to the claim that government spending, specifically the claim about the federal government—when the bank looks at all governments across Australia and the decisions they're taking—it was not cited as a reason for the decision yesterday. That is just a fact.

It's always someone else's fault!

I'm not trying to shift accountability or responsibility here. I'm standing and answering it. The point is, if you read the statement on monetary policy, the pressure that is adding to inflation in the economy in the latest data, as the bank outlined, has been the upside on private demand. That is just the reality.

On the budget handling, we have found $114 billion worth of savings. Frankly, when you were in government, you didn't come anywhere near that—nowhere near it. We got rid of the buckets of funds and waste that you had buried into your budget as payoffs to the Nationals at that point in time—regional buckets of funding that were buried in the budget as wasteful spending. We got rid of it. We have cleaned up the budget. We have got it in much better shape, with lower deficits, lower debt and lower interest. We delivered two surpluses, which the governor herself has pointed to as being very helpful, and we will continue that approach in the budget in May.

Senator McKenzie, a first supplementary?

The Reserve Bank said 'some of the increase in inflation reflects greater capacity pressures'. This is a clear shot at your government's failure to address the productivity crisis. Industrial relations laws, failure to reform tax or reduce red tape, high-cost green policies that you said would be cheap but are not, runaway spending on the $52 billion—and climbing—NDIS. When will the government take action to reduce the percentage of government spending across our economy that is now at a 40-year high? (Time expired)

():  I don't accept a lot of what was in that question at all, and it was factually incorrect. The highest-spending government was the Howard government, and it was not to be outdone by the COVID spending that occurred. Let's be honest here: in relation to government spending, we have found $114 billion dollars worth of savings. When you sat in the cabinet room, Senator McKenzie, I don't think you found 20 cents, to be honest.

Proportionate to the economy.

Senator McKenzie!

I don't think you found a cent that went into savings. You spent a lot. The Nats spent a lot. I can see ministers and, yes, they're nodding. Liberal ministers are nodding because they know what the story was. There were buckets of cash that went out to the regions without any detail. You didn't find a cent. We found $114 billion, and there is more work to do. (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Yesterday's statement on monetary policy was a warning to the government. It sits alongside warnings from the IMF, the OECD and international ratings agencies that speak to your government's spending. With inflation likely to remain high for some time, what changes in policy will the government now adopt to protect families from the threats of further rate increases and cost increases as a result of inflation?

The government will continue its responsible budget management. We will continue to look at how we provide effective cost-of-living support. If you read all of the statement on monetary policy, you would have seen that the governor herself pointed out that the economy has a lot going for it. It's growing faster than other economies, other than the US.

It's not working. It handbrakes the government.

Senator McKenzie!

Unemployment is low. When you look at comparable countries—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Wong?

I appreciate always—well, not always—Senator McKenzie's contribution to the chamber, but it is becoming somewhat repetitive. I would ask you to draw her to order. She is interjecting without a break.

Senator Wong, before you stood, I did call Senator McKenzie to order. Senator McKenzie, you are currently doing a running commentary alongside the minister. I ask you to sit in silence for the remainder of her answer. Minister Gallagher?

We have low unemployment. We've managed to keep unemployment lower than comparable countries. That matters. People have stayed in employment, earning wages—and we are supporting wage increases. There are strengths in our economy. Business investment is rebounding. We're seeing all of those things. Yes, we have to manage the inflation challenge, and the government will do that in the budget.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. In my home state of WA, the median house price in Perth has recently hit $1 million. It won't be long before it overtakes Vancouver. For Western Australians, initiatives like the Australian government's five per cent deposit scheme mean either signing up to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more to the bank in interest or missing the chance to own their own home as prices continue to push upwards. Minister, my constituents are curious. Why has the government forced first home buyers to choose between these two bad options?

Just before I call Senator Ayres, I alert my Tasmanian senators to the presence in the gallery of a state parliamentary colleague, Meg Brown. Senator Ayres?

I suspect that that won't be the first Vancouver joke that I get, but I'm delighted to have Senator Payman's question 'aboot' the housing questions. The truth, Senator Payman, is that the five per cent deposit scheme that was introduced by this government is a life-changing intervention for many, many young Australians.

It's all very well. I've heard some of the heckling this time from our friends in the Greens political party, sneering from the vantage point of the homes that they own at young Australians who just want to have a go and who just want to get a foot on the ladder. It's alright to sneer from the Max Chandler-Mather dinner party position. I understand it's the 'nuanced strategy position'. But ordinary people, young Australians—this has been, for many of them, the first time that they have seen an opportunity for themselves to be able to save a deposit and get in there. Unhappily for Senator Bragg's negative-Nancy argument, they have been doing it in droves, hand over fist—getting them and their partners and them and their families, for the first time, into a home. That is what Labor is about: driving action and supply and giving people a fair crack at having a go at the housing market. That is something that I thought you might have supported. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

My constituents, particularly young families who hope to own their Newfoundland one day, have told me the dream of homeownership is slipping away. They tell me they're sick of the major parties passing this issue back and forth like a hockey puck. They also know that the five per cent deposit scheme will put up prices. Minister, does the government believe that saddling few Australians with a bigger mortgage and putting housing further out of reach for many more is a good deal?

Senator Payman, I'd leave the jokes to Senator McGrath, he's done a better job over the course of the last 24 hours, I think. I'm not sure what the evidence base that you have from your incoming Facebook and Instagram is for these questions, but I can tell you that 220,000 Australians, since we have come to office, have accessed that scheme so that they are able to, instead of facing a 10 per cent deposit—that is just such a long way away for many ordinary people particularly young people—access a five per cent deposit, get into the housing market, improve their home, make decisions about family life, expand their families and accrue the benefits of the capital gains. I know the Greens don't like it. (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Minister, we don't know for sure what the Treasury think, because the government have refused to release their modelling. OPD 208, which sought modelling on the five per cent deposit scheme, was agreed to on 3 November last year. The Minister for Housing asked for an extension more than two months ago. Like maple syrup without pancakes, it doesn't stack up. Why is the government covering up these documents which were ordered to be produced 93 days ago?

This government has complied with more orders for the production of documents in any one term than any Australian government ever. This includes, just yesterday, an order moved by Senator Bragg for a congratulatory letter. Mate, if you want a congratulatory letter, I'm sure I can organise one for you!

The one that Senator Payman refers to includes ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails, instant messages and electronic messages. We have produced 3,995 pages worth of documents in Housing. That's more than three times longer than the full trilogy of The Lord of the Rings. It's about eight times as long as poor old Senator Bragg's last book—self-published no doubt!

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. In its first term, the Albanese Labor government delivered cost-of-living relief to all Australians by cutting the cost of medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. On 1 January, the government continued its record, delivering more affordable and accessible health care to Australians. How is the government delivering cheaper medicines for all Australians?

Thank you, Senator Brown. Since 1 January, I think you'll all know, there's been a lot of discussion about the year 2016 and there have been a lot of senators jumping on this trend—the difference between 2016 and 2026. I'd actually suggest that the date we should be talking about is probably 2004, because that is the last time that PBS medicines were as cheap as they are now.

From 1 January this year, families are paying no more than $25 when they are filling a prescription on the PBS. That is a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS. It means that Australians will save more than $200 million a year. We've also frozen the cost of PBS medicines for pensioners and concession cardholders. That cost is frozen at its current level of $7.70 until 2030.

But, as Senator Gallagher has already reminded the chamber, every single one of these measures was opposed by the Liberals, by the Nationals and by One Nation. They have been so busy focusing on themselves, looking for political angles and focusing on their internal factional arrangements. If they had got their way—if the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation had got their way—the maximum PBS general patient copayment would be more than $50 in 2026. I'll be really clear. Under those opposite, people would be paying twice as much per script as they are paying now, and it tells you everything about their priorities. They have got a lot of agendas, but helping Australian families is not one of them.

Senator Brown, first supplementary?

Minister, helping Australians access affordable health care when and where they need it is a priority of the Albanese Labor government. In the new year, how has the government delivered new supports so Australians have even greater access to health care?

From 1 January, if you need expert health advice, or reassurance, every Australian can get free health advice through 1800MEDICARE, and the registered nurses are there 24/7. They are there to provide advice and refer you to the health service that you need, whether that's your regular GP, your local hospital or a Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. If you do need urgent assistance, the triage nurses can connect you to a free telehealth session with a 1800MEDICARE GP via phone or via video. They will also be available all weekend and on weeknights between 6 pm and 8 am. We expect that about 250,000 Australians will avoid an unnecessary trip to a hospital emergency department each year thanks to 1800MEDICARE. If you need mental health support you can access Medicare's free Mental Health Check In service, because we want to make sure Australians can access free mental health care when they need it. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Minister, how do the new measures delivered on 1 January complement other actions that the Albanese Labor government is taking to strengthen Medicare and improve Australia's primary healthcare system? Why has the government chosen this approach?

We are expanding the availability of free urgent health care. There are now 122 Medicare Urgent Care Clinics open across Australia. They are giving our hospitals, our GPs and our communities the support that they need. The Albanese Labor government has also delivered the largest investment in the history of Medicare—$8½ billion—and since our investment started there are now 3,300 Medicare bulk-billing practices nationwide. Over 1,200 of those clinics were previously mixed billing under the arrangements that were put in place by those opposite. That's why we take the approach we do. We had to take action. Under those opposite the bulk-billing rates were in freefall because of the coalition's six-year freeze of the Medicare rebate, which ripped billions out of the Medicare system.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. On 29 January 2025, the Prime Minister enthusiastically endorsed his treasurer when he said:

The worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us.

A year later inflation is now at 3.8 per cent, well outside the Reserve Bank's target band and higher than in every major advanced economy. Indeed the Prime Minister's finance minister, just 25 minutes ago, said that the job is not yet done. Australians were promised relief. Instead they're facing higher prices, higher interest rates and falling living standards. Minister, was the Prime Minister's treasurer wrong then, or is he wrong now?

I first welcome Senator Hume back to the Senate and back to Senate question time. It's good to see you back.

When did she leave the Senate? She's not Canadian.

He's enjoying that far too much. Senator Hume, inflation remains higher than we would like. The Treasurer and Senator Gallagher have been upfront about that. We are upfront about that. I would make this point: it is certainly lower than the peak that existed and much lower than that which we inherited. I think you as a former shadow finance minister would know that: when we came to government, inflation was much higher, and it is at a much lower rate now than it was when we came to government.

It is relevant, Senator Ruston, because it is pointing out where inflation has gone. But we have been upfront, Senator Hume, about inflation being higher than we would like. As you would have heard the Treasurer and Senator Gallagher speak about yesterday and today is that the data shows the inflation challenge is a mix of temporary factors but also persistent pressures in areas like housing and temporary factors like the end of energy rebates, and increases in travel costs and the like.

I'd make the point in relation to housing that obviously one of the ways you can deal with pressure in the housing market is to add to supply, which is why I reiterate the comments I made earlier to Senator Bragg about the position he has taken your party to which is to oppose all investment in housing supply by the government. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Minister, under Labor government spending is growing at its fastest rate, outside of a recession, in nearly 40 years. Every credible economist will tell you that government spending is adding to inflationary pressure, forcing the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates higher for longer. When this was pointed out the Treasurer, he said that those economists were making political comments. Minister, why won't the Prime Minister hold this Treasurer responsible for the fact that his spending is making the Reserve Bank's job harder? (Time expired)

I'll make two comments on that. First, in relation to the SMP and the decision of the Reserve Bank, the statement made clear that the pressure on inflation is coming from private demand. So your question is predicated on an inaccuracy. Second, Senator—I hesitate to do this, but I think that question does invite it—I would remind you that you were a shadow finance minister who went to the election with a plan far higher taxes, larger deficits and more debt. This was the position that you and the shadow Treasurer—was that Mr Taylor?—this team set out to the Australian people a coalition fiscal strategy for the election that was for higher taxes, larger deficits and more debt.

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Minister, Australians are poorer today than they were four years ago. Under Labor, we've experienced the largest decline in living standards in the developed world, and it's no coincidence that it's your policy positions that have caused this. Minister, is the Prime Minister sorry or even aware that Australians are poorer under Labor?

Not only is the Prime Minister aware but he has been absolutely focused, since he was elected, on doing all that he can, as we all have, to address the cost-of-living pressures that Australians feel. Senator, can I remind you about how many of those cost-of-living measures you opposed? I mean, you come in here now and talk about cost-of-living pressures—you have no credibility, Senator.

You have no credibility on this, Senator, nor does your party or your parties, because you consistently, individually and collectively, opposed cost-of-living measures that we sought to bring in in order to address the pressures that Australians face. You opposed them. I think we all understand that inflation is a challenge, and we are working to do what is required to get inflation down. (Time expired)

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

I move:

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

What a 'come to Jesus' moment it was yesterday for the Treasurer of this country. It marked the day when the Treasurer's pantomime, this charade that he's been masquerading for the last four years, has finally come undone. It's come home to roost.

After deciding to raise the official cash rate, the RBA made an observation yesterday in its statement on monetary policy. We keep hearing from those opposite about what the statement actually said. Exactly what it said was that the fault of the circumstances that Australians are facing now with rising interest rates sits squarely with the people on that side over there, the Labor government. The RBA's statement said:

There are uncertainties about the outlook for domestic economic activity and inflation and the extent to which monetary policy is restrictive. On the domestic side, if growth in demand is stronger than expected, and growth in the economy's supply capacity remains limited, it is likely to add further to capacity pressures.

For those following along at home and wondering what all that means, the reality is that, because productivity continues to sit at record low growth rates, every time that the economy starts to get moving and starts to get going—just like a motorcar or a race car at the grid lines that's ready to start and is trying to get into gear—it's immediately held back by constraints, such as limited supply-side capacity, workforce shortages and restricted material availability.

These capacity measures mean that when demand rises supply cannot expand, because the economy cannot produce more. The RBA, the Treasury, the OECD and IMF all emphasise that productivity is the primary driver of long-run living standards and non-inflationary growth. As a result, this country is crying out for real economic reform. If yesterday did not make that obvious, frankly, nothing will.

The era of tinkering around the edges of economic reform is over. We need a government that is serious about economic reform. We need a government that is seriously looking at itself and the pressure that it is placing upon the economy because it is now—and it has been for quite some time, in fact—impacting upon Australians' ability to be able to make ends meet. We know that interest rates have a direct impact on the availability of free cash and an impact on a household's budget because those mortgages have gone up. It was disappointing news. Those families that are struggling with making ends meet yesterday received the most devastating news—that their bills and the cost of maintaining their homes and lifestyles have just gone up.

It is directly because of what this government is doing. The Treasurer is not serious about dealing with the matters that we know will seriously put downward pressure on the economy and would enable interest rates to go down and enable things to be stabilised and normalised. We know this government is not serious about tackling those things, because they're addicted to spending. They're addicted to spending your money. Taxes are your money. You've earnt it, Australians. You earnt that money, it's been given to the Australian government, they are not applying the restraint that is necessary to keep things under control, and we are seeing significant challenges. Remember that economic roundtable last year that resulted in absolutely nothing? Has anything good come out of that at all apart from just a nice, glossy brochure, a communique that was written long before the event even happened? This government is not serious about tackling economic reform. All they're serious about is putting out a nice brochure, a nice communique, without being prepared to tackle the things that matter.

While all that is happening, Australians are feeling the pain. While all that is happening, Australians are struggling to make ends meet. All they're wanting is a government that is prepared to take the difficult decisions, a government that is prepared to put their interests first rather than just following an ideology that is driving these decisions and impacting upon Australians. (Time expired)

The Liberal Party like to talk about how the government should control spending—or, as I think Senator O'Sullivan talked about, economic reform. But let's be honest about what that really means. What do the Liberal Party really want? Well, their record tells us what they really want. They don't want us to provide cost-of-living relief for Australians. They don't want us to invest in building the houses that we need to fix the housing crisis that they left our country in. They don't want us to make it more affordable for Australians to get into their own home. They don't want us to invest in Medicare and make it more affordable for Australians to see their GP. I could go on, and on, and on, because their record speaks for itself.

We should be really clear about what the Liberal Party means when they talk about the economy. They've got a lot of nerve lecturing us on the economy when they left us with inflation at 6.1 per cent and rising. Their legacy was higher spending, no savings and bigger deficits. In fact, they went to the election with promises of: bigger deficits; more debt; extraordinarily, a plan to increase taxes for every taxpayer compared to Labor's plan; and a plan to leave taxpayers, ordinary Australians, with a bill for expensive nuclear reactors because the private sector wouldn't invest in them. We are focused on the cost of living, and they are focused on themselves.

Minister Gallagher has said it in this place, the Treasurer has said it and I said it in here yesterday, too. There's no doubt inflation remains higher than we would like, and we have been honest about that. We know that Australians are doing it tough. But inflation is much lower than it was at its peak under the Liberals and much lower than what we inherited.

The data shows that the inflation challenge is a mix of temporary factors, like the end of energy rebates and an increase in travel costs and spending over summer, in addition to persistent pressures in areas like housing. These are not easy challenges to tackle. We've seen, right around the world, that inflation doesn't always moderate in a straight line. But we are committed, as a government, to doing what we can to help Australians who are under pressure. That's why we won't give in to the Liberal Party and we won't roll back our plans for more bulk-billing or more tax cuts for every taxpayer, or cheaper medicines. We'll continue to back higher wages and we'll continue to slash student debt—all policies that those opposite oppose, and all policies that those opposite would propose that we stop spending money on.

A government senator: Shame!

It is a shame. It is absolutely a shame.

MYEFO showed us that the budget is more than $233 billion better than we inherited when we came to government, and we found more than $114 billion in savings. That is responsible economic management under our government. It is the only midyear update on record that has delivered a better bottom line every year of the forward estimates—less debt in every year of the forward estimates and net policy decisions that improved the bottom line. They are the facts that the Liberals choose to ignore, time and time again.

They like to talk about experts. The IMF has recently endorsed our fiscal strategy, saying it has been effective and describing the fiscal stance as 'broadly neutral'. And the OECD has recently said there has been 'a modest tightening of fiscal policy'. So, there you have it.

We understand that Australians are still under pressure and facing cost-of-living challenges. That is why our government is committed to continuing to roll out responsible cost-of-living relief. We are committed to that hard work of responsible economic management. And we will not give in to the Liberals on the other side who are too busy focused on fighting each other and not focused on finding real solutions for ordinary Australians.

Well, those opposite seem to think the opposition here is responsible for spending, which is news to us and I'm sure news to all Australians, because it is literally the responsibility of government to manage their budget. This government is addicted to spending, and when they run out of money they come after more of yours, because, at the end of the day, the government can only spend your money. The government has no money of its own. There is only what it collects from the taxpayer. So, when they stand over there and lecture us on all the things they are delivering for Australians, mark my words, Australia: you are paying every cent of that. When they talk about the discounts they're giving on student debt, let's remember: student debt went up because inflation was out of control. So they've caused a problem and then they've come along and said: 'Have I got the solution for you! You can actually pay to solve our own problem.'

That is the problem with this government, people of Australia. They are causing problems and then trying to solve them with your hard-earned money. So, to all the tradies out there, to all the people who didn't go to university: you've actually paid for those student debts to be reduced because inflation was high because government spending is out of control. And I'm with you, Australia. I am sick and tired of this government blaming everybody else for the economic settings in our country. Australians want a government that is going to deliver the houses they are spending billions of dollars not building. They want a government who is going to deliver static conditions for them to be able to rely on the fact that their mortgage isn't going to increase, as it did yesterday, by $100 a month.

Here in Australia right now, everyday families and households are paying about $23,000 a year more in interest on their mortgages. Let that sink in for a moment: an extra $23,000 that everyday families are having to find, on top of rising electricity bills, on top of rising insurance premiums and on top of increasing grocery bills. When those opposite get up and say, 'We know Australians are doing it tough,' do they? I'm not sure that they do, because not only are everyday families doing it tough but it is pretty insulting, when they're watching—I'm sure there aren't that many people who are interested in watching this—and sitting there and being told constantly, time and time again by their government that everything is just fine and they are the most amazing economic managers of the Australian economy. It is like a slap in the face.

Let's be honest. Families here are struggling. That's if you can afford a house. If you can afford a house, you're finding $23,000 a year more. For those that are in the rental market, every single time they are going to try and find a rental home—let's remember we've had the largest surge in our population since the 1950s. You are lucky if you can find a rental home. It's amazing if you can get into the housing market, but, if you can't and you're looking for a rental, good luck trying to find one. The billions of dollars that this government is spending on not building homes is not doing anything to ease that pressure at all.

Labor has promised to build 1.2 million new homes by mid-2029. So far, they are well short on this target, and they are a quarter of the way through their own timeline. It's fair to say that for families and everyday hard-working Australians, who are just trying to make ends meet, who are just trying to make their mortgage repayments and who are just trying to find a rental house to live in, there is no ease in sight. All those opposite want to do is stand there and talk about what the Liberal Party did years ago. They've been in government. They're in their second term. It's time they took responsibility for the state of our economy, for the rising inflation, for the rising interest rates and for the lowering of our living standards for the first time in living history. (Time expired)

Welcome back to question time in the Senate. Finally we see those opposite turn up and ask some decent questions that Australians are really concerned about. I think it's pretty rich for those on the other side to stand on their feet, come in here and lecture the government, saying that we're not doing enough. You have not backed everything that we've brought to this chamber.

That's what you were doing. It's been three years.

Senator Henderson, you point to the other end of the chamber.

You may want to join, hand in hand, with the Greens down there. That's what they've done in the ACT. They're building a coalition.

Senator Wong?

Senator Henderson persistently interjects, even when you call her.

Senator Wong, I had called Senator Henderson to order. Interjections are always disorderly, Senator Henderson.

Cost-of-living measures are not a new thing. They didn't just start this week. Australians have been dealing with them, and our government have been very, very focused on that. We've heard Senator Whiteaker, who is my colleague and my friend from Western Australia, talking about the cost-of-living pressures. What we saw is that question time today kicked off with a question from the housing spokesperson, Senator Bragg, to Senator Wong, our leader of the government here, about the important issue that is housing here in Australia. It is the thing that Australians are focused on, and that's because 373 homes are all that the opposition built in a decade. It is the role of government, as Senator Wong told Senator Bragg, to ensure that there is supply of housing in the market. That's what our government is focused on. It's not a race to a Sky interview to get your grabs, to get your social media hits up. This is about ensuring that Australians are front and centre and the focus of what we do as a government, and that's what the Albanese Labor government are focused on.

Minister Gallagher went through the housing agenda after a question from the crossbench, from Senator Waters, in relation to our tax policy settings. They haven't changed. We didn't change our spots or our position or our relationships in the break. We are still addressing the intergenerational issues that have arisen, and they are about supply—putting more housing supply into the market.

Through our economic management measures, as I think Minister Gallagher mentioned, we found $114 billion in savings in the budget. We know that there are issues with the budget. We know that we need to address those in the best way they can be addressed. It should definitely not be in the shape that we inherited from the opposition. We on this side of the chamber continue to be responsible economic managers.

Minister Ayres responded to the question that was asked by another colleague of mine, Senator Payman from Western Australia, in relation to housing and the five per cent deposit. I know that Western Australians—young people and young people with families—have accessed that five per cent deposit for housing. It is something that is making a difference.

Their credibility when they come in here—we are addressing the cost of living, with cheaper medicines, bulk-billing, our largest investment in Medicare, cutting student debt and all of the things that matter to Australians and all of the things that they have told us will make a difference to the cost-of-living pressures that they have. We are getting real wages moving again.

After a decade of not just delay but just damn neglect from those opposite, their hypocrisy is deafening—to stand in this chamber and say that we are not doing the job and we are not up for the challenge in relation to inflation, managing the budget and ensuring that we find those savings. That is something we take very, very seriously.

Our government continues to work across all these areas to ensure we are making the investments, whether it's in housing, health, aged care or disability. These are all areas that we know affect Australians, and we are doing the work. Unlike those opposite, we are focused on fighting for Australians, not fighting each other.

Two thousand and seventy dollars per year—that's the answer to the question that Senator Gallagher was not able to answer. That's the answer to the question 'How much will an average mortgage holder'—at least in my home town of Sydney—'pay each year in additional interest because of the RBA's cash rate rise?' Anyone who's got a mortgage would have got an email from their bank this afternoon saying that their mortgage rate was going up and to click on a link, or maybe they put it in the email itself, saying, 'This is how much your payments are going to change each month.' I did. It came in during question time. The fact that the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, is not prepared to level with the Australian public and tell them how much this decision is going to cost them speaks volumes, I think.

We heard from this government not long ago that the inflation challenge was behind us. The Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, said just over a year ago, in January 2025:

The worst of the inflation challenge is now well and truly behind us.

We heard the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, say in July 2025:

… we have turned the corner there with inflation …

Neither of these statements has been proven to be true, because inflation is back. It's back in a big way, and that is why the Reserve Bank had to raise rates when it met on Tuesday. We've seen inflation in Australia go from 3.4 per cent on an annualised rate on the November figures to a 3.8 per cent annualised rate on December figures.

It is a uniquely Australian phenomenon that inflation is rising. In other major economies throughout the developed world, inflation is coming down. In the United States, it's 2.7 per cent and falling; Japan, 2.1 per cent and falling; Canada, 2.4 per cent and flat; the eurozone, two per cent and flat; Germany, 1.8 per cent and falling; and the UK, 3.4 per cent and falling. Every other OECD economy has inflation coming down, but in Australia it is going up. That is why—again, almost entirely alone amongst developed economies—interest rates are having to go up in Australia. Nearly every other central bank around the world—there's the exception of Japan; I'll acknowledge that—is cutting interest rates. Their last two movements have been down. In Australia we're putting interest rates up. What is the reason for that? It's straightforward—and you don't need to take our word for it; you can take any number of other people's words for it: the economy is running too hot because government spending is too high.

Just a few minutes ago, we heard Senator Whiteaker cite the IMF and the OECD as expert bodies in this area. Well, last month, in January 2026, the OECD said, 'A tighter fiscal stance is needed to avoid adding to inflationary pressures.' This was just before the inflation figures came out. Well, that tighter fiscal stance has not been forthcoming. Inflationary pressures have been added to and the Reserve Bank is now having to raise rates. The AMP's chief economist, Shane Oliver, said, 'The best thing that Australian governments can do to help bring down inflation would be to cut government spending back to more normal levels'—because government spending is not at a normal level. Federal government spending is at an unprecedentedly high level, 26.9 per cent of GDP in the last budget paper. That is the highest it's ever been outside the pandemic in 40 years.

We've seen again, in the last budget papers, that government spending has been growing at four times the rate of the economy. When government spending is growing at four times the rate of the economy, it is competing for a fixed supply of resources—whether it's land, labour or capital inputs—with the private sector. That's why you've got more money chasing the same amount of goods, prices are being pushed up and the private sector is being crowded out. That is what is happening in the economy. The Reserve Bank has had no choice but to raise rates in those circumstances.

We did just hear from Senator Cox, boasting about real wages. If she actually looked at the RBA's statement on monetary policy that accompanied their decision yesterday, she would have seen that they have laid out, quite starkly, that real wages will decline in the first half of this year. That's because inflation is actually forecast to go even higher, peaking in the middle of the year. It's not going to be back in the RBA's target range until at least June 2027, and not until the midpoint, which is six months later—which means there is no interest rate relief in sight.

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 asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Waters) today relating to taxation.

Housing is the single biggest contributor to the recent inflation spike. It's not just the Greens saying it. The RBA governor yesterday singled out credit growth, which we know is largely property investor loans, as a cause for concern. It's more than concerning; it's fundamentally unfair.

It is unfair that this government is supporting property investors to outbid first home buyers weekend after weekend. It is unfair that investor borrowing has reached a record-high $40 billion in the last three months of last year. Coincidently, that was exactly the same three months that immediately followed Labor's five per cent deposit scheme kicking in. It is unfair that investors are flooding into the market at record rates and that Labor keeps giving them massive tax handouts to help them push up house prices.

According to the Treasury, an astonishing 54 per cent of the capital gains tax handout goes to the wealthiest one per cent. Just four per cent of people that get it are under 35. This is the most unfair handout in the Commonwealth Tax Code and it is exacerbating inequality by pushing homeownership further and further out of reach for those young people who are desperate to buy their first home.

Yet this Labor government refuses to cut those unfair tax handouts for property investors and to give renters and first home buyers a real shot at buying a home. No more delays or excuses: the government needs to address the housing crisis with real action. Scrap the capital gains tax discount. Scrap negative gearing and do it in this upcoming budget. While they're at it, they could also address the outrageous fuel tax credit which gives cheap diesel to big mining companies. Getting rid of that absolute joke of a handout would free up about $8 billion a year, which could be used for cost-of-living relief for households. If Labor is going to cut spending to deal with inflation, then maybe they should start by looking at that spending that goes into the pockets of the one per cent and straight into the pockets of the big corporations ruining the planet and fuelling the climate crisis. Have they got the guts? We'll find out. (Time expired)

I rise to take note of the answers given to Senator Waters regarding the deeply unfair billion-dollar tax breaks for wealthy property hoarders. Reforming the capital gains tax discount is obvious. It's long overdue, and a growing number of people in our country know this is true. All of Australia's significant economists get it. They want to see a change. Unions support it. Working people understand it. Welfare groups see it as an urgent reform required for fairness in our community. It's supported by many people in this parliament, including many on the Labor side of politics. Yet, instead of acting to make housing more affordable, Labor is choosing policies that turbocharge housing prices. Unbelievably, they are making things worse.

They're handing out obscene tax breaks to people buying their 50th, 60th or 70th investment property. No wonder homeownership rates for young people are falling. No wonder so many young people are so depressed at their prospects of getting housing security. Labor is prioritising wealthy property investors over renters. They're doing it over the interests of so many people who find themselves catapulted into homelessness, and they're doing it over the interests of people who are facing increasing mortgage stress. Labor is spending more on those tax breaks for wealthy housing investors than on social housing, homelessness and rent assistance combined. Let that sink in. That's about priorities, and they're all wrong on the Labor side of politics.

The Labor government is giving more support to making housing unaffordable, especially for our young people. Meanwhile, Australians are working harder than ever and still falling behind. And, yes, real wages are falling. Things are going to get worse for a long time before they get better. Rents keep going up. First home buyers are locked out. The cost of living is eating away at the chances to get those savings that young people are seeking to get into the housing market. Mortgage stress is the norm, not the exception. It's Labor's decision to give $181 billion over a 10-year period to wealthy property investors, making housing more unaffordable. They're not dealing with the crisis that too many Australians are facing every day.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I, and also on behalf of Senators Marielle Smith, Ruston, Waters, McKenzie, Thorpe, Tyrrell, Payman, Lambie, Bell and Babet, move:

That the Senate:

(a) recognises that February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, an opportunity to acknowledge the impact of ovarian cancer and all gynaecological cancers on individuals, families and communities across Australia;

(b) notes that gynaecological cancers remain among the most challenging cancers to diagnose and treat, with more than 55 per cent classified as rare, often with limited treatment options;

(c) notes with concern that ovarian cancer is the most lethal cancer affecting Australian women, and that survival outcomes have remained largely unchanged for over 50 years, at approximately 49 per cent;

(d) notes that over the next ten years an estimated 86,000 women will be diagnosed with gynaecological cancers, and that more than half are expected to be diagnosed with cancers that are currently untreatable;

(e) recognises evidence indicating that more than 90 per cent of women diagnosed with gynaecological cancers do not have access to comprehensive molecular profiling, despite its growing importance in informing diagnosis, treatment decisions and access to clinical trials;

(f) acknowledges the significant disparities in incidence and mortality, with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, women in regional and remote areas, and women from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds experiencing poorer outcomes; and

(g) affirms the importance of continued national efforts to improve outcomes for all women diagnosed with gynaecological cancers, including through improved access to diagnostics such as molecular profiling, better coordination of care, expanded clinical trials, strengthened research capacity, and enhanced psychosocial supports, regardless of a woman's background or postcode.

I thank the Senate for their collaboration on this motion.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I want to make a contribution here because I think there's an important discussion that the Senate needs to have about orders for the production of documents. I made a contribution on this at the end of last year. There was agreement to consider this in the Senate Procedure Committee. This extension of time now pushes that report from 4 February to 11 March. It was tight towards the end of last year, so the government accepts the need for that to occur. But I think it is worth the Senate as a whole being aware of the concerns the government has around the use of orders for the production of documents in the way they are being utilised. We've got another example of that today with Senator Payman, with another 11 orders for the production of documents.

I'll go back to the remarks I made last time, which were that, historically, orders for the production of documents have been, in a sense, the highest power of this chamber to call for documents, particularly when they're not available through other means, such as seeking them from ministers or getting them through Senate committees or FOI. There are a whole range of other avenues that members are able to use to seek information. But the way they're being utilised at the moment is that they are the first port of call. They're very broad. They're coming in a way that makes it almost impossible to comply with them.

When I have raised these issues, there haven't been any responses to that in terms of the way OPDs are being drafted. They continue to be very broad. They continue to seek documents that are already available online. What that then means is there are all these compliance OPDs as well. I just think there is the opportunity for the Senate to think about how this section is being used.

I accept that we made some changes about formal motions, and this is the result of those changes. But we have to have a way where formal motions and that section of the program work properly. At the moment, it's not working properly, and I think the power of the Senate to order the production of documents is being diluted by the approach that's being taken. I think that is something that this Senate should think about.

I just wanted to make those comments and note that there has been good engagement on the Procedure Committee, where representatives of the Senate meet to think about the ways that we can deal with this section of the program better. For those that don't sit on the Procedure Committee, I think it is worth engaging in it. And I'm very happy to talk to anybody about how we can get formal motions, particularly the general business part of this program, working better so that orders for the production of documents are not essentially motions in disguise, which is what they've become. They've become a way to move a motion when they're not able to be moved under that section. I would ask that the Senate consider that, and the Procedure Committee will come back with its report in March.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2026:

The fatal July 2023 MRH-90 Taipan Helicopter incident in the Whitsundays, with specific reference to:

(a) airworthiness assessments of the MRH-90 platform and associated equipment;

(b) Army Aviation compliance with the Defence Aviation Safety Regulations;

(c) findings of the Comcare investigation into the incident;

(d) any other investigations into the incident;

(e) the appropriateness of the decision not to prosecute any matters arising from the incident; and

(f) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The opposition has stood by the families of the four servicemen who tragically died as a part of this exercise. The opposition has facilitated briefings and supported the release of documents to provide more information to families about how this came to be and how the government reached its decision. In light of the continued questions around this tragic event, the coalition will support this motion for a short and appropriately scoped inquiry to provide answers to the families and lessons to government about how to reduce the risk of this happening again.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The government recognises and pays tribute to the fallen on MRH-90 aircraft lost in the Lindeman Island incident on 28 July 2023. We remember the lives, dedication and spirit of Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Phillip Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs. It is fundamentally important for the families, for the Australian Defence Force and for the nation that we understand what caused this accident. Independent investigations into the accident are still underway, and the government believes that these processes should be allowed to conclude before any further inquiries, including by the parliament, take place. It is for this reason we will not be supporting Senator Roberts's motion.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Roberts, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2026:

The effectiveness of preparedness, response and recovery arrangements and impacts on communities and industries, of the 2025-26 summer bushfires and storm surges in regional Victoria, including:

(a) preparedness, response and recovery functions by Commonwealth, state and local government agencies;

(b) the provision of meteorological advice by the Bureau of Meteorology;

(c) access to and resilience of critical utilities and telecommunications services;

(d) availability and responsiveness of insurance;

(e) the impacts on affected communities and on Victorian industries including the agricultural, construction, hospitality and tourism sectors; and

(f) any related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted.

The government will be opposing this motion. Considerable risk remains for many communities across Victoria affected by this event. There is also an increased risk of bushfire forecast for Victoria in February.

The inquiry would require additional work and resources from Commonwealth, state and local government staff, who are currently dedicated to responding and leading recovery efforts during the high-risk-weather season. Any additional burden to this workload would come at a cost to the people that these governments are trying to support. In good conscience, we can't support the motion while these teams are still working day and night.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 4 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

I'll take this opportunity to remind senators of standing order 101(6), which talks about needing to be in your seat once I've appointed tellers until the declaration has been given. I now move to business of the Senate No. 5 standing in the name of Senator Canavan.

I believe I've indicated I'd like that debated and not taken as formal.

I wasn't advised of that, but thank you, Senator Canavan.

I move:

That on Wednesday, 4 February 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 9 am till adjournment;

(b) the routine of business from 6.30 pm be:

(i) condolence statements, of not more than 5 minutes each, relating to the death of Tim Picton,

(ii) condolence statements, of not more than 5 minutes each, relating to the death of Katie Allen,

(iii) adjournment proposed, and

(iv) adjournment.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Watt, I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to give effect to the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, and for related purposes. High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026.

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 table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Australia is an island nation, a maritime nation, with the ocean at the heart of our national identity for tens of thousands of years.

First Nations people have a profound and enduring connection with Sea Country, which is central to cultural and spiritual identity, social and economic life, and wellbeing.

The ocean is a critical feature of our natural environment. Home to spectacular marine biodiversity and a vital source of oxygen.

The ocean is also critical to our economic prosperity and our health. It connects us with our region and the rest of the world.

But we know that despite its importance, our ocean faces significant threats, including climate change, overfishing, and plastic and other pollution.

In June 2023, the United Nations adopted the Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction, also known as the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty.

The Treaty provides greater environmental protection for the ocean by providing a global framework for protecting and sustainably using marine biodiversity outside our maritime borders—that is, the high seas and the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. Around 60 per cent of the global ocean is beyond national jurisdiction but only around one per cent is currently protected.

The Treaty will complement existing international and regional instruments, frameworks, and bodies. It will enhance cooperation between Parties, as well as between the existing global and regional ocean governance regimes, and will play a critical role in achieving the global target to protect 30 per cent of the world's marine areas by 2030.

The Treaty will also complement Australia's own domestic and regional practices in sustainable ocean management and protection. More than half of Australia's maritime jurisdiction is now protected in marine parks. That includes about a quarter of our marine estate—2.2 million square kilometres—in highly protected areas. At last year's United Nations Ocean Conference, Australia went further, committing to work towards lifting that to 30 percent highly protected by the year 2030.

Australia was proud to sign the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty on 20 September 2023, the day it opened for signature after playing an active role in its inception and development over two decades. Australia is one of the few countries that needs to pass legislation to ratify a treaty and today I am proud to introduce the High Seas Biodiversity Bill. This implementing legislation will enable us to ratify the Treaty. And not a moment too soon, the Treaty entered into force generally on 17 January this year.

In 2024, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommended that Australia take binding treaty action and become a Party to the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty. This Bill creates a new regulatory regime to implement into Australian law relevant obligations under the Treaty relating to:

Marine Genetic Resources and Digital Sequence Information

Part II of the Bill establishes oversight for the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources from areas beyond national jurisdiction and related digital sequence information.

The Bill implements a notification-based regime requiring certain persons to provide information on the collection and utilisation of marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This information will later be provided to the Clearing House Mechanism, an open-access platform managed by the Secretariat under the Agreement. The Bill also imposes reporting and record-keeping requirements on relevant repositories and databases and will provide for an online register to receive required information, enable public access, and promote transparency. The register will be operated by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Area-Based Management Tools, such as Marine Protected Areas

Part III of the Bill creates a framework for Australia to recognise and declare area-based management tools—such as marine protected areas—and their associated management plans established by the Treaty's Conference of the Parties, and for Australians to comply with them.

The government is preparing for the first generation of high seas marine protected area proposals, as contemplated by the Treaty. Work is underway to lay the groundwork for Australia to lead on and support others on such proposals, including gathering the underpinning science and data and engaging with stakeholders.

Environmental Impact Assessments

Part IV of this Bill will put in place an Environmental Impact Assessment process to manage the risk of harm to the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction from planned activities by Australian entities. It also implements obligations with respect to planned activities within Australia's jurisdiction that may have significant impacts on the marine environment in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

The purpose of Part IV is to ensure that the potential impacts of such activities are assessed in accordance with the Treaty before the Minister makes a decision on whether to authorise the activity.

Closing remarks

To secure the health and resilience of the high seas, and all other areas beyond national jurisdiction, we must cooperate and coordinate with other countries and act to implement relevant provisions of UNCLOS.

Ratifying the High Seas Biodiversity Treaty demonstrates Australia's commitment to international law and the multilateral system more generally.

The Albanese government is committed to working with key partners in our region and beyond, to safeguard the health of our shared ocean and support our thriving ocean economy for future generations.

As a nation of ocean lovers, it's what the Australian community expects.

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.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That—

(a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 20 February 2026, all written or digital correspondence, modelling, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, budgets or other records of interaction in the possession of the Treasurer, their office or their department, from 1 May 2025 to 26 November 2025 relating to:

(i) distribution of the goods and services tax (GST), and

(ii) alternate methods or models of distributing fiscal resources generated through the imposition of the GST within the Australian federation; and

(b) the Senate requires that where a public interest immunity claim is made on the basis of prejudice to relations between the Commonwealth and the states, there shall be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer all correspondence between the Treasurer, their office or their department, and state or territory ministers, their offices or their departments, relating to the release of documents within the scope of this order.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "that", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to general business notice of motion No. 304 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion 304, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

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

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

(iii) no further information has been provided since the Minister representing the Minister for Communications' attendance in the Senate on 29 October 2025; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to lay on the table, by no later than 5 pm on 12 February 2026, either:

(i) a comprehensive justification of all elements of the public interest immunity claim made in relation to the order, or

(ii) the unredacted documents sought by the order.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraphs (a)(iii) and (b), substitute:

(iii) Senator Payman has been offered multiple briefings by the Minister for Communications on various topics related to online safety and the senator has declined these offers; and

(b) requires no further action from the minister.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to general business notice of motion 318 be agreed to.

Senator Pocock?

I seek leave to make a short statement of no longer than one minute.

Leave is granted.

In relation to OPDs sought by Senator Payman in notices of motion numbers 318, 319, 322, 323, 327 and 328, I indicate that I cannot support the motions. Many of the documents sought are either publicly available or can be more effectively pursued through Senate estimates next week. OPDs are clearly a vital power of the Senate but must be used effectively alongside other transparency mechanisms and only when appropriate. In my view, the information sought by these OPDs, while in the public interest, can be better achieved through different channels in a way that takes fewer resources from the APS.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 318, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 319 be withdrawn.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

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

(ii) in a letter dated 26 November 2025, the Minister for Housing advised that more time was required to comply with the order, and

(iii) more than 2 months on from this letter being tabled, no substantive response has been provided; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate on 5 February 2026, at the conclusion of question time, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

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

I seek leave to move an amendment to notice of motion No. 320, which has been circulated. The effect of the amendment would be to omit paragraph (b)(i) and to allow the motion to be debated for no longer than 20 minutes.

On a point of order, I want to seek some clarification as to the intent of omitting those words, which would appear to omit the time limit for debate. We're trying to understand what the actual intent is.

With the indulgence of the Senate, I will ask Minister Gallagher to perhaps give a further explanation.

Yes, that is the effect of that amendment. We think there should be an open ended time for debate on that.

Leave granted.

I move:

Paragraph (b)(i), omit "may be debated for no longer than 20 minutes and shall".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to general business notice of motion No. 320, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 320, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

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, 27 February 2026, 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 the Minister for Communications' travel to New York in September 2025 with a member of her staff and a public servant.

I seek leave to move an amendment to this motion that would omit all words after 'That' and insert two new paragraphs: one which notes that orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and that senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

A point of order, President. If the amendment is in the form circulated in the chamber, I query and seek direction from you, President, as to whether there's any need to read the amendment as if it were a statement.

I will check with the Clerk, although I do note that there were questions about the last amendment that required Minister Gallagher to explain herself. I am advised that there is no specific rule to prevent any senator from reading their amendment. Is leave granted to move the amendment? Leave is granted. Minister.

I move the amendment:

Omit all words after "That", insert:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to general business notice of motion 321 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 321 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 2 March 2026, 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, created between 14 December 2025 and 8 January 2026 inclusive, between the Attorney-General and/or her office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to the establishment of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "that", insert:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to general business notice of motion No. 322 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 322 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 19 February 2026, 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:

(a) the recent usage of the artificial intelligence chatbot Grok by users on X (formerly Twitter) to create non-consensual sexual imagery; and

(b) the development of any potential response, legislative or otherwise, to the use of Grok in this way.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", insert:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions;

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly; and

(c) notes that Senator Payman has been offered multiple briefings by the Minister for Communications on various topics related to online safety and the senator has declined these offers.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to general business notice of motion No. 323 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 323 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister for Science has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 282, agreed on 26 November 2025, relating to the Tune review of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's finances and governance; and

(b) requires the Minister for Science to comply with the order by no later than midday on 9 February 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister for Science has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 282, agreed to on 26 November 2025, relating to the Tune review of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation's finances and governance,

(ii) Senator Payman has been contacted to inform her that whilst the Government intends to comply with this motion, it requires more time to do so, and

(iii) Senator Payman was offered a briefing by the Minister for Science and no response was received; and

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 324 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion 324, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 325.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Minister for Communications has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 284, agreed to on 26 November 2025, relating to the constitutional validity of Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021,

(ii) the Minister for Communications has made a claim of public interest immunity (PII) on the basis that releasing the documents sought by the order would prejudice the Commonwealth's position in the legal proceedings concerning the relevant provisions of the Act,

(iii) on page 662 of the 14th edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, it is noted that, regarding PII claims made on the ground of prejudice to legal proceedings, '[a] case involving only questions of law before superior court judges is not likely to be influenced and therefore is unlikely to provide a basis for this ground', and

(iv) in advice incorporated into the Hansard of the Economics Legislation Committee on 2 June 1998, former Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans advised that '[t]he practice in the Senate is that debate or inquiry is avoided if it poses a real and substantial danger of prejudice to proceedings before a court where that danger is not outweighed by the public interest in free parliamentary debate or inquiry';

(b) rejects the Minister for Communications' PII claim, given the low risk of prejudice to ongoing legal proceedings relative to the public interest; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 6 February 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraphs (b) and (c).

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 326 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 326, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 16 February 2026, 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 Foreign Affairs and/or her office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to the invitation of Australia and the Prime Minister to join the Board of Peace, as established under United Nations Security Council resolution 2803.

by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after 'That', substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used only when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 327, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 327, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 16 February 2026:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages, created after 1 December 2025, between the Attorney-General and/or her office and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to consultation on proposed religious discrimination laws; and

(b) a document which lists all meetings held by the Attorney-General or the Attorney-General's Department since 1 December 2025 for the purpose of consultation on religious discrimination laws, identifying the dates of the meetings and the organisations/individuals who attended the meetings.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used only when other processes have been exhausted rather than for fishing expeditions; and

(b) senators seeking to order the production of documents should consider paragraph (a) and refine their orders accordingly.

The question is that the amendment to general business notice of motion No. 328 as moved by Minister Chisholm be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 328, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 197, requesting that the Minister representing the Treasurer table the independent review commissioned by the Treasury and delivered by Intersection into the governance and operational concerns at Housing Australia in early 2024 was only partially complied with,

(ii) the tabled documents contained heavy redactions, and that the Minister for Housing's public interest immunity claims of privacy and confidentiality were previously rejected by the Senate on 26 November 2025, and

(iii) the documents requested fall within the public interest, as they point to the effectiveness of a government agency to deliver the Government's housing agenda;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claims put forward by the Minister for Housing of privacy and confidentiality; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 5 February 2026.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) notes that the Government has provided a response to order for the production of documents no. 197; and

(b) requires no further action from the Minister representing the Minister for Housing or the Minister representing the Treasurer.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 329, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 329, 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) order for the production of documents no. 119, agreed to on 27 August 2025, requesting that the Minister representing the Treasurer table any correspondence or documents relating to modelling done by the Treasury regarding the contingent liability taxpayers are being exposed to and the total budgetary cost of Labor's expansion of the Home Guarantee Scheme was only partially complied with,

(ii) the tabled documents contained significant redactions and do not provide the requested information to an acceptable standard, and

(iii) the Prime Minister has previously referred to the conducted modelling in public forums, making the claim of Cabinet deliberations irrelevant;

(b) rejects the public interest immunity claims put forward by the Minister for Housing of Cabinet deliberations; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than 9 am on Thursday, 5 February 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraph (a), insert:

(a) notes that the Government has provided a response to order for the production of documents no. 119.

Omit paragraph (c), insert:

(c) requires no further action from the Minister representing the Minister for Housing or the Minister representing the Treasurer.

The question is that the amendments as moved by Minister Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 330 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 330 standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Hume, I move general business notices of motion Nos 331, 332 and 333 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 331

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 11 February 2026, the final versions of all hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including any attachments) prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and used by its officials for their appearance at the Economics Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 10 October 2025.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 332

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 11 February 2026, the latest iteration of the minister's question time brief as sent to the minister by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources for Senate question time on Thursday, 27 November 2025.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 333

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 11 February 2026, the final versions of all hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including any attachments) prepared by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and used by its officials for their appearance at the Economics Legislation Committee estimates hearing on 4 December 2025.

I ask that each of these motions be put separately, and I seek leave to move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 331.

Leave is granted.

I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after "That", insert "the Senate notes that:

(a) complying with an order to produce all estimates briefs would irreparably damage the ability of Government departments and agencies to support the estimates committee process in the future;

(b) it is the collective nature of questioning at estimates that contributes to the Senate's scrutiny role; and

(c) the release of documents sought by orders to produce all estimates briefs would likely change the way that all Government departments and agencies prepare for estimates and, indeed, all committee processes in the future.

The government has asked for general business notices of motion Nos 331, 332 and 333 to be put separately. Senator Chisholm has indicated to the chamber that there are different amendments to each one. Senator McKim?

I wish to address that request through a point of order. Is the government intending to vote differently on all three, or is the fact that the government has flagged amendments for all three itself a rationale for having them put separately?

The government has different amendments to all three. Generally speaking, the Senate indulges anyone who wants matters put separately, as the Greens often do. It is completely in order to move them separately. As the amendments have been circulated, you will see that they are all different. Senator David Pocock, were you seeking the call?

I was also going to ask whether the government were going to vote differently or whether they were just wasting time.

The Greens have already asked that question, and that's been clarified. The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 331, standing in the name of Senator Hume, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 331 standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins be agreed to.

I'll now move to general business notice of motion No. 332, standing in the name of Senator Hume, which has already been moved by Senator Collins.

by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after "That", insert "the Senate notes that:

(a) complying with an order to produce all question time briefs would irreparably damage the ability of Ministers to answer questions without notice; and

(b) the release of documents sought by orders to produce all question time briefs would likely change the way that all Government departments and agencies assist Ministers to prepare for question time and, indeed, all future occurrences of question time.

The question is that the amendment as circulated to general business notice of motion No. 332 and as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to.

The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 332, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins, be agreed to.

I will now go to general business notice of motion No. 333, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins.

by leave—I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after 'That', insert 'the Senate notes that:

(a) complying with an order to produce all estimates briefs would irreparably damage the ability of Government departments and agencies to support the estimates committee process in the future;

(b) it is the collective nature of questioning at estimates that contributes to the Senate's scrutiny role; and

(c) the release of documents sought by orders to produce all estimates briefs would likely change the way that all Government departments and agencies prepare for estimates and, indeed, all committee processes in the future.

The question is that the amendment by Senator Chisholm, as circulated, to general business notion of motion No. 333, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins, be agreed to.

The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 333, standing in the name of Senator Hume and moved by Senator Collins, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I welcome the opportunity to re-introduce this bill today, and continue our efforts to get big money out of politics. I acknowledge the important work done on this issue by my colleague Senator Larissa Waters, as well as former Senators Lee Rhiannon and Richard Di Natale, academics, and civil society organisations that have assisted in the development of this bill previously.

I also note that electoral reform passed last year after a last-minute backroom deal with the Coalition. That deal kept the disclosure threshold far too high and refused to wind in donations from harmful industries with a history of seeking to influence decision-makers. This bill seeks to go further than that weak, compromised legislation, restoring some important integrity to our democratic processes.

If passed, this bill would stop dirty industries—those with a track record of using donations to shape policy and gain access—from making political donations. These include the fossil fuel, banking, defence, pharmaceutical, liquor, tobacco, and gambling industries. The bill also limits individual donations to $3,000 per election term, dramatically reducing the ability of wealthy individuals or entities to buy influence and ensuring a fairer, more representative political system.

There has never been a more urgent time for donation reform. Trust in parliament and in politicians is at an all-time low. Australians are increasingly convinced that their representatives serve corporate donors rather than the public interest.

This bill is grounded not just in principle, but in evidence. In December 2024, the Centre for Public Integrity published Hey, Big Spender: What 25 years of political party income disclosures reveal, a comprehensive analysis of a quarter-century of political finance data in Australia. The report paints a stark picture of a political system increasingly dependent on large donors, with corporate interests and wealthy individuals dominating party income while ordinary Australians are effectively priced out of political participation.

The report shows that Australia's major parties have become structurally reliant on big money, with a relatively small number of high-value donors accounting for a disproportionate share of total income. It also highlights how high disclosure thresholds and delayed reporting obscure the true scale and sources of political influence, often revealing who funded parties only long after elections are decided. Crucially, Hey, Big Spender concludes that transparency alone has failed to curb the corrupting influence of money in politics, and that donation caps and bans on high-risk donors are essential to restoring integrity.

Over the past decade, more than $230 million in corporate donations have flowed to the major parties. These funds come from banks, mining and resources companies, fossil fuel producers, property developers, big pharma, liquor and tobacco companies, and gambling operators. These are the interests that have consistently put profits ahead of people's needs.

These donations are not acts of civic generosity. They are investments designed to secure influence and ensure regulatory and policy outcomes that favour private interests. Evidence of this is clear. For over a decade, the Greens have maintained the Democracy for Sale website, tracking donations and exposing the nexus between corporate money and policy outcomes. In 2018, the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations provided examples showing how corporate donations have directly benefited companies through legislation, approvals, and subsidies.

The public continues to pay the price through climate inaction, unchecked gambling harm, and governments that allow corporations to avoid paying their fair share of tax while ordinary Australians struggle to access essential services. Until we break the hold of dirty donations over the major parties, big corporations will keep winning and the community loses out.

We have already seen how property development donations have influenced planning outcomes in Victoria. In Melbourne, generous contributions from developers have coincided with rezoning approvals in environmentally sensitive areas, and exemptions from affordable housing obligations, undermining public trust and locking in outcomes that benefit private profit over the community. Queensland and New South Wales have legislated to restrict donations from property developers, measures upheld by the High Court. This bill extends those protections federally and acknowledges the influence of other key dirty industries.

Fossil fuel interests have continued to pour millions into the major parties. Meanwhile, federal and state governments handed out $14.5 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in 2023-24, with forward estimates of around $65-67 billion. In the 2025 federal budget, spending on housing and homelessness services was $6.9 billion, while tax breaks for landlords and investors—including negative gearing and other concessions—exceeded $12 billion, more than Commonwealth investment in social housing, homelessness services, and rent assistance combined. The most recent federal budget expanded fuel tax credits and other subsidies for fossil fuel producers and property developers, while ordinary Australians face crushing housing costs and energy bills.

It is a very high return on investment for these donors and a terrible deal for the rest of us. Donations bought the previous Liberal government's paralysis on climate change at a time when Australians faced more extreme bushfires, crippling droughts, and floods. Generous contributions continue to cloud judgment under the Albanese Labor government as new coal and gas projects receive approvals and taxpayer money flows into destructive projects.

The gas industry benefits not only from donations but from a revolving door between politics and industry. Former resources ministers and senior advisers routinely move into well-paid industry roles that blur the lines between public duty and corporate profit. Despite exporting nearly 80 per cent of production, governments continue to subsidise exploration and life extensions for projects like the recent Otway Basin acreage release and Woodside's North West Shelf extension to 2070. These decisions lock in decades of production, little of which benefits domestic energy security while maximising profits for exporters. Politicians continue to claim that Australia needs more gas, even though this narrative ignores reality and undermines the transition to renewables.

The cosy relationship between fossil fuel donors and policymakers has also contributed to the weak 2035 emission reduction target set by the Albanese Government last year. These targets are far from the deep cuts science says are needed to limit warming. Dozens of coal and gas projects continue to be approved, including expansions and extensions, putting even these weak targets at serious risk. Donations give industry leverage to resist reforms that would force them to pay their fair share or transition to cleaner practices.

The banking and financial sector is also a regular contributor and beneficiary. The sector has donated roughly $76 million since 2012. These contributions have historically shielded banks from accountability, delaying meaningful reforms and protections for customers. Only public outrage forced the Banking Royal Commission, which exposed widespread misconduct. How much faster would the commission have happened if the Liberal, National, and Labor parties were not on the payroll of the banks? Would we have seen stronger action if donations hadn't bought political protection?

The gambling industry is another major donor that governments have consistently failed to confront. Companies such as Sportsbet and Tabcorp have poured millions of dollars into state and federal political parties, while the gambling lobby has become the most prolific lobbying force in Australia, outspending and outnumbering almost every other industry in its efforts to shape public policy. This influence is not abstract—it is sustained, organised, and targeted at maintaining a regulatory environment that protects profits at the expense of the public interest.

The consequences are severe and well documented. Gambling harm costs Australian communities tens of billions of dollars each year, driving addiction, family breakdown, financial distress, and suicide, particularly in low-income communities. Yet despite repeated parliamentary inquiries and clear recommendations to reduce poker machine intensity, curb saturation advertising, and strengthen protections for online gambling, meaningful reform has been delayed or abandoned. Ministers continue to ignore their own evidence, prioritising the interests of a powerful donor and lobbying sector over the health and wellbeing of Australians.

These donations are only those publicly disclosed. They exclude money paid for access meetings, memberships, and subscriptions that may serve as indirect influence, as well as funds channelled through intermediary or fundraising bodies. Regardless of source, donations come with an expectation of results, eroding public trust.

By banning donations from these industries and limiting individual contributions to $3,000, this bill implements key recommendations of the Senate Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations. It makes it an offence for a prohibited donor to make a donation or solicit another person to make a donation on its behalf. It is also an offence to accept a donation from a prohibited donor.

This bill also limits other political donations to $3,000 per election term. By aggregating and capping political donations, this bill seeks to level the playing field and prevent those with more money from gaining disproportionate influence, consistent with the High Court's recognition in McCloy v NSW.

The bill will limit political donations but does not restrict civil society organisations from fundraising for their advocacy work. The work of unions, charities, and community groups must continue. Electoral expenditure caps for these organisations should be introduced to ensure proper balance.

The bill complements ongoing reforms to strengthen disclosure, including real-time reporting, so Australians no longer wait 18 months to see who is buying influence.

Transparency alone is insufficient, but it is a necessary step to restore confidence.

Of course, much more work is required to restore trust in our Parliament. The Greens remain deeply concerned about the inadequacy of the federal lobbying regime, particularly in light of sustained calls from academics, civil society, and the broader community to rein in the influence of corporate lobbyists, close the revolving door between industry and ministerial offices, extend the code of conduct to in-house lobbyists, and introduce meaningful enforcement mechanisms with real penalties for breaches. We are also concerned by this Government's increasing reliance on secrecy, reflected in record-low compliance with Senate orders for the production of documents and the unchecked use of public interest immunity claims to undermine the Parliament's ability to hold the Government to account.

The 2025 election results confirm that Australians want a government that is transparent, accountable, and representative. This bill is an important first step toward removing corporate influence and restoring public faith in our democracy.

If we are committed to enhancing the democratic process, which surely is something that every parliament should regularly turn its mind to, this should be a priority. This bill does not stifle debate or prevent individuals from donating to support a political party. It bans donations from industries that have become associated with having a corrupting influence on how we work as decision makers and will return democracy to the community.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation 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 the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I acknowledge and thank the colleagues who supported this bill when I first introduced it in 2022 and all of those people who actively participated in the subsequent inquiry conducted by the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

We are still the only developed country, only G20 country in the world that actually bans nuclear energy.

This ban was introduced via a Greens amendment in the Senate on 10 December 1999. There was less than 10 minutes of debate on the matter. The Howard Government at the time was seeking legislative support to build a new nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights. With no immediate prospect of a nuclear power station being built, the Government accepted the amendment so it could proceed with the new research reactor at Lucas Heights.

Of the 20 richest nations in the world only three do not have nuclear power: Australia, Saudi Arabia and Italy. Saudi Arabia is building a nuclear power station and Italy gets much of its imported electricity from France, where three quarters of the electricity is produced by nuclear.

Our status as a nuclear outcast is more remarkable given that Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world.

Nuclear energy delivers electricity by harnessing the heat produced in the fission, or splitting, of radioactive isotopes of uranium or plutonium in a reactor. Nuclear energy is also widely used in submarines for power and propulsion, but also other shipping, including aircraft carriers and icebreakers.

Nuclear plants are generally characterised by large capacity and output, high capital cost, and long construction times, but relatively low operating costs and almost zero emissions to air from their operation.

Nuclear energy is used to produce electricity in 31 countries from some 450 nuclear reactors, providing around 10 per cent of global electricity. Many nations are building new nuclear power plants because they provide reliable, emission free power.

There are 54 nuclear power stations under construction. Over the next 30 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency predicts that global nuclear power capacity could increase by 80 per cent, and possibly triple in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear energy has resulted in far fewer deaths than that from dam failures, oil rig explosions and even, on some measures, the number of people that fall when installing solar panels.

Nuclear does less damage to the natural environment than other energy options. Wind energy takes up 250 times more land than nuclear power and solar takes up 150 times more land.

Because of these facts, the critics of nuclear power now tend to focus on the high cost of building nuclear power stations in western countries.

Nuclear power stations used to be constructed in around 5 years. In western countries, time frames for construction have blown out to 17 years.

In the west, it now takes longer to build a nuclear power station from off-the-shelf technologies than it did to invent, design and build the first nuclear power station in the 1950s.

The potential for high costs is not a reason to ban anyone building a power station, however.

Our environmental laws should focus on protecting Australia's natural environment. Decisions about the relative profitability of different investments should be left to the businesses making those decisions.

The relative costs of nuclear compare well to renewable energy. Between 1965 and 2018 the world spent $2 trillion on nuclear compared to $2.3 trillion for solar and wind, yet nuclear today produces around double the electricity than that of solar and wind.

There is also the potential for costs to reduce soon.

Multiple companies in the US, the UK, Canada and China are at various stages of installing and trialling Small Modular Reactors.

While Small Modular Reactors are still in a development phase, they remain high cost. Yet if they become a commercial prospect, their modular nature may deliver substantial cost savings through mass production.

Support for nuclear power is growing. A Lowy Institute poll in 2022 found a majority would support removing the ban on nuclear power with a continuing decline over the last year of the number of people who opposed the removal of the existing ban. This compares with only 35% in 2011 being in favour of nuclear power.

Nuclear power production is currently not permitted under two main pieces of Commonwealth legislation—the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 (the ARPANS Act), and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). These Acts expressly prohibit the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility. There is also a range of other legislation, including state and territory legislation, which regulates nuclear and radiation-related activities.

The Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026 seeks to remove all of the prohibitions in Commonwealth laws—that is for the approval, licensing, construction, or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant; a nuclear power plant; an enrichment plant; or a reprocessing facility.

The ARPANS Act regulates activities undertaken by Commonwealth entities affecting radiation, to ensure that the health and safety of people, and the environment, are protected from the harmful effects of radiation.

This Bill does not affect the ability of the Minister and/or the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to ensure those protections remain in place.

And any proposal to build a nuclear power station would still require both a licence under the ARPANS Act and a permit under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987. Any plant would also need to comply with other state, territory and federal laws.

The EPBC Act provides for the protection of the environment, ecologically sustainable development, biodiversity conservation and heritage protection by giving the Commonwealth a role in regulating matters of national environmental significance.

This bill does not affect the ability of the Minister and/or the Department to ensure those protections remain in place and that the other objects of the Act are respected.

We should support removing the bans on nuclear power because that would be the best way to take advantage of future technological developments that could see nuclear energy as the most competitive carbon free option to produce electricity.

We should be looking at this, and the first thing we should do is remove the prohibition, so at least nuclear options can be discussed and considered.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

It's with the greatest sadness that I make this contribution to the Senate this afternoon in remembrance of one of my former staff, a colleague, a party stalwart, a business leader and, most importantly, a lost friend, Mr Tim Picton. Over these past weeks, much has been rightly celebrated about this loving young father, charismatic leader and brilliant strategist, taken from this world all too soon. Instead, in this short contribution, I honour and remember the intelligent, bright-eyed, ambitious and passionate young man who joined my staff over 16 years ago.

In providing some photos to his family, I realised that Tim had only been 19 years of age when he first started working for me. He always seemed much older—how do they describe it?—an old head on a young body. Having first started his professional journey where so many talented campaign leaders begin, under the tutelage of Amanda Rishworth, Tim joined my electorate team in 2009. As the 2010 election approached, and Labor battled Tony Abbott's opposition, it was the young Tim Picton who drove the campaign in the blue-ribbon seat of Boothby, which Labor now holds, forcing the Liberals to scramble on the defensive.

He worked for me across the Gillard government, joining my small team of advisers when I was made the parliamentary secretary for water. In that time, my duties took us both to Uluru, to celebrate the anniversary of its return to the traditional owners, and later to Samoa, where we managed to climb up to the grave of author Robert Louis Stephenson. Both are cherished memories.

In 2012 he joined the ranks of the South Australian state government, recruiting his own replacement to my electorate team, Mr Ben Rillo, who's now my chief of staff. He'll be around the place here somewhere. I'm told that the first piece of advice Tim gave to his young replacement was, 'Don wants us to build relationships across the building, even if that means you're late and hungover on a Thursday of a sitting week.' I'm not sure that was the instruction I'd given to Tim, but apparently that's what he reported to others.

In 2014 he met his future wife, Priya Brown, where all great relationships start: campaigning for the South Australian branch of the Labor Party. With a move to Melbourne, and joining the Victorian government, Tim and Priya became great friends with my daughter Tess and her partner, Jono. On hearing of Tim's condition, Tess and Jono were amongst the close friends that travelled to Perth to assist where they could and read to Tim a message from both me and my wife. His eyes opened when that happened.

After yet another successful election, I was one of many who convinced him to move to Perth, his wife Priya's hometown, and take up the mantle of the WA Labor secretary. In addition to all of his achievements, he ran the McGowan campaign to deliver the best result Labor had ever had in Western Australia. But he bragged of a bigger achievement: his daughter, Charlotte, who completed the young family four years ago. There was no competitor in his mind to Charlotte, and we could all see this on his face whenever they were together. There are some beautiful photographs of them together.

Tim's passing is nothing short of a senseless tragedy. Tim achieved so much in his short life but had so much more to give—to our movement, to his family and to this country. That won't happen now, and I personally feel so deeply sad about that. We stayed in touch for all the years since he started working for me, and it's so sad that there will be no more calls, no more texts—generally late at night—and no more long lunches. I want to make special mention of Mr Chris Ellison and the MinRes team, who were there and who have continued to be supportive of Priya and Charlotte in these past weeks.

Tomorrow Tim's daughter, Charlotte, attends her first day of kindy in Perth. Years from now I hope she reads the contribution in this place and knows how much her father meant to us all and, importantly, how much she meant to him. May Tim Picton rest in eternal peace.

I rise tonight to pay tribute to Tim Picton. Tim was a beloved father, husband, brother and son to his wife, Priya; his daughter, Charlotte; his parents, Fiona and Michael; his sister, Jo; his brother, Chris; his grandmother, Ruth; his parents-in-law, Shavita and Murray; his sisters-in-law, Connie and Natara; and his nieces and nephew, Anna, Clara and Alex. It's a heartbroken family, but beyond that heartbroken family is a heartbroken Labor family.

Tim Picton left his mark around the nation on our movement. He showed enormous promise as the president of Young Labor in South Australia. He worked, as Don said, in the offices of my cabinet colleagues, Amanda Rishworth and then Don himself. He was part of Dan Andrews's election campaign in Victoria and then worked in his government. Then, as the state secretary of Western Australian Labor, he directed the campaign for one of the biggest landslides in Australian history, delivering the re-election of Mark McGowan in 2021. It was a famous victory, a victory that transformed the political landscape in Western Australia, the kind of victory that bears legends. And he went on to drive a strategy tailored to Western Australia in the 2022 federal election that was central to our success, with a gain of four seats in Perth. But he was just getting started. He was 36, and we all knew he was destined for even greater success. A world of opportunities lay ahead of him, and Tim had shown an ability to achieve whatever he set his mind to.

I had the privilege of working with Tim on many occasions. We were often on the same strategy caucus, and I'd see him when I was in Perth. He always brimmed with energy and enthusiasm. He networked relentlessly. He knew who everyone was and he made sure you talked to the right people. What was clear was this: he always had purpose, he always had a plan and he was always determined to win. But he did know that winning is a collective task for Labor people; it is never a solitary pursuit. It is a very special thing, a meaningful thing, to be in the political trenches with your comrades and to come through battle and hardship together—the connection, the loyalty, the solidarity it fosters, to struggle together and to succeed together in the contest of ideas. His love of that contest was also a love of the many talented, hardworking and principled people with whom he worked.

The many people in our Labor family are in a state of terrible grief, terrible pain, whether their time with Tim was in Young Labor or campaigns in SA, Victoria or WA. Here in this place I want to share my sincerest condolences with them. There are too many to name them all, but I do want to particularly recognise Senator Whitaker, who worked with Tim, and also my South Australian colleagues, to whom my heart goes out, Minister Rishworth and the whole Farrell family. Senator Farrell spoke very movingly a moment ago. I know this has been very deeply affecting for him, Nimfa and Tess, who were very close to Tim. I also want to recognise Senator Farrell's chief of staff, one of the most highly esteemed people in this place, who has been close to Tim and Priya for many years, along with many other friends of Tim, who are grieving—Andrew, Jonathan, David, Hannah, David, Robbie, Mark, Mikaela, Simone and many more.

It is always hard to lose someone. It is hard to lose a friend and a comrade in such harrowing and senseless circumstances. It is a profound and devastating shock. So I extend my personal sympathies to all my friends and colleagues who are grieving. And to Tim's family: my deepest condolences for your immeasurable loss. But perhaps most of all, all our hearts break for young Charlotte, the love of Tim's life, who turned four while her father was in the Royal Perth Hospital ICU. As Don spoke about, the Prime Minister wrote a letter to Charlotte so that when she is older she will know what she meant to Tim and what he did for our party and our country.

At the memorial in Perth, Tim's sister, Jo, said that Tim's essence was 'there from the very beginning'. She said:

Two and a half weeks early and in typical Tim style, he came in a dramatic rush despite being scheduled for a caesarean. … always doing things his own way, in his own time—

that restlessness, that eagerness to make things happen that has helped shape our nation.

We will never know what this extraordinary man would have done with a longer life, but anyone who knew him knows that his legacy and his legend were just beginning. Rest in peace, Tim Picton.

It's an honour to speak tonight about my friend and our comrade Tim Picton. When I first heard that Tim Picton was going to be the next state secretary of WA Labor I was a little wary; I'll be honest. I thought, 'Here we go: another bloke from the east coast Right coming to WA to tell us what to do!' Tim would have stopped me here and insisted that he was not from the east coast; he was a South Australian—and he would have wanted that clarified in the Hansard. But, as far as I was concerned, he wasn't from WA, and I really didn't want to like him. But it took all of about five minutes for him to win me over, because that was Tim. He could easily win just about anyone over. It's one of the things that made him so successful—in government, in campaigning and in the private sector.

Tim's sharp intellect, his strategic brain and his unending commitment to Labor values made him a brilliant state secretary and an exceptional campaign director. Tim was meticulous. He would spend days writing campaign ads. He'd obsess over them and he'd tweak them and he'd tweak them again and he'd tweak them again. His best work was what we referred to in the party office as the Mark McGowan movie trailer. It was really long—much longer than it needed to be and much longer than a campaign ad should be. It gave everyone who watched it goosebumps, which is pretty weird for a campaign ad. It was meant for the campaign launch, but Tim insisted that we just 'chuck it up online and see how it goes', despite our protests that it was far too long and far too soppy. But of course it ended up being our best-performing ad in the campaign.

I've been trying to find some pictures of us all together, the team on election night in 2021 and 2022. We took so many, but Tim is barely in any of them, because he was still at the computer in the tally room obsessing over the numbers and hoping we'd get just one more seat over the line. Tim was one of the hardest-working people I've ever worked with. He never stopped. My time working with Tim were some of the best years of my career. I learnt a lot from him, and we achieved a lot together. There's so much to be proud of: the record-breaking state election win in 2021, followed by another record-breaking federal election win in 2022.

But I was most proud of our team—the teamwork, the camaraderie, the friendship. Tim led a team that worked hard and campaigned hard and, most importantly, a team that looked after each other. You don't always get that in politics, and you certainly don't always get that in a party office. But it was because of Tim's leadership that we still have those friendships. It was his leadership that fired us up every day, kept us going when things were hard and brought us together, regardless of age, faction, role or seniority. We were a close-knit group, and I think I speak for many of us when I say that I hoped we might one day work together again and win another election together. But, now, it wouldn't be the same without Tim. I want to say to all of those members of our team: I know you're all feeling this loss really hard. It is one that will be difficult to come to terms with.

A lot has been said about Tim's potential—rightly so—and what he could have done if his life hadn't been so tragically and cruelly cut short. I really hoped he might have been convinced one day to join us here in this chamber, because, selfishly, I'd have loved to have worked with him again. For our party and for our country, he would have been an asset. But I think it would have taken a bit of strong convincing to get him to enter politics as an elected member. The reality is he could have done anything. He was a highly respected member of the Perth business community, and he would have continued to excel there if that's the path he took.

Beyond his professional life, Tim was a really bloody good friend. He was generous and thoughtful, and he'd tell it to you straight. He was fiercely loyal. When he was stepping down as state secretary, he was very clear with the people around us that he wanted me to take on the job. He didn't have to do that, but it was his loyalty and commitment to bringing up others around him, to backing people in. The other thing about Tim was that he was really good at holding a baby—really good. He'd grab one at any opportunity and he'd usually get them to sleep in a flash.

By any measure, his loss is a loss for our party, for WA and for our country, but, mostly, it's a loss for his family. My heartfelt condolences go to his parents, Fiona and Michael, his brother, Chris, and sister, Johanna, his sisters-in-law and his nieces and nephews, who he loved so dearly. He talked about you in the office a lot. It was obvious that he came from a loving family and that he loved you all back.

To Priya and Charlotte: I'm devastated for you both. Priya, the two of you were formidable together. Charlotte is lucky to have you as her mum and, while she will miss out on so much in losing her dad, she's got a whole lot of love and fight and a stellar example of a loving and successful parent in you.

At Tim's funeral, his family asked for us to leave messages for Charlotte. I thought I'd give my message here and one day Charlotte can read in the Hansard.

To Charlotte: your dad was beaming with pride the day he told me he and your mum were expecting a little girl. He couldn't believe his luck. I think he was born to be a girl dad. He loved to dress up. He loved a good singalong, and he was pretty good at being silly. Anyone who saw the two of you together could see just how much he adored you. You've got a lot of your dad in you, but you've got a lot of your mum, too. And that means you're resilient and you're fierce. You'll go so far and do great things one day. Your dad was a true legend of the Australian Labor Party and a much loved and respected member of the WA Labor family.

I'm a better campaigner, a better political operator and a better senator because of Tim. So, to Tim, thank you. I'll miss you. We'll all miss you.

I rise today to pay tribute to Tim Picton, a devoted Labor organiser, a respected strategist, a generous colleague and friend and, above all, a loving husband to Priya and father to Charlotte. His passing has left a deep void in the Western Australia Labor family and far beyond.

There are many facets to a person's life, particularly a life like Tim's—a life that was long in achievement and cut heartbreakingly short. Tim was a comrade, an occasional legal instructor and, most importantly, a friend. Few individuals have shaped Labor's modern success in Western Australia as profoundly as Tim did during his time as state secretary. He played a pivotal role in delivering the historic 2021 Western Australian state election result—a victory that reshaped the Western Australian political landscape and provided the McGowan government with an unprecedented mandate to govern. That campaign was remarkable not only for the scale of its result but for its discipline, its clarity, the unity that Tim brought to the team and the hard work that he demonstrated.

It reflected his innate understanding of voters, his strong commitment to Labor values and his ability to bring together candidates, volunteers and staff around a shared purpose. The 2021 campaign also demanded steady leadership in uncertain times, a calm hand during a global pandemic—and that was Tim. Tim brought that same commitment to the 2022 federal election, where he played a crucial leadership role in our campaign efforts across Western Australia—a campaign that was central to the national result.

What was particularly notable about both those campaigns was Tim's swift and intimate grasp of the Western Australian mindset and outlook, which may on occasion differ from the outlook of our brothers and sisters in the east. The result was very Western Australian campaigns, reflecting Tim's conviction that election campaigns were ultimately about people.

Those who worked with Tim will remember that his professionalism, his strategic mind and his unflappable nature under pressure were often on display. We will also remember his kindness, for Tim was a mentor to many, particularly young organisers and staff finding their feet in politics. He took the time to explain, to listen and to encourage. He believed very deeply in the Labor movement, not only as a political force but as a community of people who look after each other. Beyond the campaigns and strategy documents, Tim had a fundamental decency. He treated colleagues, volunteers and opponents with respect. Working on legal cases on behalf of the Labor Party with Tim, it was impossible not to be struck by his intelligence, his quick grasp of subject matter, his robust interrogation of advice and his sound judgement, which was particularly impressive, occurring as it did outside his own professional field.

Tim was also a friend, and he had a wonderful capacity for friendship. His warmth, his genuine fondness for people, and his curiosity about their lives and what shaped them made him an incredibly likeable person. From prime ministers to premiers to mates of mates at the front bar at the Wembley Hotel in Perth, we all saw a part of us in him and treasured his affection. Tim's energy was palpable and infectious. He had a singular ability to bring a room to life simply by entering it. We will all miss the Picton bear hug—whether at the pub, a state conference or a formal dinner—performed without inhibition and with genuine excitement.

Tim was a devoted and loving father to Charlotte. Tim spoke of Charlotte often and with such immense pride. Charlotte is only four years old and far too young to comprehend the scale of what has happened, but she will grow up knowing that her father made a significant contribution across the country. He helped shape a better state and nation and he did so with decency, compassion, care and love. Tim's legacy lives on through her and through the countless people whose lives and careers he touched.

There are some words of George Eliot that seem appropriate, and I would like to read them today. Eliot wrote:

O May I join the choir invisible

Of those immortal dead who live again

In minds made better by their presence: live

In pulses stirr'd to generosity,

In deeds of daring rectitude, in scorn

For miserable aims that end with self,

In thoughts sublime that pierce the night like stars,

And with their mild persistence urge man's search

To vaster issues.

So to live is heaven:

To make undying music in the world,

Breathing as beauteous order that controls

With growing sway the growing life of man.

Farewell, Tim. May he rest in peace, and may we honour his memory by continuing the work he believed in so deeply.

Time is still being measured in weeks since the passing of one of our own, Tim Picton. The shock, the senselessness and the injustice continue to burn within everyone who knew him and who loved him. Tim's loss is devastating for no-one more than his daughter, Charlotte, for Priya and for his close family. It is for my dear friends Chris—Tim's brother—and Chris's wife, Connie, for Tim's parents, Michael and Fiona; for his nieces and nephew; for his sister, Jo; and for his extended family, all of whom are in the deepest of grief and who will forever mourn his loss.

This is a grief felt, too, by many, many mates across Australia including those senators in this chamber tonight and many working in this building. It would be nice if the Hansard could show how many of his friends have come from offices across the building to be here to see this condolence speech. I acknowledge all of you in here tonight as well.

Tim made an extraordinary contribution to the Labor movement. In South Australia he was actually a bit of a hero to young and to old. He had an incredible pathway from his roles in South Australian Young Labor into the halls of parliament on the campaigns of some of our biggest figures in South Australia. I know he remains an inspiration to so many in Young Labor still and to so many in our movement.

He was a campaign extraordinaire—so much so that the east coast simply couldn't win without him and nor could the west. He played a key role in the successes of Premier Andrews and then Premier McGowan after him, and South Australia is mighty proud. Tim was so deeply admired across our party as a brilliant strategist, and it is the absolute truest thing to say that he was one of the greatest national political talents of my generation and our generation here.

He had so much more to give, and he had so much more to give his daughter, his greatest joy and his proudest achievement, Charlotte. Charlotte was the apple of his eye, and Tim's brother, Chris, compared watching Tim with Charlotte to watching Bandit with Bluey—total presence and total joy. I know Tim was an absolutely wonderful uncle and godfather too, so to little Anna, to Alex and to Clara: I am so sorry for your loss as well. I know personally how much you loved your uncle.

When I think of Tim, I'm going to remember him as he was the last time I spent some time with him. He was looking shockingly handsome and super relaxed, wearing an absolutely beautiful suit that I couldn't help but touch and feel the thread count of. He was holding court in a group of incredibly powerful people with a big cheeky smile, being a total star. I know Tim's legacy will live on in the lives he has changed for the better, through the contribution he made to our movement, through the way all of his friends will remember and honour him and through his family—in his brother, Chris, especially, who fights, as Tim did, for working Australians every single day and in his precious daughter, Charlotte. Tim, may you rest in eternal peace.

As a mark of respect, I ask senators to join in a moment of silence.

Honourable senators having joined in a moment of silence—

Thank you, Senators.

I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Professor Katie Allen and to extend my deepest condolences to her husband, Malcolm, to their children, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie, and to her wider family, friends and loved ones. Katie Allen's passing is a profound loss. It is felt most deeply by her family but also by the many Australians whose lives she touched through her work, her service and her compassion.

Like so many, I had the opportunity of attending the memorial service for Katie, held last week in Melbourne. I have to say, we were asked to arrive at 10 o'clock for a 10.30 commencement, so I thought: 'I'll arrive at 10 past 10. That will give me plenty of time to get in.' When I arrived at 10 past 10, the church was already filled. It was utterly incredible. The line to get into the church stretched around the corner, off Flinders Street, and, by the time we got in, the priest who was leading the service stood and said: 'We are now at capacity. We will now open up Federation Square. We have massive screens for people, and seats have been placed out for people to actually be part of the service.' There were at least over 1,000 people who attended the memorial service. It was fascinating because we were there as part of those who were in her political life. As we know, she served this parliament as the member for Higgins. I think that, in the short time that she was the member, as everybody who spoke about Katie said, she represented her community with diligence, integrity and a strong sense of responsibility. She brought to public life a depth of experience grounded not in politics for its own sake but, because of her background, in service to others.

Before entering parliament, Katie built a distinguished career in medicine. It was incredibly humbling, as I walked through the church, to actually see different sections that had been set aside for the people who represented a certain part of her life. By any analysis, those who were part of her medical career and her time as a medical professional where the bulk of it. She was a doctor, a paediatrician and a medical researcher. She devoted her professional life well and truly, listening to those stories, to improving the health and wellbeing in particular of children and their families. Her work was driven by evidence, by care and by a deep commitment to making a practical difference. As we all know, medicine is not just a profession; it is a calling. It demands long hours, resilience and empathy. Katie embraced that calling fully, approaching her work with rigour, compassion and integrity, always conscious that behind every decision is a human life. Again, that same mindset shaped her contribution to this parliament. Katie brought the perspective of a clinician. She was thoughtful, careful, grounded in facts and acutely focused on outcomes. She understood that decisions made here have real consequences for families and particularly for children.

For all of Katie's professional achievements, though, her greatest devotion was always to her family. In a 2019 Facebook Christmas post, Katie said this:

Family is everything, in whatever form it comes. Family is the reason for getting up in the morning. For working hard. For caring about our community. For caring about its future.

Her partnership with her husband, Malcolm, was central to her life, built on mutual respect, shared values and a steadfast support through the demands of medicine, public service and family life. She was a devoted mother to Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie—in fact, her children were literally her pride and joy. She balanced demanding responsibilities with the everyday realities of family life, and her love for her children shaped everything she did.

Those who knew Katie remember not only her intellect and professionalism but her warmth, kindness and humanity. She listened, she cared and she treated people with respect whether in the community or in this parliament. Loss leaves a space that cannot be filled, but it also leaves a legacy, and Katie's legacy lives on through the values she embodied—compassion, service, integrity and devotion to family—and through the many lives she touched. To Malcolm and to Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie, no words ease the pain of your loss, but please know that you are surrounded by the thoughts, respect and goodwill of many.

I have to say that I've found it very hard to believe that Katie is no longer with us. For people who were able to attend her memorial service at St Paul's in Melbourne, she was such a remarkable person. The term 'great Australian' gets thrown around far too often, but Katie had achieved so much in her life. She was a world-class medical researcher. The work she was able to do on children's allergies is going to be used into the future, far beyond the time that we will have on this Earth.

She was a remarkable person. I thought to myself, 'How fortunate were we to have had this person come into public life and want to make a contribution, even if it was only for a day?' She was here in this parliament for three years. I think anyone who is human would go to a memorial service like Katie Allen's and feel very inadequate. Yes, she was a world-class medical researcher, but she was a family person—four children and a magnificent partnership with Malcolm. Her political career and public service was almost like an additional add-on. It was almost an added extra that she gifted to the community.

Katie and I came in in 2019, and she was a ball of energy. She was vibrant. She could be very dogmatic, but she was a magnificent, warm person. She was so focused on trying to make the most of her time for her constituents and to make a contribution to Australia. She had a magnificent civic mission, which was almost religious—I think it actually was religious, and I say this as a non-religious person. I think her memorial service showed the depth of her religiosity, which was very important to her. She had this mission to do good, and she did do good. Sometimes she broke a few eggs. That was, I thought, a magnificent quality. She was so determined to do good. She made her mark as a medical doctor serving in parliament during a health crisis, and she was able to give the government of the day—and Greg Hunt touched on this at the service—remarkable insight. I think he respected her not only as a medical professional but also as a colleague, and I think she was able to cut through some of the bureaucracy and give the advice directly to the executive government.

This was such a premature death and such a great loss to Australia and to Katie's family, of course. Katie did talk a lot about the premature death of her own mother, and, frankly, for the people who knew her well, it seemed that she was perhaps in such a hurry because she was worried she wouldn't have the length of time that may have been afforded to others. She made such a great mark on us. She was a great colleague and a really great Australian, and those of us who were lucky enough to know her and work with her across the aisle—this side, anywhere—were all very fortunate. Rest in peace, Katie.

I was looking over Katie's first speech to parliament earlier today, and one sentence she said, in particular, stood out to me. It was this:

I don't know how long I have in this place or, indeed, on this planet, but I've always stood up for a better future, and I'm not stopping now.

That was Katie in 2019. Her maiden speech was in July 2019. It turned out that she didn't have as long as we would have liked in this place or, indeed, on this planet. But her promise then—to her electorate, to her colleagues and to her family—to always stand up for a better future, she fulfilled in very good measure.

Katie, as a couple of the speakers have said, had a life full of many chapters. I think many of us in the parliament, here, only felt like we knew one very small chapter—almost a postscript to a very successful, fulsome and substantive professional life. I was at the memorial service, like some of my colleagues, last week in Melbourne. I, too, like Senator Bragg, felt highly inadequate. If I could get one-tenth of those people to my memorial service, I would be thrilled.

St Paul's Cathedral was packed to overflowing, and there were people from all different parts of her life—her work with Melbourne Grammar School and her patronage of Melbourne Grammar School, where, I think, she was a fourth-generation student and still highly active in the school. She was clearly loved and cherished by that community. The medical community was there in volumes, a testament to the leadership, the mentoring, the research and the capacity that she had shown. Then, of course, there were many, many loving family members.

It was clear to me that Katie was someone who brought a lot of light into people's lives, and I know that was certainly the case in parliament. She brought a lot of light. She brought a lot of energy. She brought a lot of enthusiasm. If I had to think of one word to describe Katie, it would be indefatigable. You could say she was relentless, unstoppable or hugely optimistic, but she was certainly indefatigable. I was simultaneously in awe, jealous and resentful of her energy levels from time to time in this parliament. Her ability to do things and focus on multiple tracks, her ambition to achieve and leave a mark in public life the way that she'd done in her medical life, was phenomenal.

She was only here in this place for a short time—for three years, one term—but during that time, during the global pandemic and the biggest public health crisis Australia had faced in at least a hundred years, she brought all her expertise, all her contacts, all her enthusiasm and all her knowledge to bear. Greg Hunt, the health minister at the time, spoke very compellingly last week in Melbourne about the role that Katie played in the numerous and unprecedented public health and other challenges we as a nation and as a government had to deal with back then.

She made an immense mark during her time in parliament with her indefatigability. I think when she was elected to Higgins that was the second election she'd contested. Just last year she was contesting her fourth election with a diagnosis of a terminal illness but not telling anyone so committed was she, I think, to fulfilling her obligations as a candidate with honour and fulfilling what she thought she'd made as a commitment to the people of Chisholm and the electors as well.

One other thing Katie said in her speech which stuck with me was when she referenced her mother, who wasn't alive when Katie was elected to parliament or sworn in. She said that she thought about her mother a lot when writing her speech. She felt her mother there beside her, guiding her. I thought those were comforting words because Katie leaves behind some really great loves—Malcolm, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie—who I'm sure, much more than we can imagine, are missing their mum, wife and family member greatly. But Katie's presence was such and her energy and her spirit so strong that that will continue to guide them and be alongside them for the rest of their lives. May Katie rest in peace and may her family take her memory as a blessing.

I rise today to speak about one of the most incredible people that I think this place has ever seen despite only being here for three years. I don't know anybody who has made the kind of mark on this place in such a short time as Katie did in the short time that she was here. But I am actually going to make a fearless prediction that, even though Katie is no longer with us, her legacy will continue to be felt in this place because there were so many things that she did that I think we should all draw lessons from. She actually came here with a true belief in her heart that all she wanted to do was to make this world better for other people. So I'm glad to have had the opportunity to have known Katie for the three years that she was in this parliament and then to have known her for the time that she wasn't in this parliament and then to have had the privilege of working with her last year in the hope of getting her back into this parliament, all of us completely and utterly unaware of the challenge that Katie was facing. But right the way through that the campaign you just wouldn't have known because her commitment to her community and her commitment and her desire to deliver for the people that she wanted to deliver for, which was pretty much every Australian, absolutely never wavered the whole way through.

But I think, as Senator Sharma just mentioned, those of us who had the privilege of being able to go to Katie's funeral left there with a sense that we are really only knew one part of Katie. From almost the minute that Katie was able to make a contribution to the world she started doing it. We heard from her school principal about how even as a young person when she was at school she was already out there. She was a leader from the minute she was born. She did not become a leader; she was always a leader. She led her school community. She was the head of her debating team, which clearly served her in good stead in some of the debates we have in this place. She led that school, but she never left the school. She stayed with that school. Her children went to that school. She remained on the school board and continued to contribute to that part of her life that first started her on her leadership journey.

Then after, obviously, many years of studying, she became a paediatrician. But that wasn't enough for Katie. That wasn't enough. She then needed to continue to develop herself to be able to give to the children that she saw needed her help. She went into research—I was quite blown away—publishing more than 450 times. I won't say an exact number because I'd probably get it wrong, but something like 472 times Katie was published in peer-reviewed papers in her field of expertise, which included making sure people understood about the allergies that we as a society are now starting to see. That is such an important part of her research work that now lives on as her legacy for everything that she did. Apparently she is constantly referred to in policy papers around the world, not just here in Australia, for her contribution in her research effort.

Once again, that wasn't enough for Katie. She needed to do more. So she took the next step in her career, to come in here and continue her public life by representing her community of Higgins. It wasn't just the community of Higgins that Katie represented; it was the whole of Australia. There was never any issue that Katie wasn't prepared to prosecute. There were many times, when I was the minister for social services, that there would be a call from Katie to say that she had a group of people that she believed needed to have an audience with somebody from the government because their story was compelling, and she was prepared to tirelessly advocate for them. I'm sure the reason that Katie always had such a beautifully slim figure is that she never stopped for a minute. She probably forgot to eat because she was too busy prosecuting the issues of the people that she cared for.

I think that probably the greatest loss to this parliament was when Katie was not re-elected to come back into this place. I think all of us would proudly leave this place, even if we'd been here for a long time, if we left the legacy that Katie managed to leave in just the three short years that she was in this place.

Most particularly, our hearts go out to her family. Watching Katie's beautiful children give their contribution about their mother at the funeral and then listening to Malcolm tell their love story—which is the kind of thing that you could write a movie about—in his contribution at the funeral, we realise just how incredibly her family must be feeling the pain of losing Katie. Our hearts go out to them. Vale, Katie Allen.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise to pay tribute to the late Dr Katie Allen, the former member for Higgins. Her life was defined by service, compassion, integrity and a gritty determination. Katie was a warrior for the people she represented and for the causes that she cared about so deeply. Katie was a very good friend and an inspiration. She made the world a better place. It is difficult to comprehend that Katie is gone. At age 59, it is way too soon. She had so much more to do and so much more life and love to give to her adored husband, Malcolm, and their four beautiful children, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie.

As we've heard in these wonderful contributions, Katie came to this place after an incredible career as a medical specialist, paediatrician, medical researcher and professor. She was someone who had spent her professional life caring for others. That instinct never left her. It certainly shaped the way she approached her work in this parliament and the way she represented her community. I'm sorry to be so sad.

In the parliament Katie was thoughtful, conscientious and deeply committed to public service. She brought a calm, determined, evidence based voice to debates on health, women's wellbeing and preventive care and, of course, to the pandemic and to the wonderful people she represented, the people of Higgins. She was a fighter. She never gave up. She had an incredible fight to win preselection for the seat of Higgins. She fought so hard for the three years that she was here in parliament. As we now know, under the most terrible circumstances, she fought for preselection for Chisholm and ran the most wonderful campaign. The last time I saw Katie was here in parliament late last year, when she led a delegation of Liberal women, some aspiring to be members of parliament. She had a genuine commitment to the advancement of women. She was struggling and she was frail, but that gritty determination shone. She was determined to continue to make a difference.

I wanted to actually table Greg Hunt's eulogy at the memorial service. I wasn't able to attend the memorial service because I was overseas on leave, but I attended Katie's family funeral, which was a very moving occasion. I just wanted to draw briefly on the contribution that Greg outlined in his eulogy. I don't think any of us understood how highly credentialed she was. When you look at her achievements, her qualifications and the contributions that she made as a medical researcher as a specialist paediatrician it is quite extraordinary. In the three short years that she was here in this place she played a critical role in Australia's successful response to the COVID-19 pandemic. She was the only medical practitioner in the Liberal Party, and she played a very significant role in shaping and influencing Australia's successful COVID response. I seek leave to table a magnificent tribute to Katie from Greg Hunt.

Leave granted.

I have to say that the second last time I saw Katie was when Jane Hume and I visited her at her home. It was just after the election. I have to say that it was very cathartic. We had a wonderful time. Katie was on the cups of tea, and Jane and I were on more than one vodka each! We were suffering the consequences of a lost election and then our respective demises from shadow cabinet, and I think it was more therapeutic for Jane and me. We told all sorts of secrets and shared some of the gritty details that had happened with the ins and outs of the election loss and then what happened following the election loss in this place. We actually had a really wonderful time. Malcolm then arrived. It was just so joyful. We kept on saying, 'Sorry, we're talking more about us than we are about you, Katie,' and she said: 'I'm loving it. I'm so loving the fact that I'm sharing this with you.' It was a truly wonderful visit. But, at the same time, she also spoke directly and with such bravery about what she was facing, with such incredible courage.

It's just so shocking to lose such a magnificent woman at such a young age. It's just so shocking. I just want to express my deepest condolences to Malcolm, her beloved husband; to her beautiful children, Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie; to Katie's extended family; and to her close friends. Katie's passing is a profound loss to this parliament—she was so determined to come back here—to her community and to our country. Vale, Katie Allen.

I pay tribute to Dr Katie Allen and her life of exemplary public service. Katie's long career of service began first in medicine and research. Many people have asked me whether I knew Katie just because I was a doctor. I just want to clear this up now. I really didn't, because Katie was a paediatric doctor, and I was an adult doctor. In medicine, there's a professional and cultural firewall between these two disciplines. There shouldn't be, but there is. I actually learned the most about Katie sadly at her unbelievable memorial service. People will be talking about this memorial service for years to come. Seeing was believing. When I listened to the eulogies from people who knew her well, all I could think about was relentless service and excellence in each of those chapters of her life, as Senator Sharma said. I think, honestly, she set a new benchmark for the rest of us on how to live a good life—a benchmark which I think is unattainable for me, certainly.

She was a consultant paediatrician at the Royal Children's Hospital for nearly 30 years and a leading researcher and academic, holding senior roles at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, including as division head for population health and director of the Centre for Food Allergy Research. She also held professional appointments at the University of Melbourne, Monash University and the University of Manchester and authored more than 400 peer-reviewed publications—an extraordinary output. Her research helped change how paediatric food allergy is understood and managed. Particularly pioneering was the establishment of the HealthNuts study, which was the first population-based epidemiological study that accurately measured food allergy in infants. It turns out that Australia—Melbourne—is the food allergy capital of the world, thanks to Katie's groundbreaking research.

Katie then stepped into political life, serving as the member for Higgins from 2019 to 2022. During my own time as the member for Higgins it was clear that she was respected and well-loved and was seen as an active local member. Constituents widely respected her and said to me, so many times that I lost count, how much they admired her principled stance on what was then a very controversial move—when she crossed the floor on the Religious Discrimination Bill. The constituents of Higgins are a highly informed and educated group of people, and they knew exactly what that meant—the significance of it—and they paid tribute to her for her courage.

During her political term, Katie advocated strongly on behalf of the rebuilt and now absolutely state-of-the-art Very Special Kids, in Malvern. This facility really is a benchmark for the rest of Australia. There are only two or three palliative care facilities for children in Australia, compared to more than 60 in the UK. This is something I learnt thanks to Katie's advocacy. Katie of course built on the incredible legacy of the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, who was instrumental in refurbishing and rebuilding Very Special Kids. Katie also championed better care for people affected by eating disorders, including as an ambassador for Eating Disorders Families Australia. There is now, thanks to her advocacy, an eating disorders clinic in Armadale, run by Alfred Health, my old workplace. It's funny, right, the sync?

To Katie's husband, Malcolm, and her four children—Monty, Jemima, Arabella and Archie—and all those who loved her, I extend my deepest condolences and acknowledge her contributions across medicine, research and parliamentary service. Hers was a life well lived but taken too soon. Vale Dr Katie Allen.

I rise to add my voice to the contributions that have been made today from around the chamber about the passing of Professor Katie Allen, not only as a former colleague but also as a dear friend. Like many in this place, I too am still coming to terms with her loss and the absence of someone whose presence, whose generosity and whose courage meant a great deal to so many of us.

I first met Katie when she was at the Royal Children's Hospital. I was serving on the board of the children's hospital at the time, and she was at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute. She was already a shining beacon there. She bounded up to me at a hospital function. I knew who she was: she was a paediatrician, she was a professor, she was a scientist, she was an allergist, she was beautiful, she was thin, she was blonde, and she had four children—and I thought, 'I'm going to hate this woman immediately,' on sight. But how could you hate her? She was charming, she was warm, she was friendly, she was enthusiastic, she was interested in other people, and she just cared; you could feel, from the moment you met her, how much she cared for others. And she was curious.

I remember being genuinely surprised—quite flabbergasted—when she said, 'I'm interested in politics, and I think I want to run for the Liberal Party.' I thought: 'Why? Why would you do that? Look at you! You're amazing! Look at what you're doing!'

An honourable senator interjecting—

I know: isn't that terrible? But she was deadly serious, and it was almost immediately that I understood why she wanted to do this. She believed that, if you had the capacity to contribute, you also had a responsibility to contribute. That was what her life was all about. She was the real deal. She was determined to make the world a better place. Achieving excellence, for Katie, was never an excuse to stop; it was a reason to keep going. She was generous with her time. She was, as I said, interested in others. She was deeply grounded, and, despite everything she had already achieved, she wanted to achieve more.

Over the years that followed, she did achieve more—more than I think anyone ever dreamed would be possible. She brought that intellect and that discipline and that moral clarity into public life as the member for Higgins, a position in which she served with distinction. When she lost that seat and it was redistributed away, she came back, and she was absolutely determined to finish the job that she had started, as a candidate for Chisholm in the 2025 election. I worked with her very closely there. She was an incredible campaigner. 'Indefatigable' was the right word, I think, Senator Sharma. She fought every day, even when she didn't feel quite right, even when she was in pain and even when—right up until election day, before she was diagnosed—she clearly knew that the cancer that she thought she had defeated had come back.

A couple of days before the election, I was out on prepoll with her, and her whole family were there. I've got to admit that there was a bit of me that was quite jealous. I thought, 'God, I don't think all my family would come out like this.' But I think that they all knew that something was coming. It didn't become official until after the campaign was over, but they all knew. They're an incredible family.

She approached politics in the same way she approached medicine—evidence based, thoughtful, calm under pressure, always focused on outcomes and not distracted by noise. People have spoken about her contribution to politics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her experience and judgement were widely sought from right around the chamber, from colleagues in government and across the parliament, from the media and from Australians who were looking for somebody credible who could give us guidance. She never overstated what she knew. She never sought attention. But she also never simpered and never apologised for being the expert in the room. She always spoke with integrity; I loved that about her. In a period when trust mattered most, Katie earned that trust.

One of the causes closest to Katie's heart was, as others have mentioned, empowering other women. Her commitment to the Pathways to Politics for Women program was deep and sustained. She gave back generously through so many avenues—and I won't go into all of them—but the mentoring of young women will always be part of her story and part of her legacy. She continued this even when her health was failing, as Senator Henderson has said. That was Katie. Even at the very end, she was always thinking about how she could help others, who she could lift up, who she could encourage and how she could leave things better than she had found them. What I'll always remember about her is her sense of right and wrong, her loyalty, her kindness, her thoughtfulness, her courage and the fact that she worked tirelessly every day, even when she didn't have to. She believed deeply in service.

Above all, Katie loved her family. She spoke of them often and so fondly: her husband Malcolm and her four children, Archie, Arabella, Jemima and Monty, who have been mentioned so many times before and who spoke just so magnificently at the memorial and at her funeral—from the heart. What an incredible family she has left behind. It was clear to everyone who knew her just how deeply she loved them and how much that love was returned. That love truly sustained her and truly defined her.

She succeeded in absolutely everything that mattered. She improved lives, she lifted standards in medicine and in public debate, and she lifted standards in this parliament. She leaves behind a legacy of generosity, of leadership and of belief in others that will endure for many, many years to come. Now, I'll let you in on a secret that, probably, is pretty obvious when you look back. Her favourite colour was pink, and the brighter, the better. So, anytime you don a pink jacket or a pink frock or put on your pink lipstick, I hope that people in this parliament will remember Katie Allen. My deepest sympathies are with Malcolm, Archie, Arabella, Jemima and Monty and all of those who loved Katie. I think that we are all much better people for having known her.

As a mark of respect, I ask senators to join in a moment of silence.

Honourable senators having joined in a moment of silence—

Thank you, senators.

I rise today to speak about the Royal Australian Mint and the 60th anniversary of Australia's move to decimal currency. On 14 February 1966, Australia changed how it counted money. Pounds, shillings and pence were replaced with dollars and cents. It was a significant national reform affecting every household, every business and every school in the country. For many Australians, it required relearning some basics. Prices changed. Wages changed. Everyday transactions had to be recalculated. The scale of the task should not be understated.

What made the change successful was planning and public education. The transition was carefully managed, and the government understood that people needed help translating policy into everyday life. That help came in many forms, including the now-familiar 'decimal currency—the easy way' jingle, which turned a complex reform into something people could recognise, repeat and remember. It was a practical choice. By meeting people where they were, the government reduced confusion and built confidence. That lesson still matters, because reforms of this scale work best when they're explained clearly and consistently, not just announced.

The Royal Australian Mint played a central role in that transition. Established in 1965, the Mint was responsible for producing the new decimal coins and ensuring they were ready for circulation across the country. Since then, the Mint has continued to supply Australia's circulating coinage. It has also taken on a broader role as a national institution that reflects Australia's history, culture and identity through coin design.

I recently attended the Capital Region Showcase here in Parliament House, where the Mint had a stand. I was also able to visit the Mint itself as part of a public opportunity offered to mark the 60th anniversary of Australia's introduction of decimal currency. During that visit, I joined other members of the public in pressing a $1 coin to commemorate the anniversary. It was a practical and engaging way to connect with this milestone and to see firsthand the craftsmanship and precision involved in Australia's coin production. That opportunity is still available, so I would suggest anyone listening to my contribution here today—I'm sure there are thousands and thousands!—to hotfoot it over to the Royal Australian Mint and pick up a bit of history.

I was able to see the Mint's work up close and was given one of the 60 years of decimal currency coins at the showcase. It was a simple reminder that those coins are not just functional objects; they do carry history and meaning, even when they are part of everyday life. To mark this anniversary, the Mint—as I've already said—has released a series that brings together design elements from all eight of Australia's circulating coins. Native animals, national symbols and familiar imagery are combined in a way that reflects continuity rather than nostalgia.

These designs are not decorative for their own sake; they show how currency can act as a record of national choices and priorities over time. Coin collecting builds on that. It encourages care, patience and attention. It also creates opportunities to learn about history, design and symbolism. The Mint's resources on coin collecting and coin care support that learning in a practical and accessible way. Learning how to look after coins is part of that process. It reinforces the idea that value is not only about spending; it's also about preservation and respect for shared history.

In an economy that is increasingly digital, physical currency still matters. Coins are reliable, accessible and inclusive. They do not require technology or connectivity. But they continue to be important for many Australians, including older people and those who rely on cash to manage household budgets. I also wish to acknowledge the contribution of the Royal Australian Mint and the role it has in producing Australia's coinage and supporting education and public understanding. I commend them on the work they've done in celebrating the 60 years of decimal currency, and I put on record my appreciation of the Mint staff, who are very well educated in the support that they give to people who are visiting the Royal Australian Mind. (Time expired)

I rise to speak on a matter of grave importance to the people of my state, and that is Victoria's crime crisis. This is not the first time I've spoken about Victoria's crime crisis in this place, and unfortunately I don't think it will be the last. Under Premier Jacinta Allan's Labor government, the levels of violent crime in Victoria and the lawlessness in our communities have only gotten worse.

Just this week, some shocking news emerged from the suburb of St Kilda in Melbourne, where a teenager was stabbed and then run down by his own car, in what has been described as the most brutal and senseless attack—a teenager! What a horrific and violent crime! Unfortunately, this is not the first time we've seen victims of crime being young Victorians. We all remember the tragic story of the two young boys, aged just 12 and 15, who were murdered in cold blood by a gang of young thugs. Such violence occurring in broad daylight and in built-up areas in Melbourne, in public places, is deeply distressing—for families, of course, and for friends, definitely, but also for businesses and for those who simply want to go about their lives without fear.

The details of these incidents remind us that crime is not an abstract statistic. It's a lived reality for so many Victorians, and new data now proves that point. According to the Productivity Commission, Victoria has the highest rate of victims of armed robbery in the nation. Almost one in three Victorians do not feel safe walking alone in their neighbourhood at night. That's the highest rate of any state in the nation. They're damning statistics.

It's bad enough that the Allan government have allowed crime to worsen, but they've actually cut funding from the police at the same time. In May 2025 Premier Jacinta Allan cut $50 million from the Victorian police budget. Since she became Premier, in September 2023, the number of full-time police in Victoria has fallen by 367. At the same time, criminal offences have increased by 25 per cent. Due to staffing shortages, there are now 43 police stations that are operating on limited hours. What was initially described as a temporary measure isn't temporary at all; it has become a permanent feature.

Just weeks ago the problem was brought to the forefront in the worst possible circumstances. Two young women were sitting stationary in their car when a man approached the car, produced a knife, slashed one of the women across her upper arm and then fled the scene. She did what any sensible person would do—she ran to the nearest police station, in Reservoir, but when she arrived and got out of the car, bleeding, the station was closed and unstaffed. The station happened to be one of those 43 stations that had cut their opening hours because of staff shortages. Imagine that—being the injured victim of a really scary crime and being unable to get help from the one place you should reliably be able to go to, because their hours have been cut because the government has run out of money to keep them open. That's outrageous, but that is Jacinta Allan's Victoria.

Not only is violent crime sweeping through our streets; so is non-violent crime. This is extraordinary and so unnecessary. Just last week, out in Rowville, a bronze statue of Mahatma Gandhi, a symbol of peace and nonviolence, was cut from its base and stolen from outside an Indian Australian community centre. That's just extraordinary. Done in the early hours of the morning, this theft of a culturally and symbolically significant statue has sent shock waves through the Australian Indian community. Why has this gone on? How can this be allowed to continue? It's so unnecessary, but it is Victoria today under a Labor government.

Under Labor, Victorians live in fear and with fewer police on the beat now than when Premier Allan became premier. This situation is only going to worsen. Only Jess Wilson, the leader of the Liberal Party, will end Labor's crime crisis.

We are living in dangerous times. Fascism is building right before our eyes, and it is no accident. In the United States, a country built on violence and exploitation, state violence is moving out of the shadows and becoming normalised as explicit policy. We have seen ICE agents kill with impunity, children forcibly removed from their families, and protests met with escalating police brutality rather than accountability. What once would have been unimaginable is now ordinary, daily news. Trump now deploys military power with no regard for due process or for human dignity. The chaos and horror are relentless. Yet the Albanese government embraces this terrifying regime.

By cosying up to Trump, Prime Minister Albanese signals the type of leader he is willing to align with, one who thrives on cruelty and domination. The government clings to this myth that giving in to power makes us safer, stronger and more prosperous. It does not. Just yesterday it was revealed that the Albanese government may be quietly preparing to hand US authorities, including ICE, direct access to Australians' biometric and identity data. We found out only through the media.

This government just keeps bowing to billionaires, to energy giants, to weapons manufacturers, to corporate lobbyists and to the endless demands of the United States. We cannot pretend that these patterns are confined to distant shores. The disease of fascism is taking root here too. Governments crack down on political protest and criticism of policy is treated as subversive. Every measure, every law, that limits dissent—every instance of ignoring injustice—is a warning sign of democracy is being hollowed out.

Here at home we face real consequences as well. Cost-of-living pressures are rising, housing insecurity is worsening, climate chaos is intensifying and inequality is growing. Racism is thriving and fear is spreading, and the Albanese government is leaning into it. Laws have been rushed through that validate false narratives about Muslims, excluding them from protections. Neo-Nazi rallies are met with near silence, and First Nations communities are attacked while the state offers little accountability. The racism and scapegoating are not fringe; they are mainstream. This is why we cannot rely on billionaires, war profiteers or authoritarian leaders to save us. We cannot rely on governments that kneel before power while ordinary people struggle.

We must reject alliances built on cruelty, greed and domination. Australia can and must choose a different path, one grounded in human dignity, in global justice and in environmental survival. We must demand leadership that stands with those fighting oppression and not with those profiting from it—leadership that protects communities rather than punishes them, leadership that speaks truth to power, even when it is inconvenient and dangerous. That is the courage that our times demand.

So the choice is clear. We can continue to follow fear and submission and watch a democracy continue to be dismantled by those that sow division and hatred, or we can stand together, insisting that morality, justice and human dignity guide this country's decisions.

Last week I had the immense pleasure of visiting friends at the Gurdwara Sri Guru Nanak Darbar in Officer and seeing firsthand the extraordinary contribution this community makes to the lives of people across Officer and Pakenham. Led by Harpreet Singh, a deeply respected community leader, the Gurdwara has become far more than a place of worship for the Sikh community. It's a welcoming hub that brings people together, builds genuine connection and strengthens social cohesion across the region. It is a place where care, generosity and service are not just spoken about but lived every day.

Through the dedication of Harpreet and an incredible team of volunteers, the Gurdwara supports thousands of people in the local area, from providing meals made with locally sourced products, to redistributing leftover food to ensure that nothing goes to waste, this community puts compassion and sustainability at the centre of everything that it does. Their commitment to becoming fully self-sufficient is a powerful example of environmental sustainability in action as well.

The Gurdwara also runs a wide range of programs that support community wellbeing, including educational initiatives, health camps and a one-to-one-to-one swimming program that helps ensure children and families can access vital life skills. Participants only have to pay a third of the cost, with a third covered by the swim school itself and a third paid through donations from the temple. This program works closely with Life Saving Victoria to develop a 10-week program helping adult migrants learn how to swim and enjoy the water safely. This is something many people take for granted, having learnt to swim as a young age myself. However, these programs make a tangible difference to people's lives and reflect a deep belief in fairness, dignity and opportunity for all. And the food is delicious, generously shared and can be replicated in our own kitchens thanks to the beautiful recipe books they produce.

Harpreet and the entire community at the Gurdwara are Victorians that Victorians should be truly proud of. Your work shows what is possible when a community comes together with generosity and purpose and a commitment to looking after one another, and I pay tribute to all of you. It is leadership worth celebrating and an example worth aspiring to, and it is multicultural Victoria creating care and connections at its absolute best.

Another organisation similarly doing remarkable work in Upwey is Foothills Community Care, which I also visited last week. It's an organisation that provides meals, practical support and pathways to other services for people who are doing it tough in their community. What makes Foothills so special is its commitment to changing the way we think about care and support. Rather than a one-way relationship of those who ask for help and those who give the help, Foothills is built on dignity, participation and connection. People may come to receive a meal, but they are also welcome to contribute in meaningful ways, whether that is volunteering in the op shop, helping in the cafe or being part of the day-to-day life of the organisation. This approach actively removes barriers and reinforces a powerful message: everyone has something to offer, and everyone is of value.

Foothills operates as a social enterprise, reinvesting everything back into the community. They collaborate with a local coffee roaster, selling delicious, local, quality coffee, creating both employment opportunities and a sustainable income stream that supports their services. It is a practical, values driven model that strengthens the local economy while meeting real community need. The organisation is working towards expanding into a new multipurpose space that will include a larger kitchen, communal dining area, op shop and coffee shop where they can expand their reach into the community even further. They are looking to collaborate with other services in the area to help become more of a one-stop shop for support and connection.

Foothills is a powerful example of what community led, passionate service looks like, meeting people where they are, restoring dignity and building stronger connections across the community. To the team at Foothills, thank you for your dedication in creating important community connections and care.

In an era of increasing geopolitical volatility and fragmented global supply chains, the concept of national security has evolved far beyond the strength of our nation's military. For Australia, true security is now synonymous with national resilience—that is, the ability of our domestic systems to withstand, adapt to and recover from external shocks. While a well-funded Australian Defence Force remains the primary shield, its effectiveness is extrinsically linked to the robustness of our internal infrastructure, manufacturing and social fabric. Put simply, a nation that cannot build or maintain its own essential equipment is inherently vulnerable.

Manufacturing is the bedrock of this self-reliance and, under this Labor government, we have seen a hollowing out of our domestic capacity to manufacture at home due to higher energy costs, excessive taxation and stifling red and green tape, all a consequence of bad Labor policy. Without a sophisticated domestic manufacturing base, Australia remains at the mercy of international logistics, which can be severed in an instant by conflict or pandemics.

Sovereign defence construction is particularly impacted by vulnerable, corruptible supply chains. By building our own naval vessels, armoured vehicles and standoff weapons systems on home soil, we ensure that maintenance and upgrades are not dependent on the whims or availability of foreign powers. Australia's self-sufficiency must also encompass whole-of-society necessities. We have dangerous exposure in our supply of pharmaceuticals, fertilisers, liquid fuels and water purification, all of which are necessities not easily acquired in wartime.

Resilience also requires a pragmatic approach to energy security. To power a modern economy and a high-tech military, Australia requires a cost-effective and reliable base-load power supply fuelled by a diverse energy mix well beyond intermittent, weather-dependent infrastructure. Moving away from ideological constraints in energy policy and stopping the import of slave-built, short-life, fickle infrastructure for renewable energy allows for a grid that prioritises stability and sovereign control over external fuel and infrastructure dependencies.

As our physical infrastructure becomes more interconnected, cybersecurity has emerged as a front line of national defence. National resilience also means protecting our financial systems, utilities and government data from state sponsored actors. That's because the first act of war will not be fired from a barrel but exploited through cyberspace. A resilient Australia is one where both the public and private sectors have the digital fortifications necessary to prevent the crippling of the national economy through a keyboard.

Perhaps the most overlooked factor in national resilience is social cohesion. A divided society is easily exploited by foreign interference and disinformation. Resilience is found in a population that trusts its institutions and remains united by common values. When a community is cohesive it is significantly more difficult for external adversaries to destabilise a nation from within. This Labor government has stoked division by dog whistling terrorists at our national monuments, ignoring embattled communities and importing those who do not share our democratic values or embody our great Australian values.

National resilience cannot be achieved through government spending alone. Our resilience strategy must have appropriate government support and deregulation. A Liberal partnership of the Department of Defence and the industry of defence would empower the private sector to build the very facilities—from labs to refineries—that the nation requires. This is important because, when domestic industry is unfettered and strategically supported, it creates a feedback loop that strengthens the military. A properly funded ADF backed by a nation that produces its own medicine, refines its own fuel, secures its own borders, fertilises its own fields, cleans its own water and powers its own grid ensures that Australia remains a 'hard target'. National security is a holistic endeavour. It is the sum of our military prowess and our domestic endurance.

Senate adjourned at 19 : 59