If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This of course is the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Folks in the chamber and, I'm sure, many people around the country will remember the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices that the Greens established in the last parliament. It was a committee that put the supermarket corporations, and in particular the CEOs of those corporations, on the rack and held them to account for their rampant price gouging. In particular, Coles and Woolworths, the duopoly in the supermarket sector, together enjoy a market concentration of about two-thirds of the entire supermarket sector in this country—a concentration, I might add, that far exceeds any other similar jurisdiction around the world, whether it's the UK, whether it's the US, whether it's European countries, whether it's New Zealand. Australia has the most concentrated supermarket sector in the world. Thanks to the pressure that committee brought to bear—I acknowledge Senator Cadell in the chamber today, who was a very constructive member of that committee. It reminds me of Mr Joyce's quote; the way to make things happen in this place is when people in Akubras and people in koala suits get together. That committee recommended a range of things, including divestiture law reform but also making price gouging illegal.

I spoke about the supermarket duopoly, but of course there is a political duopoly in this place: the Labor and Liberal parties. Together they resisted the Greens' attempts to make price gouging illegal right across the economy. In fact, I very clearly remember when Labor voted this bill down—this very same bill—in the previous parliament. So, out of the goodness of our hearts, we are now bringing this bill back on to give Labor another opportunity to do the right thing.

Under pressure from the Greens, the Prime Minister got up in the early days of the election campaign last year and committed Labor to making price gouging illegal in the supermarket sector. I'll say a couple of things about that. Firstly, it shows that pressure from the Greens works. It shows that, when we go to work, when we raise an issue and explain clearly how people are being hurt by what is going on—in this case, supermarket price gouging—we can put enough pressure on Labor to force them to act. That's exactly what Labor did. They've now come in and introduced regulations that make price gouging unlawful in the supermarket sector. Those regulations will kick off on 1 July, and the Greens will be scrutinising those regulations very closely—both ahead of 1 July, during the disallowance period, and post 1 July if those regulations stand—to make sure they do what it says on the tin.

The simple fact is price gouging should be illegal not just in the supermarket sector but right across the economy. Whether it's the big banks, big energy companies or big insurance companies, when you have a concentration of market power in particular sectors of the economy, big corporations should not be able to exploit that market power to price gouge their customers. It makes no sense at all to make price gouging illegal just in the supermarket sector when you've got the big banks, the airlines, the insurance companies and the energy companies also misusing their market power to price gouge ordinary Australians. Millions of Australians are getting smashed everywhere they look now, whether it's at the supermarket check-out, whether it's their medical bills, their power bills, their school bills or their transport costs or, importantly, given the interest rate rise this week, whether it's their mortgages or their rents.

We saw the performative hand-wringing from the Treasurer and the Prime Minister this week after the RBA put up interest rates, pretending that there was nothing they could do about it. They blamed it all on the RBA—'the RBA is independent; there's nothing the government can do'— when, in fact, the government has plenty of levers it can pull to take inflationary pressure out of our economy and reduce the pressure on the RBA to put up interest rates.

I mean, you wouldn't think that Labor could have turbocharged an already out-of-control housing crisis after coming to office, but that's exactly what Labor has done. There's their ongoing support for the mindbogglingly generous capital gains tax discount. Over half of the benefit goes to the one per cent wealthiest people in this country. It overwhelmingly favours older Australians; young Australians get next to no benefit out of it. Of course, that pump primes demand in the housing sector and puts houses more out of reach for renters who're trying to buy their first home. There's Labor's five per cent deposit scheme, which every economist in the country warned them would put house prices up. And look what happened—it did! The combination of those two things is worsening the housing crisis and driving the great Australian dream of owning your own home further out of reach for millions of Australian renters and young people.

The other thing Labor could do to rein in inflation and ease the pressure on the RBA to act is to make price gouging illegal. At Senate estimates in 2024, the Greens questioned Ms Bullock, the governor of the Reserve Bank, and she conceded that some corporations are using the cover of inflation and the lack of competition to hike prices higher than any increase in their input costs. That is a textbook definition of price gouging.

Of course, when big corporations with market power jack up prices simply because they can—because Labor won't stop them from doing it—that drives inflation higher, it drives costs for ordinary Australians higher and it puts pressure on the RBA to lift interest rates, which then applies more financial pressure on millions of Australians through their mortgages and through their rents.

Do you know who cheers the loudest when the RBA puts up interest rates? That's right: it's the big banking corporations, because there is a direct correlation between interest rate rises and increased profits for the big banks. While millions of Australians are now struggling with higher mortgages and millions more Australians will struggle with higher rents as a result of the increase in interest rates, the big banks are laughing all the way to the bank. While Australians are suffering deepening financial stress, the supermarkets, the airlines, the insurance companies, the banks and the telcos put up their prices and report ever-growing profits. In the last financial year, Qantas reported an 18 per cent increase in profit. Australia's largest insurer, the Insurance Australia Group, reported a staggering 30 per cent increase in their profits. Australia's big four banks booked an eye-watering $31.5 billion profit between them last financial year.

Since Labor came to government in 2022, the cost of essentials across the economy has skyrocketed. Insurance has jumped by 38 per cent since Labor came into government. Essential food products, like bread, cereal and milk, are up by 20 per cent. When the Treasurer and the Prime Minister brush off any responsibility whatsoever for rate hikes, what they fail to tell Australians is that they have the capacity to bring inflation down, which would lower the likelihood of rate rises. They could start to exercise that power right here, today, by supporting this bill to reduce corporate price gouging. This needs to be done across the whole economy, not just in the supermarket sector.

After voting down the Greens bill to make price gouging illegal during the last parliament, Labor capitulated during the election campaign and announced that they would make corporate price gouging illegal in the supermarket sector. Their capitulation on this issue is proof that Labor could act if it made the political choice to do so. But of course Labor rakes in political donations from many of the big corporations, who would not be able to price gouge if this Greens bill were successful.

The other proof point in Labor's delivery of price gouging reform in the supermarket sector is that it shows that the Greens campaign against the capital gains tax discount actually is starting to bite and that Labor does feel political pressure. When you point out the egregious unfairness of the capital gains tax, in terms of both economic inequality and intergenerational inequality, it is an absolute no-brainer for reform. If the Treasurer is looking for budget repair, I offer him capital gains tax discount reform. If the Treasurer wants to deliver for working Australians, as he said he would after his economic roundtable, the Greens offer him capital gains tax discount reform. If the Treasurer wants to deliver on intergenerational equity, as he said he did after his economic roundtable, the Greens offer him capital gains tax reform. The great thing about capital gains tax reform is that, because it overwhelmingly benefits such a small number of Australians—the ultra-wealthy of this country—you can actually pluck the largest number of feathers with the smallest amount of squawking. It is a political no-brainer, it's a budget no-brainer and, most importantly, it is a no-brainer in terms of fairness. It is a no-brainer to address soaring wealth inequality in this country and it's a no-brainer to make sure that young people get a fair crack not just at owning their own home but in getting ahead and having a dignified life. Going to work for a living is turning into the worst way to get ahead in this country.

If you go to work every day and you're on the average wage, you pay more tax in a year than someone who makes the same amount of money flipping investment properties. That is how cooked our economic system is. That's how biased our tax system is against working people. Then you've got a Labor government, a party that was formed to look after the interests of working people, who lock in behind this eye-wateringly unfair tax provision where well over half of the benefit goes to the top one per cent, the wealthiest people in the country, and people under 35 get well under 10 per cent of the benefit. It overwhelmingly favours older Australians, and younger Australians keep getting shafted—as they are by climate change, as they are by biodiversity collapse and as they are by the housing crisis. And now Labor is locking in behind this unfair provision in the tax code.

In relation to making price gouging illegal across the economy, renowned experts, including former ACCC chair Professor Alan Fels, have recommended making it an offence to charge excessive prices. Professor Fels, I note, did not recommend that that provision be limited to only a single sector. The Greens bill is based on Professor Fels's recommendation and the support of a range of economists right across the political spectrum. It's based on the EU model, which is working to keep prices down in the EU and stop corporations from price gouging. It is possible to take on corporate Australia. It's possible to make price gouging illegal. The numbers are there in both houses of this parliament. The only thing stopping us is the Labor Party. (Time expired)

I'm pleased to be able to speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024 this morning, and I rise to show my support for this bill. Australians know that when they go down to a supermarket, to the shops, the deck is stacked against them. Billion-dollar corporations have the market in a vice grip. They choke their suppliers and underpay farmers. You would think that these companies just sell food, but no: they actually engineer spending. From the moment you step into a store—with the way they lay out the aisles, the music they play and the smell of fresh bread pumping through the store—they are conditioning you and nudging you to buy more.

They're getting inside your head and pushing you to buy more and to accept the prices that they have asked you to pay without even challenging it. The 2025 ACCC report on supermarket prices found that Australia has 'an oligopolistic market structure in which Coles and Woolworths have limited incentive to compete vigorously with each other on price'. The report goes on to say that, over the past five financial years, margins have increased for Coles, Woolworths and ALDI, meaning that at least some of the grocery price hikes that Australians are having to pay for are translating directly into very high profits for these giants.

And it doesn't stop at prices. The ACCC's interim report found that 165 blocks of land, largely owned by Coles and Woolies, have been left undeveloped, some for many years. This practice, known as 'land banking', prevents competitors from opening new supermarkets and keeps competition out of local communities. In WA—particularly in Maylands, which is within the member for Perth's electorate—Coles has held onto a vacant lot for 18 years. This is causing huge frustration for Western Australians who look at the empty land while driving down Guildford Road. Not only is it an eyesore; it is prime land that could be used for housing less than five kilometres from the Perth CBD. When you pose the question to Coles and Woolies, these two giants, about this, they just blame local councils and development rules for the delay and the lack of progress. But the effect is clear: fewer choices means less competition and means higher prices, and it's ordinary Australians carrying the burden of the rising cost-of-living pressures.

Before the last election, as Senator McKim mentioned earlier, Labor did promise to ban price gouging in supermarkets. At the October estimates, the minister said:

… the government's commitment, in response to substantial community concern, was to develop legislation by the end of this year.

By 'this year', he meant 2025. Yet this deadline came and went, and no such bill was brought before this parliament. That tells Australians exactly how much urgency the government has attached to this issue. Instead, we're given regulations—and this is a very long one—called the Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Food and Grocery) Amendment (Supermarkets Excessive Pricing Prohibition) Regulations 2025. It's quite the mouthful. These regulations were made without parliamentary scrutiny, and they won't even come into effect until July. A political duopoly that is regulating a supermarket duopoly is what we're seeing before us. These rules effectively hand the price gouging problem to the courts at a time when Australians need the government to stand beside them at the checkout.

The regulations raise serious concerns. For example, how will the government accurately measure the true cost of supply for Coles and Woolworths? Supply chains are complex and we know they're constantly changing. But, without clarity, how do the government and the ACCC keep track of these changes so that price gouging can be distinguished from supply instability?

Compared to the government's regulations, an element of this bill that recommends itself is that it does not believe, as the government apparently does, that the scourge of price gouging has quarantined itself within this country's supermarkets. We've seen it particularly in insurance, mortgages and electricity—prices just never seem to go down. We need to address price gouging no matter what happens and no matter where it happens.

Earlier this week, I moved OPD No. 317 relating to the excessive pricing regime, and I hope that, in the coming weeks, we finally get some clear answers about how the government intends to deal with this because this is a question that is circulating around dinner tables. People are having to make those really tough decisions: Do we pay rent? Do we buy less groceries? Where do we go to get our groceries? They're counting every single cent because, with the interest rate hikes, every dollar counts. Every cent counts. The reality is that the Reserve Bank has signalled another wave of inflation, if not two. As interest rates continue rising, everyday Australians will pay more for the basic essentials of life. Yet, time and time again, the supermarket duopoly just seems to walk away unscathed. We're seeing this pattern not just now; it's been happening for a while. Regular Australians carry the burden while the duopoly profits from their pain. It's not fair, and it's not how the economy should work.

I implore all my colleagues in this chamber to support this bill because our constituents—Australians out there who have placed the responsibility on us to make the sensible decisions—expect us to be hearing and listening to them. They expect us to ease their pain, to address issues like this rather than put them off or wait for the government to come to the table. This is a very sensible bill, and I commend the Greens and Senator McKim for bringing it forward.

One Nation agrees with the motivation behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolies have far too much market power and they're exercising that power in a way that benefits their shareholders, not their customers. With BlackRock Inc. holding influential positions in the share registers of these once fine companies, rapacious greed was always going to be the outcome. The accent here, though, is on the fundamental mistake Coles and Woolies are making, which is to exercise market power for the benefit of their shareholders, not their customers. Customers have been given notice. Coles and Woolies, once trusted and respected names, are now the two most disliked brand names in the Australian corporate scene. What a fall from grace!

This abuse of market power has caused customers to migrate to new options, so the market's coming to the rescue. In a stunning rebuke to Coles and Woolworths, Amazon has now paired with Harris Farm to add fresh food to Amazon. Amazon now offers same-day and next-day delivery of Harris Farm products—including meat, dairy, eggs and fresh produce—to over 80 suburbs in Sydney's inner city, inner west and surrounds. This will use specialised insulated chilled packaging via Amazon Flex for freshness. Harris Farm already had its own online store and partnered with Uber Direct for quick store based same-day delivery prior to this happening. That's the beauty of free enterprise competition. If one retailer turns a cynical and greedy operation, this creates an opportunity for someone else. And Coles and Woolies will be done.

If you haven't been into your local Harris Farm, IGA or Supabarn lately, I suggest you do that because Coles and Woolies have put their prices up much more than the inflation rate would justify, and the independent retailers have not. The price difference now is almost negligible, and you still get served by human beings. Fancy that—a human being serving! A retailer who values the customers wants to treat them as human—what a refreshing change! The 25c paper bags don't fall apart, but the Coles and Woolies' paper-thin rubbish bags faint with fright when confronted with an escalator or steps on the way back to your car. We've all had this happen.

The existing regulations need to be policed before we add new ones, especially ones as poorly worded as this bill. Seriously, this bill could mean anything. The ACCC conducted an inquiry into deceptive price advertising by Coles and Woolies and found they're using specials to put the price of a product up, then down and then up again in a way that leaves the public confused as to the real price. And the public is learning from this. They know that Coles and Woolies are not focused on customers; they're focused on their BlackRock Inc. investors. They exploit the confusion to put the prices up further. They were fined a pittance and they're still doing it. Surely we have laws already to bring these companies to heel. This Labor government needs to grow a bloody spine and just enforce the laws. You're not enforcing the laws, and then you're quite often wanting more. How much have Coles and Woolies donated to the ALP in recent years?

While we are on the subject of price gouging, will this bill cover price gouging by the government? Seventy dollars for a packet of cigarettes is price gouging. Fuel excise, the fees on passports, energy bills, insurance, strata fees—these are price gouging.

One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation. This bill won't do anything except create a lawyers' picnic that Coles and Woolies will win. It will be a lawyers' picnic, and the customers will lose.

What a surprise that One Nation aren't supporting the battlers out there in Australia who are doing it tough right now! Senator Roberts, respectfully, this is a chance for you to stand up for those Australians who are struggling right now in a cost-of-living crisis. This is a very constructive bill and has been well worked through for a long period of time, and I commend Senator McKim for all of the work that he has done on bringing this forward, as well as the momentum that he and the Greens have been able to achieve, pushing the government to do better on supermarket price gouging in particular—and, yes, we certainly look forward to seeing those regulations when they appear before the Senate.

Senator Roberts, you say you support the battlers out there who are doing it tough, especially in rural, remote and regional Australia. Why wouldn't you support a bill that actually takes on the power of big corporations? Is it because you're now campaigning with billionaires? Is that why you're not going to support Australian battlers? Australians have got pretty good bullshit detectors, Senator Roberts, and I think they're going to look at exactly what you're doing on the ground versus all your rhetoric on social media and the machine that you've got behind you that is funded by billionaires.

Senator Whish-Wilson, I would remind you that we do try and use parliamentary language here. I would also remind you to direct your remarks through the chair.

Yes, thank you for reminding me of that, Deputy President. This is doable. This kind of reform is doable in the Australian parliament. I want to remind senators of a time when we all worked together to get significant reform to Australian competition policy. I remember, when I started in the Senate in 2012, Mr Bruce Billson—who went on to become the small business ombudsman—was floating the idea of a competition effects test. Competition policy in Australia at that time—if you wanted to pursue a big corporation, especially a supermarket giant who was dealing with farmers, for example, in terms of buying their produce and the contract terms, you had to prove intent. If you wanted to pursue a big corporation for misuse of market power or misconduct, you had to prove that they were deliberately conducting anticompetitive behaviour, which is extremely difficult to do.

My personal experience of this was an interesting one. I went to King Island as a new senator in 2012, and farmers right at that time had had their abattoir shut down. They'd had a state-of-the-art upgrade to the abattoir on King Island, which was important because the only other option was to send their cattle in boats across one of the roughest stretches of ocean on the planet, Bass Strait, to be processed in Tasmania. Their abattoir was bought by JBS, one of the biggest, most aggressive corporations on the planet, who at the time appeared to be supporting farmers on King Island but very shortly shut down the abattoir. They rationalised their portfolio of assets because they had processing capacity at Longford in Tasmania. The state government had just put in a $4 million taxpayer funded grant to help the effluent plant at King Island become a lot more sustainable.

Of course, farmers were furious. I wrote a letter to the ACCC, asking if they would investigate JBS for anticompetitive behaviour, and the ACCC wrote back to me, saying, 'Senator, it's going to be very difficult to do that because you need to prove that they've done this intentionally.' I thought there was a good case because it was clear that they had bought the abattoir to shut it down to make their Tasmanian business more profitable. That's when my and the Greens' campaign to get an effects test started: 'If that's what it takes—here's a really good example of how these big companies are ripping off small businesses and farmers—then we're going to do it.'

The story gets more interesting, because we had a couple of champions in this chamber to get what turned out to be one of the most significant reforms to competition policy in decades. One of them was Senator 'Wacka' Williams, who used to be in this place and who many of us remember and remember fondly, quite frankly. The way it turned out was that, in 2015, the Harper review into competition policy also recommended that the government implement an effects test, but the Liberal government of the day said no, they weren't going to do that. I tell you what, there was the mother of all fear campaigns. We've seen some pretty big ones in our time in this place, but there was the mother of all fear campaigns, saying that if we got an effects test it would literally shut down our economy overnight.

Of course, big business railed hard against it. They wore out the carpets in this place lobbying against it. And do you know how we got it? The Greens put up a motion in here for an effects test. As it turned out, Mr Malcolm Turnbull's leadership challenge against Tony Abbott in 2015—at that time, the Nats crossed the floor to join the Greens to support an effects test. That was the day that Mr Turnbull was negotiating with the Nationals to pull them into a coalition with him as leader. Wacka Williams told me: 'We've put it on the table. We're not going to bloody well form a coalition with Malcolm Turnbull unless we get an effects test.' Because he was standing up for farmers. This was in the days when the Nats actually cared about farmers and small businesses. They weren't just in this place supporting the interests of big fossil fuel companies, which is what they do now.

As it turned out, true to his word, the LNP reformed under Mr Turnbull's leadership, and then we got an exposure draft for an effects test in 2016. I'm very proud to say the Greens, working with the Nats—because the Nats were part of the LNP then, which they're not anymore—had the numbers with the LNP to get that through, and, of course, the government did it. In 2017 we got an amendment to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, and we got an effects test delivered in this country. Of course, the sky hasn't fallen in. It's been a very sensible amendment to competition policy in this country, just like Senator McKim's bill is here today. If we work together, and we actually do care about battlers, and we do care about small businesses, and we do care about railing against misuse of market power, this is exactly the kind of legislation we should pass.

Let me give you another example of when the Senate led on cracking down on predatory pricing and financial misconduct. The Senate passed a Greens bill for a parliamentary commission of inquiry, which was a royal commission that reported to parliament, not the executive. It was one of the few times that a private senator's bill has passed the Senate and gone to the House. At that stage, once again, Wacka Williams, along with other Nationals senators and, at the time, the Labor Party, supported that bill, and it went to the other place. Of course, Malcolm Turnbull, the prime minister at the time, was under a lot of pressure. It was kind of like kryptonite; he didn't want to touch it. But, in the end, Mr Turnbull, facing a potential rebellion from some of the LNP senators and MPs at the time, called a royal commission into the banks. And it shocked the nation. It literally shocked the nation. Within a week or two of the evidence, some of the biggest critics of that royal commission in the lead-up to it came out and did a mea culpa and said, 'I had no idea how bad things were.'

The Greens—Senator McKim, others and I—had nearly 16 Senate inquiries in the lead-up to this, and we couldn't do the job that needed to be done but we knew what was at stake here. I must say, One Nation supported our bid for that royal commission into the banks, that would have reported to parliament. This is another example of how we can work together to actually shift the dial on the misuse of market power and take on excessive corporate power and excessive greed. There is plenty of precedent for the Senate and senators working together on this.

I put this question genuinely to the National Party and the Liberal Party, who are currently at war with each other: What's it going to take? Are you going to work with the Greens on this? Are you going to support this bill to get momentum and get it going? I don't know if there are any supporters in the National Party. They haven't given a contribution on this. Let's face it, the National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, for some time now, on a number of things. It appears they're more like fleas on a dog right now, but I'd like to see what they're going to say. Are they going to be in here supporting a bill that supports battlers at a time when Australians are doing it so tough, at a time when we have a cost-of-living crisis and at a time when we have a housing crisis—a housing affordability crisis and a lack of supply? Once again, we can all work together on that to get more housing supply into this country and help people who desperately need a roof over their head and give some hope to young people and Australians on low income who would also like to own their own home or at least have access to public housing. It's for women who are suffering from domestic violence and who desperately need shelters and long-term secure accommodation.

There are so many reasons that we need more housing in this country, but the reason we haven't dealt with this crisis is the parliament of Australia. We haven't been able to put aside our differences, wean ourselves off the vested interests that are in here constantly trying to lobby us not to do this kind of thing when we know that we can make a difference to the battlers of Australia, and a price-gouging bill—we know it's a major driver of inflation, as Senator McKim said in his contribution. We saw the Reserve Bank raise rates. I don't think that's going to have any short-term effect on inflation. It's the same game all the time. It's like whack-a-mole. Why not do something structural that actually impact inflation in this country, like tackle corporate price-gouging?

Supermarkets are a clear example, but this problem goes far beyond the check-outs across Australia. Price-gouging is happening across the economy, and it's keeping inflation higher for longer. Of course, if we keep raising interest rates, then we're increasing to price people out of the market, especially low-income and young Australians who want to own their own home. It's also tough on mortgage holders, many of them who are also struggling to pay their mortgage and put food on the table. The Greens bill would make price-gouging illegal across the economy and give the ACCC the powers it needs to investigate and prosecute corporations that exploit their market power to unfairly hike prices. As Senator McKim also said in his contribution, this bill has the support of key and very experienced, may I say, experts in this field, like Professor Allan Fels.

Rather than facilitating big companies ripping off Australians—Australians that are doing it tough—we can actually make a difference here today. The ultrawealthy are getting richer than ever before, and the major parties appear to be giving them special treatment. Instead of leaving the inflation fight to the Reserve Bank and interest rate rises, the government should be tackling corporate price-gouging, which, as I said, one of the major drivers of inflation. Our politics is becoming a place where billionaires speak the loudest, and they're expecting you to listen. We mentioned in the chamber this week that we've seen the latest AEC data, where a number of very wealthy people, including Gina Rinehart, Australia's richest citizen, give significant money to a right-wing attack group like ADVANCE, which I noticed has essentially been campaigning for One Nation—the irony of that!—and for some of the issues like mass migration and the kinds of political frame that we find ourselves in now. Of course, we saw Mr Clive Palmer yesterday here in Canberra talking about a High Court challenge, talking about the caps to political donations.

We know billionaires have a big influence. The ultrawealthy have a very big influence on our democracies, not just here in Australia but overseas, and I tell you what—it's on the nose. It's on the nose for a lot of Australians. As I said before, they've got very good BS detectors, and when they see billionaires trying to influence our democracy, pumping money into right-wing advocacy groups that have been out there spending tens of millions of dollars prosecuting their agendas—they're not agendas for the battlers, by the way. This bill before us today is an agenda for the battlers of Australia, not for billionaires. Do you think billionaires really care about price-gouging and the fact that prices in the supermarkets have gone up and that Australians are struggling? I don't think so. As I said the other night, I don't know exactly what the agendas of some of Australia's most prominent billionaires that have, for example, been in the media this week, like Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer, are, but I can guarantee you that their agendas aren't your agendas. This bill is something that Australians would support. They all want to see excessive corporate power being tackled by the parliaments of Australia. It is our job to regulate these companies. It is our job to regulate in the public interest, not in the interest of a few wealthy Australians or big corporations.

I'll finish by commending Senator McKim for bringing this bill forward. I urge all senators to support this bill—send it to the House so we can have a really good debate.

This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024, makes a mockery of this place. The Senate is a place for serious debate on the issues that affect this country, not a place for socialist dog whistles. They've titled the bill with a name that no-one could disagree with—after all, who wants price gouging?—and filled it with pure socialist government control. Let me be clear: One Nation cares deeply about the people of Australia and making a dollar go as far as possible, but this bill will not achieve that.

They call economics the dismal science because economics ignores utopian dreams and follows the ironclad laws of supply and demand. Capping prices does not work. Price caps destroy supply, kill competition, reduce quality and limit choice. What actually drives down prices is greater competition and innovation. The Greens quite rightly point out that we have a concentrated supermarket sector, but that is because of government regulation. More government regulation will not solve this problem. The only businesses that can afford to comply are the big players. Mum-and-dad stores, cooperatives, are locked out.

Who in their right mind would start a business under this Labor government? Every step of the way you are hamstrung by regulation, navigating a broken tax system. Income tax, payroll tax, fringe benefits tax, goods and services tax—the list goes on. You need to navigate oppressive industrial relations laws, green tape and compulsory surveys. There is no relief for small business, so guess what—they're disappearing. I know the Greens will say, 'This is only targeting the big end of town,' but where do you think the big end of town starts? It starts with small businesses that grow into big businesses and provide people with choice. I should know; I started a business with only me and my brother and ended up with over a thousand employees. I can tell you this: I don't think I'd be able to do it again under the current laws. I would be crushed by the red, green and black tape. The government already controls every aspect of business. Now the Greens want to control prices. We have seen this show before, in Mao's China and Stalin's Soviet Union. This is not a recipe for human flourishing; it's a road map to deprivation.

The real price gouging in Australia comes from those that are trying to push these bills—the government. If you want a real monopoly, look at the taxman. Look at those that are able to charge you what they like. The real villain, taking money out of the pocket of everyday Australians, is the Labor government. This government is the reason that people can't afford the basics. Those opposite have fuelled inflation through their reckless spending. They are the root cause of the cost-of-living crisis. If the government is silly enough to go down this path, the shareholders of these companies will make their profits, and they will do so by pushing down on suppliers, cutting costs and quality. The farmers will be the ones that are squeezed out, and when they're gone they're gone for good.

One Nation will deliver real cost relief to Australians—less tax, less red and green tape, more money in your pocket and more choice for all Australians.

I welcome Senator McKim's attempt to try and help out here, but I must say I'm a little sceptical of the chances of this actually doing much. I don't know if people are familiar with something called Polymarket. It's an online prediction site. Overnight on Polymarket the odds of Jesus Christ reappearing this year have doubled. They were two per cent and they're now four per cent, and I still think there's more chance of Jesus Christ returning to Earth this year than of Nick McKim being able to help lower grocery prices in Australian supermarkets.

Senator, I remind you to refer to senators by their correct title in this place.

As long as I've referred to the saviour and son of God by the right title, I'm happy, but I don't think Senator McKim has much chance of making a difference here. It's an admirable goal. Prices are too high. But this bill it is very, very simple. If it were this simple it'd be a little surprising that somebody hadn't done this before. All the bill does is say, 'A corporation that has a substantial degree of market power cannot price a good over an excessive price.' How do they work out what a competitive price is? It says in the bill:

The competitive price, for a good or service, is the price at which the good or service would have been acquired by, or supplied to, the other person if the corporation did not have a substantial degree of power in that market.

That is price setting. That's what this is. There is no price here that Senator McKim is referring to. There is no external data or figure that can be used to set the benchmark under this bill. You have to have somebody—someone with a slide rule or somebody with a spreadsheet—determine what the price would have been if the corporation did not have a substantial degree of market power. Who's going to determine this?

There have been examples of this over the years. It's called a politburo. A politburo gets together and says, 'This should be the price of bread, this should be the price of shoes and this should be the price of screws at Bunnings.' That's what this is. I don't know if it's news to the Greens and Senator McKim, but all of the attempts in history to do this have failed and failed miserably because there is no way for government, including bureaucrats in Canberra, to set prices in a sensible way without destroying the incentive to produce, to sell and to make the effort to provide goods and services to Australians. This would be covering the entire Australian market with a politburo that would be charged to set prices for all Australians. It would be a complete disaster if passed because we simply can't assess these things without doing great damage to the people who produce goods and services.

It is not just Coles and Woolworths that would be harmed by this naive and simplistic attempt to set prices in Australia. As egregious as their behaviour has been—and I am a big supporter of changing our competition laws to introduce divestiture powers like other countries have because of their behaviour—this would also impact on all of the suppliers to Coles and Woolworths, such as the farmers and the small-business people who the Greens are purporting to protect, because this bill does not exempt them in their supply chain that goes to somebody who has a substantial degree of market power. They will be impacted because the bureaucrats will have to sit there and ask, 'Okay, what should the price of milk be?' They'll have to assess what the price of milk should be in a competitive market without market power. They'll have to sit down and work it out. What happens if these bureaucrats make a mistake? Obviously, public servants never make a mistake, do they! But what if they make a mistake and set the price of milk way below the cost of production for a farmer in this country? You would get exactly what you got in places like the Soviet Union. You would then get shortages of basic goods, because people won't produce the milk if they're not getting a return for their hard labour and work to do so.

So, again, I am not questioning the motivations here of the Greens. They want to lower prices. We would all like to see that. But this is too simple, is too naive and has never worked before, and so we should oppose this bill.

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

by leave—at the request of Senator Lambie, I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3630 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 24 to 25), omit "or another decision prescribed by the regulations".

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 6 to 15), omit subsection 367C(2), substitute:

(2) An application made to the ART for review of a reviewable migration decision is an application to be reviewed on the papers if the decision is a decision to refuse to grant a student visa.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 23 to 27), omit subsection 367C(4), substitute:

Regulations

(4) Without limiting paragraph (3)(b), regulations made for the purposes of that paragraph may prescribe circumstances relating to applications made before, on or after the commencement of those regulations.

The opposition does not support these amendments. The amendments limit on-the-papers review specifically to student visas, reducing the scope of streamlined reviews for migration decisions. Limiting the bill in this way may undermine its objective of reducing backlogs and streamlining processes in the ART as it potentially narrows the decisions eligible for on-the-papers review.

The government will not be supporting these amendments. The government maintains this power provides flexibility to respond to changes in migration case loads in a timely way. It is appropriately constrained to apply to temporary visa types and does not apply to protection visa matters. Removing the regulation-making power would undermine the effectiveness of these reforms. As a regulation, though, it is of course disallowable by parliament, as is appropriate.

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3630 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. It is a fact that, in 2026, Australia faces the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. That is not rhetoric; it is the sober assessment of defence planners, intelligence agencies and, more concerningly, our closest allies. It is a reality that demands seriousness, urgency and of course responsibility from this parliament. The Liberal Party supports the principle of this bill, which is strengthening parliamentary oversight of defence, provided that oversight remains bipartisan—and this is a very clear point—as well as disciplined and focused on strengthening Australia's defence capability, not politicising it.

The bill has, quite frankly, been a long time coming. It builds on the work of Liberal Party parliamentarians over many years. They understood that defence is not just another portfolio. In fact, in the Liberal Party we have always said, time and time again, that defence is the most fundamental responsibility of any national government. Liberal Party senators such as the late Jim Molan, Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett consistently argued for stronger parliamentary engagement with defence—engagement that improves accountability and understanding without undermining national security. In fact, the late Senator Jim Molan said in 2018, the time of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Contestability and consensus:

Defence is one of the most important priorities of any national government. Greater bipartisanship on defence, reached through debate and contest on a dedicated committee, will help to produce better policy outcomes to develop the capability Australia needs to defend ourselves into the future.

That was the late Senator Jim Molan, somebody respected on all sides of politics. What he said was true back then, in 2018, without a doubt. But, jump forward to 2026 and, as I said, we now are in the most dangerous strategic environment since the Second World War. The statement made by former senator the late Jim Molan is even more true now.

Australia is unusual amongst its closest security partners. Unlike the United States and the United Kingdom, our AUKUS partners, Australia does not have a dedicated parliamentary committee focused solely on defence. We believe that, done properly, this committee can fill that gap. It can provide a trusted forum for scrutiny, improve parliamentary understanding of defence programs, and strengthen accountability around delivery without undermining Australia's strategic objectives or our national security. But, again—and I go back to the point I have just made—the committee must build confidence in defence. It cannot become another platform for political games. It cannot add unnecessary bureaucracy. And it must not become a forum for grandstanding or pointscoring. It must enhance scrutiny whilst at the same time supporting Defence's ability to plan, decide and—possibly most importantly—deliver at speed. We believe that, at its best, this committee could actually strengthen bipartisan consensus around Australia's strategic interests. It can improve how Defence engages with the parliament, reduce excessive risk aversion and help ensure that every dollar spent on defence is actually well spent.

For those reasons, the Liberal Party supports the bill in principle, and we will support it when it goes to a vote. At the same time, we will be holding the government to the longstanding conventions that protect Australia's national security. This is incredibly important. Defence demands continuity, competence and, most importantly, bipartisanship, not politics. This committee must follow the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, otherwise known in this place as the PJCIS. It's a committee that I currently sit on.

For more than two decades, 20 years, the PJCIS has operated on the basis—for the very obvious reasons of what we are dealing with—that membership is drawn from the government and the opposition only. The convention exists for a reason. I think anybody would understand that committees dealing with sensitive national security matters require trust—trust between members, trust with Defence and the intelligence community and, most importantly, trust with our allies. Appointing Greens or independents would politicise classified defence matters, undermine that trust and weaken the purpose of the committee. It would also undermine and break longstanding bipartisan practice, upheld by every single prime minister since former prime minister John Howard. Whether the current prime minister, Anthony Albanese, respects that convention, quite frankly—we'll support this bill, but this is going to be a test of both his leadership and his judgement.

Appointing members committed to defunding defence—just read their speeches or look at their platforms—undermining our alliances or opposing Australia's core strategic partnerships would directly contradict the intent of this bill. What's worse than that, quite frankly, is that the committee could potentially become a laughing stock. It would weaken the committee and, worse than that, would actually weaken our great nation of Australia.

As I said, we have a fundamental principle here: the committee must strengthen defence capability and accountability; it must not dilute it. So whilst this committee is a welcome step—as I said, we're not opposing the bill—it cannot substitute for readiness, and this is important.

Australia's strategic environment is deteriorating rapidly. In Europe, Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine has entered its fourth year, a reminder that major war has returned to the international system. In the Middle East, instability driven by state sponsored terrorism has shown how quickly regional conflict can escape and spill beyond borders. In our own region coercion, grey-zone pressure, cyberactivity and rapid military build-ups are now the norm, as opposed to what they were in the past: the exception. Those realities demand honesty about the threats we face. More importantly, they demand urgency in our response.

The Defence Strategic Review provided the diagnosis, and the National Defence Strategy set out the plan. The Integrated Investment Program was meant to turn those words into a real-world capability. But, sadly, under Labor these documents remain largely paper exercises. The truth is that the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy were underfunded from the moment they were released. Announcements have far outstripped resources. Defence insiders themselves have warned that much of the Integrated Investment Program is underfunded, that the cost curve for new projects is outpacing the budget and that essential investments—particularly in northern base upgrades, missile manufacturing, cybercapability and sustainment—are now being pushed off into the never-never. That should worry every single Australian.

Despite claims of billions in new defence investment, just $700 million has been allocated this final year to implement the National Defence Strategy. At the same time—this should worry every Australian—billions of dollars in projects have been cut, delayed or reshaped to make the numbers look tidy. And capability—again, this should worry every single Australian—itself drifts. It's a very simple fact that reviews and announcements sound good but do not deter aggression; readiness does. Australians understand that. They want peace through strength. They want faster decisions, more local defence industry jobs and equipment that arrives on time to keep Australians safe. Announcements without allocations do not deter adversaries. In fact, it's the opposite: they see the announcement, they see no action and they say, 'This is fantastic; we are now emboldened.' Every year of delay and every dollar not spent widens the gap between what the ADF needs and what they are actually getting.

We have been incredibly clear. We, as the Liberal Party, will change course. We will move Australia from rhetoric to where we need to be, given the deteriorating strategic environment—readiness. We have said that we will set a credible, fully costed pathway to lift defence spending to three per cent of GDP, ensuring deployable capability is delivered sooner, not decades from now. That commitment is about credibility, it is about matching defence funding to defence tasking and it is about ensuring strategy documents translate into real capability.

We have said that a Liberal government would ensure that the National Defence Strategy and the Integrated Investment Program are fully funded and delivered, not treated as slogans. Again, slogans sound great, but I tell you, if they aren't implemented, you've got a bit of a problem when you need readiness as the No. 1 capability.

We have said that we will prioritise minimum viable capability quickly over gold plated projects that arrive too late. We will build sovereign mass in missiles, drones, cyber and undersea systems so Australia can stand on its own two feet within our alliances, because allies—it is a fact—help those who are prepared to help themselves.

This is especially critical for AUKUS. AUKUS, signed under the former coalition government, is a generational opportunity for Australia's security and our economy. It offers high skilled jobs, apprenticeships and a durable pipeline of work, particularly for South Australia and for my home state of Western Australia. But AUKUS—it is a reality over the last five years, under the Albanese government—has also been underfunded. Labor has promised the most ambitious industrial build in our history—again, a great slogan, a great press release. Look behind it. They have not allocated the money to make it real. Seriously. As a result, AUKUS is now cannibalising the existing defence budget and leaving Australia in the worst of both worlds. Key decisions remain unfunded under this government. Infrastructure is lagging under this government. Skills pipelines are uncosted under this government. Pillar II, with its enormous economic and technological potential, is now underresourced.

The recent United States review of AUKUS has only heightened the risk. Scope and schedule are under pressure. Every dollar delayed now will cost more later. Drift or underfunding will not just erode deterrence. It therefore has the flow-on effect of weakening trust with our allies and risking breaking faith with the Australian communities being asked to carry this incredibly important project.

Again, just like when in government, we have said that a Liberal government will back AUKUS with real funding—we have to—through our pathway to raising defence spending as a percentage of GDP so that one capability is not sacrificed to pay another. We have said we will drive timelines, we will co-invest to unblock bottlenecks with our allies and we will ensure Australian workforces are trained and ready when the yards need them, not years later—remember, readiness. If you do not have readiness, quite frankly, I don't know how you can do anything.

But, above all, what we have said is this, and it is a clear message to our defence forces: we will put people at the centre of Defence. Defence does not run on press releases; it runs on people. Recruitment, retention, housing and family support are not secondary issues; they are foundational issues in Defence. Morale and readiness begins with our fantastic men and women who serve and, importantly, with their families, who are there to support them. The Liberal Party will fix the people challenge first because credibility, quite frankly, in defence starts there.

Again, as I said, this bill is a constructive step—and I do go back to the words of the former and late senator Jim Molan back in 2018—and it must be about strengthening Australia's defence, not weakening the conventions that protect it. The Liberal Party supports strong oversight. We support serious bipartisanship and we support a defence force ready to meet the times. We will support the bill, but I will be very clear: we will continue to hold the government to account for delivering the capability Australia needs, importantly, to keep Australians safe.

I rise to add my strong support to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. This bill represents an important step forward for this parliament. It strengthens our ability to scrutinise some of the most serious, complex and consequential decisions any government can make—decisions about defence policy, military capability, major procurement and, in the gravest of circumstances, the commitment of Australian forces to conflict. These are no ordinary policy questions. They involve immense public resources and consideration of long-term horizons, strategic risk and, most importantly, the lives and the wellbeing of the women and men of the Australian Defence Force and the civilians impacted by these decisions. It is entirely appropriate that this parliament equips itself with the right structures to examine those matters with care, depth and seriousness.

The creation of this committee responds directly to the recommendations of the inquiry undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into international armed conflict decision-making. That inquiry identified a clear gap. While parliament debates defence policy and scrutinises defence expenditure through existing processes, it has not had a dedicated mechanism to examine defence strategy, capacity and operations in a way that allows access to important classified information. That gap matters. In the strategic environment we face, many of the most important questions about defence cannot be meaningfully examined using only publicly available information. The details that shape capability choices, operational risk, contingency planning and the conduct of operations are often classified for good reason. Without access to that material, parliamentary scrutiny is necessarily partial.

This new committee is designed to address that reality. It is modelled on the established and respected framework of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That committee has shown that it is possible for members of parliament from across parties and from both houses to receive and consider highly sensitive information while maintaining the test of agencies and protecting our national security. This bill extends that proven model into the defence portfolio.

Let me be clear: this is not about expanding the parliament into operational decision-making. This committee will not direct the Australian Defence Force or make decisions about deployments. It will not override the prerogatives of our executive government. Those important constitutional settings remain unchanged. What this committee will do is strengthen parliament's capacity to understand, to question and to scrutinise.

The functions of this new committee are broad and forward looking. They include examining defence strategy and planning documents, scrutinising capability development and major acquisitions, being apprised of war or warlike operations and monitoring significant non-conflict operations at home and abroad. The committee will also consider matters relating to defence personnel and veterans and the performance and independence of key oversight bodies, such as the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. That matters because defence is about our people, our Australian people. It is about the responsibilities we carry towards those we ask to serve and the way we manage the risks that they are exposed to. Strong parliamentary scrutiny is part of that duty of care.

Senate committees will continue to examine defence legislation and budgets through established processes, including Senate estimates. Other statutory committees will retain their roles. But this bill will complement those existing mechanisms.

The key innovation in this bill is that the new committee will be able to receive classified briefings and information, subject to clear and robust safeguards. It is those safeguards that make this workable. Defence agencies and our international partners must have confidence that sensitive operational information, intelligence-derived material and details about highly sensitive capabilities will be managed appropriately. This bill provides that framework with private proceedings, with defined categories of protected information, with ministerial authorisation being required before certain highly sensitive materials can be compelled or disclosed and, importantly, with offences for the unauthorised disclosure of information obtained through the committee's work. Some might see these provisions as focused on the limits, but I see them as enablers. Without strong legal protections, agencies will be understandably reluctant to share the information that gives scrutiny its real substance. With those protections in place, the committee can operate in a way that is both responsible and effective.

It is also worth making another important point. Scrutiny conducted in private is not lesser scrutiny and, in many cases, is more searching. When witnesses are able to speak frankly in a secure setting, without the pressure of public performance, members can ask the hard questions, assumptions can be tested and risks can be explored in detail.

This committee also represents a step forward in the institutional maturity of our parliament. Defence planning and capability development are long-term endeavours. They extend beyond the electoral cycle. They involve investments measured by decades and decisions whose consequences will be felt by future governments and future generations of Australians. A standing joint committee with secure access to information provides continuity. It allows the parliament, across party lines, to build deeper expertise and institutional memory in this field. That continuity strengthens democratic accountability. It ensures that scrutiny of major defence decisions is sustained and informed.

I want to acknowledge the direct connection to the work already being undertaken in this parliament by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and, in particular, the Defence Subcommittee, chaired by my colleague Senator O'Neill. I am very lucky to be a member of that committee. Through that committee, I have seen closely the work involved in scrutinising the current defence policy settings and capability development and our important role in the region. The work of that committee really matters. It builds on the practical work of parliamentarians and the executive, who have been grappling with the limits of existing arrangements. But we understand that a deeper and more structured scrutiny is needed. The inquiry that led to the recommendation to establish this committee came from sustained engagement by members of that committee, who saw both the importance of defence oversight and the constraints of trying to do that work without access to classified information.

It would be remiss of me to talk about defence in this place without talking about our great state of Western Australia and the importance of Western Australia to this government's defence strategy. Western Australia is not peripheral to Australia's defence posture; it is central to it. I've spoken here before about my local community, which is absolutely central to our government's defence work and absolutely central to the defence of the AUKUS partnership. From HMAS Stirling and the growing strategic importance of the Indian Ocean to the infrastructure and workforce that will support the future of our conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine enterprise, my local community of Henderson is central to that work. Western Australia is at the heart of some of the most significant defence developments underway in this country.

Decisions about capability, basing, sustainment and long-term investment, decisions that will shake the jobs, the skills, the industry and the local communities in Western Australia for decades to come, deserve the scrutiny of a committee like this. Western Australians deserve to know that these vast, complex and long-term decisions are being scrutinised carefully, with access to the right information, not only by the executive but by the parliament as well. A dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence will help ensure that the national interests and the interests of communities, like mine, that host and support major defence activities are being examined in a serious, informed and sustained way. This bill has real significance for my home state of Western Australia and the local community in which I live—a place that is playing an increasingly central role to Australia's defence and strategic future.

Around the world, trust in public institutions is under strain. Complex policy areas, particularly national security, can easily drift further away from public understanding. Never has parliamentary oversight been more important. Creating structures that allow elected representatives to engage seriously and responsibly with these issues is part of keeping our system healthy and robust.

This bill does not solve every question about war powers or defence governance, and it does not attempt to. What it does do is make a practical, carefully designed improvement to the way this parliament performs its oversight and scrutiny role. It responds to considered recommendations. It draws on an existing model that has proven to be effective through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It balances transparency with the protection of national security. It strengthens our capacity to honour the responsibilities we carry towards the Australian people and the members of the Australian Defence Force. For all of those reasons, I commend this bill to the Senate and support its passage.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to oppose the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee—'secret boys club'—on Defence) Bill 2025. This is a bill that just goes to show how broken the war parties and the status quo parties are in this parliament. They're setting up yet another dark, smoke-filled cigar room where those who get the tick of approval, from Washington and from the likes of Richard Marles, maybe, or our security heads, can sit in their little private circle and furiously agree on how we should spend even more money buying US weapons to go to war with China on behalf of Donald Trump.

They're the same club of people who have got us into an impossible, embarrassing mess on pretty much everything they've touched in defence. This same club of war-hungry, war-mongering war parties, who call themselves parties of government, are the ones who have secret oversight of our security agencies. How's that going? That is now the subject of royal commission review and repeated criticism—the failure of ASIO to get out and communicate with the state police and the failure of state police to talk with the Federal Police. That's all oversighted by the private club that is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That's a disaster zone, a complete mess. Nobody thinks it works.

So what do the geniuses in parties of government decide to come up with? Let's take the secret, dysfunctional club for security oversight and let's make it part of a secret, dysfunctional parties-of-government oversight of defence. Then we get the representation from Labor: 'Do you know why this is great for democracy and why this is great for parliament? The real magic sauce in this thing is that it will all be in secret and nobody will see it happening.' That's the magic sauce in this oversight. It's a secret meeting of people who already agree, who want post-politics careers in the defence industry, who love Washington and who love Donald Trump. It will all happen in secret, and secrecy is the magic. In secret, in a room where everyone agrees, you can ask the hard questions. You can ask the hard questions and get the likes of Defence Secretary Moriarty to give you the hard answers, because that's going to work in secret. You couldn't make this stuff up, right? It's a joke.

The pretence that a secret club of people who agree, who are looking for their post-politics career in a Defence contractor is going to hold Defence to account is an embarrassing joke, and the country can see it. They can see that this shrinking part of the parliament, who wants to hold onto the status quo, who wants to keep shovelling endless billions of dollars into US defence contractors, nuclear submarines, the world's most expensive frigates on the planet, drones that can't defend themselves and US weapon systems that get sold by some tech bro in an afternoon spiel, doesn't work. They can see that Defence is a mess. They can see that the club is taking Australia in the wrong direction, and that's why more than a third of the country and a growing part of the country are voting for anybody but the war parties and the status quo parties. But I've got to tell you this. This is a bill that says: 'We're going to set up a new secret committee. It's going to be dominated by the government. We're going to let the opposition in, but only the opposition. It's going to operate in secret, and that's going to fix Defence.'

One of the questions I'm asking is: who are the parties of government now that are even going to sit on this? They used to occasionally invite a Nat in, but I suppose they're on the outer now too. So it's just going to be the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—just the Labor Party and the Liberal Party furiously agreeing on how to screw up our national budget on Defence, and then getting the patsies from Defence to come in and say: 'Yes, we need this new weapon system. We haven't tested it for value for money, but we think you should spend $8 billion acquiring this new weapon system, because we want to press a button and see it go whoosh, and our friends in Washington would like it because it makes us more interoperable with the US military, and we can be part of the next US war in Eurasia. So actually we should buy this for $8 billion. I don't think we need to tell the public anything about this. I don't think we need to trouble the great unwashed with the reasons why we're doing these dumb decisions. We'll just do It quietly amongst ourselves. We already agreed before we came into the room. We agree even more now. Let's just spend the money on this next US UK weapons system.'

It is such a gross misrepresentation to say that this is about oversight. It's just getting the club to give another big rubber stamp on their war plans and upon their complete and utter surrender to Washington. That's what it is. Why do we even pretend to have parliamentary oversight anyhow? Why don't we just set up a small approval process in the Washington embassy? We could just do that. You could just set up a small desk. You could have a proposal. It wouldn't have to originate in Canberra. It could easily originate in Washington. You could then send it over to the secretary of Defence. Minister Marles could add his usual value to it, with no doubt a very insightful analysis of whatever's come from Washington and the Defence secretary! Then you could send it to the desk in Washington, and they could invite whoever Vice-President Vance wants to send in, and they could just approve it. It would be much more efficient! You wouldn't have to go through the pretence of a sovereign process. Why don't you just do that? Or you could set up a secret committee amongst yourselves which you don't tell the public about, and you could just do it here anyway. You've chosen the secret committee path.

What have the war parties—sorry, the parties of government—delivered? What have the parties of government delivered so far for Defence? We're in the middle of spending $9 billion to build the United States a nuclear submarine attack base just off Perth to make Perth a nuclear target and to ensure that Australia will be involved in a US war with China. You've done that. I personally think that making Perth a nuclear target by spending $9 billion of Australian taxpayers' money to build the US a nuclear submarine attack base is probably a bad decision. I think that's a misspending of money, but you guys agree on it, and you can agree on it in secret now. Terrific!

You've decided to spend $375 billion on some speculative gamble to get nuclear submarines. Well, that's a disaster zone. The US has no spare submarines. We just heard today that the US will only supply submarines to Australia if we guarantee to use them in a US war on China. Otherwise, you know, we can go whistle!

Currently, we're shovelling billions of dollars to the United States to increase their industrial capacity to make more nuclear submarines so they have some spare for us. That has not worked. It has not shifted the dial. The United States is still producing about 1.2—in a good year—nuclear submarines a year out of their industrial capacity. Unless they produce about 2½ a year for the next decade, going forward there will be no spare submarines for Australia. We won't get any submarines. That money is lost. Well, it's lost to us—again, by the United States.

That first part of AUKUS, about getting some spare second-hand US nuclear subs, is a disaster going badly—billions being wasted, a big black hole—but you could meet in secret and agree on how good it is. That might be nice. You won't have to persuade the public—you can just persuade each other—about what a great deal that is, in secret. That might be nice for you. It's bad for taxpayers. It's bad for Australia. But it might be nice for you.

You've already handed countless billions of dollars off to the UK for their nuclear submarine industry. Most of it's gone to Rolls-Royce because, you know, Rolls-Royce obviously deserves it. Those poor people in Rolls-Royce suffer a lot. Defence Minister Marles and Prime Minister Albanese, with the support of the Liberal Party, have found a way that Australian taxpayers can give billions and billions of dollars to Rolls-Royce. That money is rolling out now, to Rolls-Royce, to produce nuclear reactors for the AUKUS submarine project. Meanwhile, the UK's own audit office says that that program, which we're putting billions of dollars into, is in a terminal spiral of failure and will not produce nuclear reactors. It's been red, red, red, red, red for the last five years. We're pumping billions of dollars into the UK for nuclear reactors and an AUKUS nuclear submarine project that will not happen.

Then we have the Barrow-in-Furness project in the UK, which is where they're going to be—allegedly—producing the reactors and the next class of AUKUS submarines. When the head of the delivery agency for the Barrow-in-Furness project, Lord whatever-his-name-is, says, 'Actually, it's not working. We haven't got the infrastructure. We're not going to be able to build this stuff here. We don't have a solution to the multiple infrastructure bottlenecks. We're not going to have the workforce ready to produce the nuclear submarines,' what does Australia say? Australia says, 'You can ignore all that!'

Ignore the fact that the audit office has said the reactors won't work. Ignore the fact that the head of the delivery agency in Barrow-in-Furness says it won't work. Ignore the fact that the entire UK budget is in a meltdown and they don't have the money to build submarines. Ignore the fact that they can only put one of their current nuclear submarines in the water because they can't afford to maintain—and don't know how to maintain—the rest of them. You can ignore all that, because it's all on track. It's all on track! And we can keep shovelling them billions of dollars.

The good news about your secret committee is that you can agree on that in private now. You can meet together in private, slap each other on the back and say, 'It's all on track!' You can ignore reality. That's the great thing about a secret committee. Why don't you go and meet about the Hunter frigates and agree on what a great job you guys are doing on the Hunter frigates! There's a lot of talk at the moment about 67 Defence sites, which are prized and cared for by the community, which have beautiful green open spaces and heritage sites, which are great spots for public housing. But no—Defence Minister Marles and the supporting cheer squad in Defence have decided to flog them all off, to sell them all off, for property development. They think that, over the next five to 10 years, they could net $1.8 billion from selling all of this prized public land all across the country. The good news about that is, for $1.8 billion, you could almost build one fifth of one Hunter frigate in Adelaide. You could probably get the bit that has the helicopter landing pad on it. You could almost get one-fifth of one of those for selling off 67 prize sites.

The same club that wants to meet in private and agree in this committee has signed off on the $45 billion Hunter frigate deal, which is before the NACC on a corruption inquiry and is producing the most expensive warships, pound for pound, on the entire planet. When we asked the defence department, 'Is there any more expensive warship on the planet than these Hunter frigates that we're making in Adelaide?' they hemmed and hawed and then they said, 'Maybe a US nuclear powered submarine is more expensive.' They found one—a US nuclear submarine. India produces entire aircraft carriers and fits them out for less than what we're paying for a single Hunter frigate. The same bozos who are in charge of that and have sent us down that corrupted, hopeless process for Hunter frigates can now meet in private and secretly agree on what a great idea it would be to do that again. Maybe we could have the same people who met in secret and agreed to produce another class of boats, which of course Defence cannot find a purpose for—maybe they could agree to put billions more into that project as well.

Right now we have a defence department that is hollowing itself out to pay for nuclear submarines we'll never get, that is shelling out billions of dollars overseas for projects that won't produce reactors or nuclear submarines, and that means that there's no money left to buy things for the rest of defence. We have a defence department that's building a handful of the most expensive warships on the planet in Adelaide, and they want to do more of that. We have a defence department that's had a recruitment crisis forever—it turns out people don't much like joining a defence force which is led by such a bunch of bozos and directed by a bunch of noddies in the parties of government. We have a defence force that is designed not to defend Australia but to be part of US deployments around the world and not have an independent sovereign capacity. We have a defence force that is probably a global leader in the failure of procurement and the failure of strategic thinking. You want the same bunch of people that have got us into this mess to now oversight it in secret while they agree with each other in a quiet, smoke-filled, private cigar room. This will surprise you: the Greens say no.

I don't think that surprises us at all, Senator Shoebridge. I rise today to speak on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, which improves oversight of Australia's defence. I support this bill because the proper governance and accountability of the defence of Australia is more important today than on any other day since World War II. The Liberal Party believes that strength is peace and that strength in defence is necessary even in times of peace. The Liberals' unwavering allegiance to the sovereignty of this great nation is unmatched. The opposition understands that sovereignty is first and foremost secured by the brave men and women of the Australian Defence Force, and I take this opportunity to again thank those in uniform, past and present, for their service and dedication to preserving the freedom of this great nation.

The Liberal Party is committed to the key function of this bill, which is the creation of a new defence committee to oversee, prioritise and enhance the ADF and the defence architecture of this nation. This area of governance is sadly in need of urgent reform, and we've seen weak and ineffective Labor members of government not understand, or refuse to face, the challenges in the Indo-Pacific in 2026 and beyond. In support of this bill, the opposition reaffirms that we follow the proven bipartisan track record of the practices of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This practice demands that only parties of government be included on the committee, so those who seek to weaken defence, like those in the Greens political party or the teal political movement, are unwelcome. Just rewind a little to hear the contributions from Senator Shoebridge and you will understand why they are not welcome on this committee.

Senator Shoebridge, you were heard in silence.

Those who are unwilling to hold the sovereignty of this nation above all else and who would seek to use this platform to defund and hamstring our defence forces are unwelcome. This convention must be followed. If not, our prime minister, Anthony Albanese, will send a message to Australians and foreign adversaries that he not serious about defence.

This committee is essential today. Australia faces the greatest military threat to peace and security in generations. Already, Royal Australian Navy personnel have been injured by the forces of Xi Jinping's navy while in international waters. Our aircrews have been subjected to life-threatening manoeuvres by Chinese aircraft. Even our civilian aircrews have been put in danger by reckless CCP operations in our region. Under the Liberal Party, these provocations would be met with strength. We would deliver peace through strength. A Liberal government would deter these events. We would invest in and increase capability that would detect threats by air, land, sea and space assets that the Labor government has failed to procure.

This government must change its course. The strategic circumstances are too precarious to ignore the warnings. Grey-zone tactics are ramping up. These grey-zone tactics have ranged from illegal free-trade attacks to unprecedented cyber intrusions into our democratic institutions and, finally and most dangerously of all, to state sponsored terror last year. With the Liberal Party at the helm of Defence once more, Australians would be reassured that they will no longer fear waking up to yet another attack on our freedoms, which, under Labor, have all too often been met with fake smiles, hand-wringing and platitudes from our prime minister.

Australia's defence must be made more resilient, and we must stand on our own two feet. Allies help those who help themselves. That means building sovereign mass in missiles, drones, cyber, undersea systems and sustainment here in Australia. Manufacturing at all levels must be unlocked, and the red and green tape hampering our defence and critical sovereign manufacturing capabilities must be abolished. This new committee must strengthen defence capability and accountability, not weaken it through politicisation and the appointment of anti-defence MPs. This committee must recognise the importance of AUKUS to Australia's security. The AUKUS submarines are the most complex machines ever built by man. On this committee, the Liberal Party will see that that agreement and the respect and lethality of our brave men and women of the ADF are given the funding and direction they deserve.

This government must soon commit to the construction of a new submarine base on the east coast, and this committee will examine the decisions behind this serious endeavour. We need this scrutiny because the Labor government has been unwilling and unable to produce the location of this base. Labor's inertia on this critical project disrespects the needs of industry partners who are core to the AUKUS agreement and of the communities of my home state of New South Wales in having a say about their future. The people of Port Kembla, the likely location of this east coast base, deserve a government that is upfront, and the Australian manufacturing base needs support to deliver for our sailors. The Albanese government has delivered neither—no certainty to the people of Port Kembla and no support to our sailors.

A trusted, disciplined committee should build bipartisan consensus around our strategic interests and enhance the ability for Defence to interact with parliament. The committee should reduce risk aversion and support better outcomes not just to protect Australians but in how we ensure every dollar on defence is spent well, because good economic management is important to defence too.

With the Liberal Party in support of raising defence spending to three per cent of GDP to bring us in line with both the threat faced and our allies' commitments, only the Liberal Party is clear eyed and ready for the challenges in this 21st century. The Labor government has cut defence spending in real terms. Don't believe the spin. The budget papers clearly show this decline, but, when we ask the defence minister about it, all we get are smokescreens and subversion. The Minister for Defence is happy to point to ships that aren't built yet, to munitions yet to be acquired and to troop numbers that couldn't fill a bus. It does not change the fact that we are dangerously undermanned and underequipped. Service on this new committee must therefore come with advice and clear moral convictions to do the hard things that this government won't do. Australians want peace through strength. They want faster decisions, more local industry jobs and equipment that arrives on time to keep our people safe. That is what the Liberal Party will champion in this committee, and, with that commitment, I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise today to speak to the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility and with a conviction that this measure is essential to strengthen parliament's capacity to scrutinise, to advise and to hold to account the institutions charged with protecting our nation. Like many in this chamber, I wish for peace above all. Peace is the aspiration that guides our diplomacy and our values. Yet we must be clear eyed about the world we inhabit. Peace is most reliably preserved when a nation is prepared, when our defence forces are properly funded, when they're well trained and when they're ready to respond. That readiness depends not only on equipment and strategy but on robust parliamentary oversight that ensures capability, accountability, public trust and, indeed, public pride in the defence of our sovereignty.

In my role as chair of the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I have had the privilege of visiting bases, meeting with personnel across ranks and hearing directly from those who plan and execute our defence posture. I've met exceptionally talented, brave and committed men and women, young Australians who volunteer to serve, who display professionalism and courage and who embody the Anzac spirit in a modern form. Their dedication demands that parliament do its part to scrutinise, to support and to ensure that the institutions that serve them are fit for purpose.

The nature of conflict has changed. Warfare in the 21st century is significantly a technological endeavour. The domains of space, cyber and autonomous systems are now central to strategic thinking. The conflict in Ukraine has provided a painful and costly education to militaries around the world about the interaction among tactics, industrial capacity and the rapid iteration of both hardware and software. What's happened in Ukraine has shown the value of both high-end, sophisticated systems and cheaper, flexible, expendable devices. For Australia the lesson is not to replicate another theatre's approach but to learn, adapt and build sovereign capability and capacity suited to our geography and our strategic circumstances.

Our geography matters. We are an island continent in the Asia-Pacific. Critical communication, trade and transit sea lanes lie immediately to our north. That reality drives the investments we are seeing in our northern bases, in Townsville, Darwin and key sites in Western Australia, which will serve as staging posts and first lines of deterrence. These investments are not merely about hardware and platforms; they're about people and communities. If we are to sustain a credible presence in the north, we must make it an attractive and sustainable place for defence personnel and their families. That means modern facilities, reliable infrastructure, quality education, access to health services in place, including maternity care, and community support that enables families to thrive and benefits the communities that wrap their arms around our defence personnel.

Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational for our nation. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour—

Senator O'Neill, it being 11.15, the debate is interrupted. You will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

I present the first report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 1 OF 2026

5 February 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan (Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 1 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 4 February 2026 at 7.22 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral),

(b) the provisions of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026 (see appendix 2 for statements of reasons for referral),

(c) the Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2026 (see appendix 3 for statements of reasons for referral), and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 March 2026 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

5 February 2026

Appendix 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025

Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 26 November 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

FEBRUARY TO MARCH 2026

Possible reporting date:

16 March 2026

(signed) Wendy Askew

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Independence and accountability of Commissioner

Scope of inquiry powers granted

Family inclusion and accessibility provisions

Possible submissions or evidence from:

RSL

Department of Veterans Affairs AMA

Families of veterans guild Julie Anne Finney

Women in defence association

The National Servicemen's Association Defence Force Welfare Association Trojans Trek

GO2 Health

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

FADT

Possible hearing date(s):

23 April

Possible reporting date:

7 May

(signed) Nick McKim

Appendix 3

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Higher Education Support Amendment (Reverse Job-Ready Graduates Fee Hikes and End 50k Arts Degrees) Bill 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Impact of the job-ready graduates fee hikes, possible policy alternatives to current student and Commonwealth contribution levels, concern of students and sector over cost of degrees

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Universities Australia, Innovative Research Universities, Regional University Network, Australian Academy of Humanities, National Union of students, National Tertiary Education Union, Group of Eight

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Senate Education & Employment Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

Early May (noting a number of ongoing EEC inquiries)

Possible reporting date:

Thursday 25 June 2026

Nick McKim

Appendix 4

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025

Originated in the House of Representatives on Wednesday 26 November 2025

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

To scrutinize this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

FEBRUARY TO MARCH 2026

Possible reporting date:

4 March 2026

(signed) Wendy Askew

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban Gambling Ads) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee".

The government's view is that this doesn't need to be referred to a committee and that there has been plenty of time for these issues to be examined and further examined. The committees have a number of references that are currently before them. I don't think that another reference of this order needs to be sent to the committee. There is plenty of work that has gone into this issue and been examined by the Senate, and I hope that we are able to get support for that amendment.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

Omit "not be referred to a committee", substitute "be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 June 2026".

Frankly, the gall of this government to block a bill that implements the previous recommendations of a Labor committee to put a ban on gambling advertising is just outrageous. This government seems to have forgotten everything it stands for. The government had made a previous commitment to reform gambling advertising in this country. Yet, three years down the track, they have done nothing. Today, they are in this chamber blocking a bill that does what they have previously called for from going to a proper legislative inquiry to make sure it does what it says it should do. I heard the argument from the minister that there's already been enough time spent on this issue. Yes, there has—but we still see nothing from the government.

Because the government has not acted, the Greens are. Because the government haven't done what they said they would do, it's been up to us in the Australian Greens to draft the legislation and put it to the chamber. When you're serious about getting a piece of legislation passed in the Senate, you put it to a legislative inquiry to make sure it does all the things that it needs to do. That is the purpose. It is proper governance. It's proper scrutiny. It's proper governing, something that this government could take a few lessons on. The whole idea of this gambling advertising amendment bill is to put a ban on gambling advertising, because we know that this is what's needed if we want to stop the suffering and to stop lives and families being destroyed by the insidious gambling industry.

There is nothing in this bill that says you're not allowed to gamble, by the way. It just says the big gambling industry can't advertise it, just like big tobacco can't advertise, because they're trying to sell a dangerous product. There is nothing more dangerous to so many Australian families, particularly young people and young men, than the insidious, harmful advertising that is thrust down their throats by the gambling industry. There are inducements that young people get on their mobile phones—even if they're known gambling addicts—begging them to get back on and have another bet.

The only people who want to stop this bill from going to an inquiry and then passing this parliament are the people making money off gambling addicts: the greedy, nasty parasites in the gambling industry. And who's doing their dirty work for them? Who's been the shill for the gambling industry? It's the Labor Party. Of course, when we move on these motions and they go to a vote today, we will see the Liberal Party doing exactly the same thing. I don't have much time for Peter Dutton—I don't have much time for him at all—but, at one point in time, he actually thought curbing advertising from the gambling industry was a good idea. Now, the Liberal Party seem to have forgotten that that was even a party policy. Why? Because the gambling industry pays millions of dollars in donations to both the Labor and Liberal parties. They have them by the neck, and the Labor and Liberal parties are as addicted to the gambling industry as some of the gambling addicts who desperately need help.

It's the Labor Party and the Liberal Party who are addicted to the gambling industry's money and to the greed of the gambling industry. If you want to take money off people who suck money out of the pockets of everyday Australians and feed off their misery, at least admit that's what you're doing.

I do appreciate the need for items in this chamber to come under scrutiny. My Nationals colleagues and I will always support the Senate's right to look into things in depth and in detail, so we will support the Greens to seek an inquiry into this issue. But, in saying that, I want to stress that I think the Greens have, once again, taken their usual unbalanced approach to this issue. They simply seem to want to ban everything—any fun, anyone doing anything, anyone wanting to have a punt on the footy or enjoying looking at the odds. It's just too unbalanced and too over-the-top. But we will support this. Yes, let's have an inquiry, because I don't think there's anything to hide here about the Australian pastime of having a punt on the football, the races or whatever it may be.

There is, of course, a major issue with irresponsible gambling. Making sure we promote responsible gambling and have proper restrictions and regulations is a major issue. This is a heavily regulated industry, as it should be, and there should be appropriate restrictions on advertising—when ads are put on, how children are exposed to them et cetera. We support all of those things, and we have no compunction and nothing to hide with it going to an inquiry right now. But we can't simply have an approach here that seeks a blanket ban on all types of behaviour in this country. On other platforms, the Greens are all for consenting adults. They are all for consenting adults exercising their rights to engage in all sorts of activities. I do think adults should be allowed to make those choices. I worry about where the Greens are heading on this. But I don't know why sometimes this chamber is almost afraid of the Greens, in a way—'We can't let them have an inquiry or go on a committee and have a say.' I say: let them talk. Let them go. Give them enough rope. Let them have their say.

So we from the National Party have no problem here in supporting an inquiry into these things because it will expose, I think, the need to have a balanced approach to these issues. It will allow our gambling industry, a responsible industry, to outline what they do to protect against people irresponsibly gambling. I know, having met with many of the industry, that they take these issues very, very seriously, and we should be properly regulating them.

I want to make one more comment in the time I have. I wonder why, at the moment, we seem to be so focused on one form of gambling—on sports betting, in particular. As I say, it's a fairly traditional Australian pastime. But we have ignored the insidious nature of poker machines. All the evidence on problem gambling shows that poker machines are a much, much greater issue. I am a Queenslander. I grew up in Queensland when we didn't have poker machines. I don't think our state is any better for having them. But that's something that we seem to have ignored lately in this obsession over one form of gambling which, yes, can still lead to pain and heartache but on all the statistics is nowhere near the same issue as the gaming machines that have proliferated all throughout our country.

I always welcome scrutiny. We will support this initiative for the Senate to apply that scrutiny, but we will do so, as we always do, in a balanced way. We'll seek to balance all of these concerns and let people have their say, not shut people down, from all sides of the debate, including the industry, which, as I say, takes this issue very seriously. It has to and should take a responsible approach to wagering in this country.

I commend Senator Hanson-Young for bringing forward this bill, the Interactive Gambling Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements) Bill, to the Senate, to the parliament, in the wake of a tragic and, for so many Australians, devastating lack of action from the Albanese Labor government. They have betrayed Australians who want action on gambling advertising. They have, so far, betrayed Peta Murphy and the incredible work that she did on this area. If you go back and you look at the Murphy review, this was parliament at its best. Just read the foreword. The foreword of the Murphy review will, I think, go down in history as an incredible piece of leadership from someone who clearly believed in what she was doing and was able to actually build consensus in this place that spends 90 per cent of its time bickering. It is well worth the read.

In the context of that, let's go through some facts and figures. We are the biggest losers in the world per capita. In a cost-of-living crisis, Australians lose $32 billion each year. We are in a situation now where gambling has been so normalised by gambling advertising that 16 per cent of 16- and 17-year-olds are already gambling. When we turn to the 18- and 19-year-olds, it's 46 per cent. Almost one in two 18- and 19-year-old Australians are now gambling. Why? Because they think it's a normal part of enjoying sport. Why? Because they have been inundated their whole lives with gambling advertising. More and more frequently over the last couple of years I have been pulled aside at events by young people wanting to talk about gambling advertising, particularly young men saying: 'I'm ashamed to say I have a problem with gambling. It's really having an impact on me and my life, and it's so damn hard to actually stop because everywhere you go you're confronted with gambling advertising. You're reminded, "Just have a punt, chase that win." You get the inducement of the companies saying, "Here are some free bets."'

This was all covered in the Murphy review, yet we have Labor pulling out these ridiculous talking points about how they've done more than anyone since Federation. Good on you; you did some things that the coalition started. You completed them. You did BetStop and you banned credit cards. But not a single thing on the Murphy report. Let's go to Peta Murphy's foreword. I'll quote directly:

Australians outspend the citizens of every other country on online gambling. This is wreaking havoc in our communities. Saturation advertising ensures our future losses. Only online wagering service providers (WSPs), major sporting organisations and media gain from the status quo.

…   …   …

Australians do not like being flooded by messages and inducements to gamble online and worry about the effect this is having on children and young people. Most believe that gambling is harmful for society and that it has become too easy to gamble in Australia.

…   …   …

I am proud to say this Committee has delivered a unanimous report that says, "enough is enough". The Committee has made 31 recommendations that apply a public health lens to online gambling to reduce harm across the whole Australian population.

…   …   …

Online gambling companies advertise so much in Australia because it works. Online gambling has been deliberately and strategically marketed alongside sport, which has normalised it as a fun, harmless, and sociable activity that is part of a favourite pastime. Gambling advertising is grooming children and young people to gamble and encourages riskier behaviour. The torrent of advertising is inescapable. It is manipulating an impressionable and vulnerable audience to gamble online.

We've had silence for almost three years from the Albanese government on Peta Murphy's report. Now, when we have a bill that contains the recommendations of report, the Labor government and the Liberals won't even allow that report to go to a committee. That is frankly disgraceful. We have to do better for the communities— (Time expired)

I want to acknowledge the support for the Greens amendment from the Nationals and also from Senator David Pocock, although I was much more enamoured of Senator Pocock's contribution than I was of Senator Canavan's. I want to make two fundamental points here in support of our amendment.

Firstly, what Labor is doing here is moving that a private senator's bill from the crossbench not be referred to a committee for inquiry. Now, that is a very unusual approach from the government and from Labor. It leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is a political reason for Labor not wanting this particular bill under the name of Senator Hanson-Young to go to an inquiry. Ask yourselves, colleagues, why it might be that the Labor Party doesn't want a bill that simply proposes a ban on gambling advertising—not a ban on gambling itself, I might add. Why is it the Labor Party doesn't want that legislation to go to inquiry? The answer is abundantly clear. Firstly, Labor doesn't want a platform to be created that would expose their mediocrity and their gutless failure to act on this issue and address the manifest harms caused by gambling advertising that were spoken about so eloquently by Senator David Pocock and by Senator Hanson-Young. Labor doesn't want a platform that would expose Labor's culpability in allowing this egregious social harm to continue to be perpetrated against so many Australians by a greedy, parasitic gambling industry. And Labor doesn't want to be exposed as the recipient of political donations from big gambling corporations in this country. It is an inescapable conclusion to this position of Labor that they are ashamed of their failure to act.

I want to say to Labor: if you are ashamed of your failure to act on gambling advertising—and you should be—the solution is clear. Join with the Greens and put in place a ban on gambling advertising, as proposed by Senator Hanson-Young's legislation, because the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament. With Labor having a majority in the House and Labor plus the Greens making a majority in this chamber, the numbers are there in both houses of this parliament to ban gambling advertising and to mitigate the massive social and personal harms caused to so many Australians by the parasitic actions of the greedy gambling operations. The numbers are there. There's only one thing stopping action, and that one thing is the Australian Labor Party.

So we have an opportunity, folks, to act. Now is the time. It's the perfect opportunity. The mood of the people is with us and the numbers are there in the parliament. What we are asking for today—just to be clear—is not your vote in support of this bill but simply your vote to send the bill to an inquiry so that people can come in and have their say. I think that is what Labor is fundamentally afraid of here. They don't want people to come in and share their stories, as Senator David Pocock has done, about the harms gambling advertising has inflicted on them. They don't want those stories told, because they know that when those stories are told the argument for change becomes inevitable and the argument to ban gambling advertising becomes too strong to resist.

The question is that Senator McKim's amendment, as moved by Senator Hanson-Young, to the motion to adopt the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

This debate finishes at 11.46, but the standing orders allow that all amendments be put. The question is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

I move an amendment, as circulated in the chamber, to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report:

At the end of the motion, add ", and:

(a) the provisions of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 February 2026; and

(b) the provisions of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 March 2026".

I ask that the two elements of Senator McKenzie's amendment be put separately.

For senators who don't have the amendment in front of them in the chamber, I advise the chamber that it consists of part (a) and part (b). It's my intention now to put the question on Senator McKenzie's amendment part (a).

Which bill is part (a) and which bill is part (b)? I don't have the amendment in front of me.

Part (a) is the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation) Bill 2025, and part (b) is the provisions of the Coalmining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025.

And you're going to put them separately?

Yes, as requested by the opposition. The question is that amendment part (a) moved by Senator McKenzie to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The question is that part (b) of Senator McKenzie's amendment to the motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The question is that the amended motion for the adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the deferred vote standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young from Tuesday 3 February be agreed to.

Senator Hanson-Young?

Can I seek clarification? That was the Labor and Liberal parties voting against a gambling inquiry for the second time in less than an hour?

Senator Hanson-Young, you are out of order.

I move:

That general business notice of motion no. 359 standing in the name of Senator Henderson, relating to the cost of living, be considered during general business today.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:

(a) Senator Polley for 19 January to 20 January 2026, for personal reasons;

(b) Senator McCarthy for 5 February 2026, on account of ministerial business; and

(c) Senator Cox for 5 February 2026, on account of parliamentary business.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to conflict in Iran, as circulated in the Senate, on behalf of Senators Ciccone, Chandler, Smith, Shoebridge and myself and for the motion to be determined without amendment or debate.

Leave granted.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Ciccone, Chandler, Smith and Shoebridge, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes with grave concern credible reports of widespread, brutal and in many cases deadly violence perpetrated by the Iranian regime against peaceful protesters, including reports of indiscriminate killings of civilians, the targeting of women and children, mass arrests and the suppression of basic freedoms through internet and communications blackouts;

(b) acknowledges the profound distress, fear and anguish being experienced by members of the Iranian-Australian community, many of whom have been unable to contact family and friends in Iran and have received harrowing accounts and footage of violence, repression and loss;

(c) expresses its solidarity with the people of Iran and with Iranian-Australians at this time, and affirms the right of all people to protest peacefully, to access information and to live free from state-perpetrated violence and intimidation; and

(d) calls on the Australian Government to continue working with international partners, including the United Nations and like-minded states, to:

(i) support independent international investigations into human rights violations in Iran,

(ii) press for accountability for those responsible for atrocities against civilians,

(iii) strengthen and expand targeted sanctions against individuals and entities responsible for serious human rights abuses, and

(iv) continue to advocate for the immediate end to violence, the restoration of full communications and internet access, the permanent cessation of executions, and the protection of civilians.

I thank Senate colleagues for their constructive engagement on this issue.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2026:

The capacity of the existing legislative framework that created and governs Australia's specialist investment vehicles (SIVs), with particular reference to:

(a) the effectiveness of the following Acts:

(i) Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012,

(ii) Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011,

(iii) National Reconstruction Fund Act 2023,

(iv) Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund Act 2016,

(v) Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991, and

(vi) Regional Investment Corporation Act 2018;

(b) the importance of countering the threat of investment uncertainty and higher energy and capital costs that would result from abandoning net zero by 2050;

(c) how existing SIVs can be improved, restructured and harmonised to create a stable, long-term investment environment for the widespread deployment of clean technologies in Australia;

(d) whether the current structures of financing offered by SIVs and the targeting of finance at different points in the research, pilot and commercialisation stages are fit for purpose and where they can be improved;

(e) how the various application processes can be streamlined and improved, particularly for early-stage businesses and technologies;

(f) any other related potential changes to the law to ensure investment certainty and guard against a future federal government that is hostile to clean technologies;

(g) lessons to promote to potential investors how the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency successfully generated billions of dollars of investment while withstanding multiple attempts by previous Coalition federal governments to dismantle and interfere with their capital deployment and statutory responsibilities; and

(h) any other related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Barbara Pocock be agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2026:

The appropriateness of amending standing orders 69, 70 and 71 to allow for the creation of a system for the initiation of e-petitions, similar to the system used by the House of Representatives, with particular reference to:

(a) making it easier for Australians to petition their elected representatives in the Senate;

(b) the rise in non-conforming petitions in recent years;

(c) the environmental impact of printing out the entirety of petitions for presentation or tabling, which may contain thousands of signatures; and

(d) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

As I was saying before, at the hard mark of 11.15 am, on the matter of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, our geography matters and so does our capacity to deter. Central to our deterrence posture is the strategy of denial, ensuring that any adversary is deterred from attempting to reach our shores. The acquisition of nuclear powered submarines through the AUKUS partnership will be transformational. These platforms represent a step change in stealth, endurance and deterrent capability. They will also be a national endeavour that must deliver jobs, skills and economic opportunity across our regions and, indeed, across the entire nation. As we build capability, we must ensure communities share in the benefits and that local consultation and investment in community infrastructure proceed in parallel.

Colleagues, technology is moving at pace. The government's investments in advanced platforms and the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator are important starts. But the technology development cycle for many autonomous systems is measured in months, not years. Building stockpiles that sit in warehouses and become obsolete is not an effective use of taxpayers' money. Instead, Australia must support a sovereign industrial base capable of rapid development, production at scale and iterative improvement. That requires a whole-of-society approach: government procurement and incentives, industry partnerships, research institutions and workforce training.

Our aim must be to ensure that the ADF can access the right mix of high-end and mass produced systems when required and that we can scale production quickly in response to changing circumstances. The defence subcommittee's recent report, which was tabled this week, on the 2023-24 Defence annual reportemphasises these points. It highlights the rapid evolution of autonomous technologies and the need to align capability development with Australia's strategic geography. It also underscores that investments in capability must be matched by investments in people—in recruitment, retention, transition programs and services for veterans and families. Insight into defence agencies is incomplete without insight into the experiences of those who serve and those who have served.

This bill recognises that reality. It proposes a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence with the mandate and expertise to examine defence policy, defence capability development, defence procurement, defence operational safety and the welfare of defence personnel and veterans. It balances transparency with the need to handle classified materials securely, drawing on the model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That balance is crucial. Oversight provided by such a committee as this must be meaningful, but it must also be able to protect sensitive information that, if mishandled, could harm national security.

Parliamentary oversight is not an adversarial exercise for its own sake, much as the column inches that are expended on the battles of this place might convey that. Parliamentary oversight at its best is a powerfully constructive mechanism to improve performance, to identify risks and to recommend reforms that deliver better outcomes for the Australian Defence Force and, through them, for us the Australian people. Effective oversight builds public confidence; ensures that taxpayers' money is spent wisely; and ensures that procurement delivers capability on time and on budget, wherever possible, and that operations are conducted with due regard not just to safety but to law.

I've seen where improvements are needed and I've seen where progress is being made. I've seen defence personnel working tirelessly to adapt to new technologies and new strategic demands. I've seen communities eager to partner with Defence, to share in the economic opportunities, the national security uplift and the national pride that capability development brings.

Establishing a dedicated parliamentary joint committee on defence will allow sustained, specialised scrutiny and constructive recommendations that improve capability, accountability and the lives of those who serve. This bill is a practical, measured step to ensure parliament can meet the challenges of a more contested strategic environment. It will help safeguard our nation, it will help support our service personnel and veterans and it will help to ensure that investments in capability deliver value for the Australian people.

The formation of this committee will enable parliament to ask hard questions. It will enable the parliament to receive classified briefings, where necessary, and to report publicly, where appropriate, so that Australians can have confidence in the institutions that protect them.

Colleagues, this is an important step change from the current structure of the committee that sits as a subcommittee under the auspices of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It is an amendment to the Defence Act of 1903 and inserts new requirements that will enhance the capacity for us to do our work as parliamentarians. Importantly, this bill, which I hope will be supported in the chamber today, is a response to the 2003 report of the Joint Standing and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade subcommittee which called for the implementation of this new joint statutory committee to request and receive those classified information briefings.

The comparison, for those who understand these matters, is with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The fact is that its significance demands very careful attention to the nature of those who are selected to conduct the inquiries. That should be given very careful consideration. That is why this 13-member committee will be appointed by the Prime Minister in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.

The men and women of our defence forces deserve the best oversight and support we can provide. They deserve a parliament that's informed, engaged and capable of guiding the nation's defence policy with both wisdom and care. The bill strengthens that capacity. It strengthens our democracy.

Acting Deputy President Polley, as you well know from your experience in the chamber here as a senator for Tasmania and now acting in the role of Deputy President of the Senate for the purposes of this debate, there are important matters that are dealt with in the most careful and serious way in committees and in this parliament.

The role of committees in undertaking the work that cannot be done on the fly in public, in this chamber and the other one, is vital to the nation's security and wellbeing. I think of Anzac commemoration events and the pride that Australians have in the defence of democracy. In the current environment, the defence of the nation requires this step change. This is an important addition to the capacity of our nation to defend itself. I commend the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 to the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support it so that parliament can better fulfil its duty of oversight in the national interest.

I rise to speak to this Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. Decisions about defence are among the most consequential decisions this parliament makes. They go to the lives of Australian service men and women and to hundreds of billions of dollars of public money committed over generations.

In a healthy democracy, decisions of that magnitude must never rest solely with the executive. They must be subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, genuine accountability and democratic oversight. For that reason, I support in principle the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on defence. Defence policy now reaches deeply into our economy, our industry policy, our alliances and our sovereignty. Nowhere is it clearer than in Canberra, where we are proud to be home to the Australian Defence Force Academy, Duntroon, the Department of Defence and many innovative SMEs in the defence industry.

It's frankly extraordinary that until now Defence has not been subject to standalone, dedicated parliamentary scrutiny comparable to that which exists in many other democracies. However I want to be very clear my support for this bill is conditional. I will only support this legislation if amendments are passed to guarantee crossbench representation on the committee. Nearly one in three Australians vote for someone other than the major parties. If the recent split of the coalition remains, then this number will be even higher. Their voices deserve to be reflected in the mechanisms of scrutiny, particularly when the stakes are this high. In fact, without that safeguard, this committee risks entrenching executive power rather than scrutinising it.

Parliamentary committees exist to hold governments to account, not to shield them from uncomfortable questions. A committee dominated by the major parties, nominated through processes that exclude independents and minor parties by design, undermines parliamentary sovereignty rather than strengthening it. This is not about weakening our defence; it is about strengthening the legitimacy of decisions made in its name. We have seen time and again what happens when defence decisions are made behind closed doors, insulated from any challenge. Cost overruns, capability delays, governance failures and procurement blowouts are not abstract risks; they are well documented realities.

Parliamentary scrutiny is not an impediment to national security; it's a safeguard for it—and AUKUS is a powerful example. Whatever view one takes of the agreement itself, it represents a commitment of extraordinary scale and consequence. The principle at stake is simple: decisions of this magnitude must be able to withstand independent, fearless scrutiny. Public trust is not built through secrecy or enforced consensus; it's built when Australians know that the right questions are being asked by people who are not constrained by party discipline or political self-protection.

There are times when information must remain classified. This bill rightly recognises that. But secrecy in the national interest is not the same thing as secrecy for political convenience. A properly constituted joint committee, one that includes crossbench members, can respect security while still upholding democratic accountability. If amended to guarantee genuine crossbench participation, this bill can strengthen parliamentary sovereignty, improve Defence decision-making and restore public confidence in how power is exercised in this place.

Without those amendments, it will be a missed opportunity. Our parliament deserves processes that reflect its composition, and Australians deserve to know that decisions taken in their name are being tested not just rubber stamped. For those reasons, I urge colleagues to amend this bill to include crossbench support, and I indicate that only then will I support the bill.

I won't speak long, but I do rise to speak in support of the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. As many other speakers have iterated earlier today, the defence and national security challenges our nation faces today have been unprecedented in at least eight decades. As we scale up the capability and the readiness of our Defence Force, it is critical that there is greater oversight of our spending of money to fund new capability and the timelines that are necessary to acquire that capability.

One of the greatest challenges facing our Defence Force—there are several, one is the amount of money available to it—is capability acquisition. The truth is, Australia has a very poor record when it comes to the acquisition of new capability. We have had far too many Defence projects—this is not a partisan point; this is an institutional point—that have run significantly overbudget and overtime. Too often, in our acquisitions, we have allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the good, endlessly 'bespoking' and customising platforms rather than acquiring them off the shelf and endlessly seeking to tailor and tinker with proven and trusted capabilities to meet quite peculiar national circumstances. That has led to, over many years and across many governments, Defence projects which have rivalled Snowy 2.0 in terms of their cost overrun and their failure to deliver on time. That's simply a luxury that we can no longer afford in Australia.

If everyone accepts the rhetoric that we face difficult and uncertain strategic times—and I certainly do—then we need to fix this. I do believe that proper scrutiny and accountability to the parliament, which allows for the furnishing of classified information and the proper protection and handling of classified information, will add an important discipline, oversight and accountability mechanism to the billions of dollars of public money that we will be pumping into Defence over the next decade or two.

I don't share the concerns of some of my crossbench colleagues that such a committee, if composed entirely of parties of the government and opposition, will not be able to do a good job. In fact, I think it's quite important that membership of this committee, either by convention or by the bill that's before us, be limited to members of political parties who form the government or opposition, just as we do with the PJCIS, because of the sensitivity of the information that's being handled because of what is a bipartisan basis, in many respects, to the strategic challenges that we face—a viewpoint shared by the government and the opposition—and because I don't think we can risk having political games being played or classified information being misused by people in this parliament who are entitled to have a legitimately different point of view but who do not, basically, share the strategic assessment that underpins the scale-up in the defence forces.

I want to acknowledge and pay credit to some former senators here, most notably the late senator Jim Molan and Senators Linda Reynolds and David Fawcett who have, over many years, advocated for a greater role of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the Defence Force and have shared the frustrations of many that one of the biggest items in our federal budget is not subject to the same scrutiny, discipline and accountability as other items of public spending. There are good reasons for that, but I believe this committee will help address and overcome those. For those reasons, I support this bill, and I do not support the amendments.

I rise to support the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025, an important and timely reform that will strengthen transparency, accountability and oversight across our defence establishment. This bill amends the Defence Act 1903 to establish a new parliamentary joint committee on defence, the PJCD, modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the PJCIS. Like the PJCIS, this committee will allow parliamentarians to examine classified matters in a secure setting, ensuring that oversight of the defence policy, expenditure and decision-making is robust, informed and responsible.

The creation of this committee is not just a bureaucratic reform; it is an essential step in modernising Australia's parliamentary oversight of our defence institutions at a time when our strategic environment is becoming more and more complex, uncertain and contested than at any other point since the Second World War. The purpose of this bill is straightforward but significant: to create a formal mechanism through which parliament can oversee and scrutinise Defence decisions—including strategy, planning, capability, development, expenditure and personnel matters—in a secure and structured environment. Why do we need it? Because Australia faces increasingly complex and evolving strategic challenges.

Our Defence Force operates in a rapidly changing region. What we're responding to are the realities of new technologies, shifting alliances, new forms of warfare, cyber information and space. With this complexity comes the need for stronger democratic oversight. The Australian people rightly expect that decisions involving the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars and the potential deployment of Australian men and women in uniform are subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Until now, there has been a gap in our oversight framework. While the PJCIS provides classified oversight for our intelligence agencies, there has been no equivalent mechanism for Defence.

This bill fills that gap. It delivers on a key recommendation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, a recommendation that received broad support from experts and the public alike. The new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence will have broad and meaningful functions. It will oversee the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and key Defence portfolio agencies. Its remit will include oversight of administration and expenditure, capability development, strategic planning, personnel issues and major defence operations, whether warlike or non-warlike.

The committee will also review Defence's response to the royal commissions, such as those relating to veterans' suicides or misconduct, ensuring accountability across the system for the men and women who serve our nation. Importantly, it will examine the performance of key statutory offices, including the Inspector-General of the ADF and the newly established Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator—a critical role as Australia embarks on the AUKUS pathway to nuclear powered submarines.

Let me be clear. This committee will not duplicate the work of the PJCIS. They will continue to oversee our intelligence agencies, including those that fall under the Defence portfolio, such as the Australian Signals Directorate. The PJCD will focus on Defence, broader responsibilities, capabilities, policies and the welfare of our people in uniform. The bill gives the committee the power it needs to do its job properly. It will have the authority to request and consider information and documents relating to its functions and to require witnesses to appear or produce documents. For the first time, a parliamentary defence committee will be empowered to receive and consider classified information, subject of course to stringent safeguards. We recognise that defence often deals with highly sensitive information—operational, technical and strategic information. We understand that. This bill also includes robust provisions to protect that information. It introduces strict criminal offences for unauthorised disclosure of protected material, modelled on the Intelligence Services Act of 2001. These offences apply to committee members, their staff and any other person engaged in the committee's work. Information may only be provided to the committee with ministerial authorisation, and the minister retains the power to issue binding certificates to prevent the disclosure of information that could engage national security or defence operations. These are sensible and balanced safeguards, protecting our nation's interests while enabling meaningful parliamentary oversight.

The composition of the committee will ensure both representation and flexibility. Like the PJCIS, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint 13 members—seven from the government and six from non-government parties—drawn from both houses of parliament. This structure preserves a balance of parliamentary representation while allowing for flexibility, including the option to appoint crossbench members, should the government choose to do so. That flexibility is deliberate. The government recognises that national security should be above partisanship. There will be times when crossbench voices bring valuable perspectives and experience, and this model allows for that possibility.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill includes strong provisions to safeguard sensitive information. Operationally sensitive material will be protected, and any unauthorised disclosure, whether intentional or reckless, will attract serious criminal penalties. This reflects the approach taken to our existing intelligence oversight framework. Members of the committee will undergo appropriate security vetting and training. The aim is to ensure that our parliamentary oversight processes do not compromise—I repeat: do not compromise—national security while still allowing elected representatives to perform their vital scrutiny function. This is about trust—trust in our institutions, trust in our parliament and trust in the integrity of our democracy. There's been no more important time for that than right now.

Colleagues, we recall that this bill was previously brought before the Senate in July 2024. Unfortunately, it was negated due to disagreement over committee membership. The coalition—well, they were the coalition at that time; now they're divorced and so maybe I shouldn't be using 'coalition'—or the Liberal Party and the Nationals opposed the bill unless membership was limited strictly to government and opposition members. The Greens sought guaranteed crossbench representation. The government did not agree to either proposal. We were disappointed to see the bill defeated. Of course we were. We know how important this committee and the work that they will be doing will be for those who serve this great country in the Defence Force and wear the uniform. Also, at the end of the day, when they put that uniform on, they are protecting every Australian. It was particularly disappointing given that the former shadow defence minister had repeatedly expressed support for the establishment of this very committee, even calling for it to be expedited. Instead of working constructively, the opposition of the day—that was the Liberal Party and the National Party, who aren't in a coalition now—chose, as they normally do, to play politics and political games instead of supporting the establishment last year of this important committee. So, therefore, it has been delayed. That reform, which would have strengthened accountability and transparency across the Defence portfolio, was delayed because of their political games. But this government is not deterred. We have reintroduced this bill with the same flexible and balanced membership model, one that allows for adaptability to the needs of the parliament while maintaining robust oversight. This is not about politics. It's about good governance—I know it was a foreign term for those opposite when they were previously in government.

We strongly believe that this is important legislation that should never be used in a political way to play political games, so we're here again today putting this bill before the Senate. It is largely unchanged from the 2024 version. We believe that this is a bill that should be supported. I'm very proud to support this bill. I'd remind people that changes to the bill include the removal of provisions following the passage of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. The functions of the PJCD now explicitly include oversight of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. Additionally, the bill updates the definition of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to align with the new Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025. These are practical and technical changes that ensure consistency across our legislative framework. This bill is about strengthening the health of our democracy. It is about ensuring that the Defence Force, one of our nation's most powerful and respected institutions, remains accountable to the parliament and, through it, to the Australian people.

We ask a great deal of the men and women of the ADF. As someone whose family has proudly served in every branch, whether it was the Air Force, the Navy or the Army, and as someone who comes from Tasmania, where we punch well above our weight in enlisting to protect our country, I can say that this bill is of critical importance to my state and to our country. Most importantly, at this point in time, we have to demonstrate that we will do what's necessary to protect our democracy. We are there to support the men and women in uniform. We trust them with our security, we trust them with our sovereignty and we trust them with our lives. That's what we do when men and women put on the uniform. They lay down their lives to protect us, just as men and women before them have done. In turn, they and the Australian people deserve a system that ensures defence decisions are transparent, well governed and subject to proper oversight.

Establishing this committee brings defence into line with the rigorous oversight already in place for our intelligence agencies, as I've said before. This is a practical and sensible reform that ensures our parliamentary structures keep pace with the complexity of our strategic environment. The oversight is fitting for these times that we now live in. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence strengthens accountability, modernises our oversight framework and ensures that decisions about defence, our people, our strategy and our resources are made in an open and transparent way and under the watchful eye of this parliament. This is reform that strengthens our democracy, respects our armed forces and reflects the Labor Party's longstanding belief that transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of a good government. We demonstrate every day that we are here to provide an open, transparent and good government, because we are focused on the things that matter to Australians. There's nothing more important than the defence of our country, our people and our democracy. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I thank all of the senators who've contributed to the debate on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. The bill represents a significant step in strengthening parliamentary oversight on defence. It is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and it seeks to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise capability development, strategic planning and operational decisions. The committee will access classified information, giving parliament the tools for secure, informed oversight in a challenging strategic environment. The committee complements existing oversight mechanisms, including Senate estimates. It closes a critical gap in classified scrutiny, and it also monitors the performance of defence regulators and the government's response to the royal commission's findings.

The membership arrangements of this committee reflect the approach taken in the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The success of this longstanding and well-respected committee is why it is a key model that we are using to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. It allows for the effective, balanced oversight of defence matters by both government and non-government members.

This bill reflects our government's commitment to transparency, accountability and stronger decision-making in defence. I commend the bill.

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

I move the amendment on sheet 3471:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of 13 members:

(a) 7 Government members, including at least:

(i) 2 Senators; and

(ii) 2 members of the House of Representatives; and

(b) 6 non-Government members:

(i) 2 Opposition Senators; and

(ii) 2 Opposition members of the House of Representatives; and

(iii) 1 Senator who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition; and

(iv) 1 member of the House of Representatives who is not a member of the Government or the Opposition.

Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.

This amendment would expand the membership of the committee to expressly include crossbench membership from each of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I know there's a separate amendment being proposed by One Nation that has a different formula for extending crossbench membership on the committee, but I'll speak to the Greens amendment.

It was extraordinary, what we heard in the contributions from both Labor and the Liberal Party in this debate, in a denial of pretty much every basic principle of democracy, which is meant to be a robust exchange of views where you're not scared of disagreements. A robust debate where disagreements are played out is actually how our democracy is designed to work. You test ideas and you allow people into a chamber who have a contrary view to yours, and you have to win the contest of ideas. That's what our democracy is meant to be.

But what we heard from both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party is that they are deliberately establishing this committee so that anybody with a contrary view on either the strategic direction for Australian defence or on which particular international grifter should be favoured with the next arms deal—you could name the former Liberal or Labor defence minister who is out there selling weapons to any taker. Anyone who objects to the latest Christopher Pyne enrichment program will be excluded from this committee because the Liberal and Labor parties don't like their opinions or views. It's directly contrary to how democracy is meant to work. It just sums up how little valued this committee will be at the end of the day.

This amendment won't fix it entirely. It will still be dominated by the war parties. They will still be patting each other on the back, thinking about which mate to give a contract to, and working out how much they can bow and grovel to Donald Trump. They will still be the majority of the committee. But at least there might be one voice in there testing them—I hope it won't be me; it could be Senator Stewart—and actually suffering through the insufferable on behalf of the Australian people, to at least put some contrary voice in that space.

I indicate that the government won't be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge on behalf of the Australian Greens. I should also indicate, as a person who had the very great privilege of serving on PJCIS, that Senator Shoebridge's account of the operations of that committee couldn't be further from the truth. Had he observed some of the many hearings held in public, he would have seen the entirely robust way that those committee members approached their responsibilities and duties. It is on the basis of the quite important role that that committee has played over time that the government seeks to emulate that approach in establishing this committee. We're grateful for the support of the Liberals in this regard.

The government's approach to the membership, in particular, models that committee. The legislation, as with the legislation for the PJCIS, makes no commitments that would limit or commit the appointment of particular members. The government intends that appointments would continue to be made in accordance with the legislation and longstanding parliamentary practice. Consistent with that approach, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of recognised political parties, will appoint up to 13 members to the PJCD.

I have heard some remarkable statements in my life, but to suggest that the PJCIS has robust debate—there was a landmark moment some time last year when, for the first time in 20 years, there was actually a dissenting opinion. I think it's only happened once. Everyone thought the sky would fall down, because the members of the PJCIS had been in agreement and had had unanimous recommendations every single time—for two decades! That's the kind of robust debate you get in North Korean politics. That's the kind of robust debate you get in Donald Trump's America. If you speak out against him, you get sued. That's the kind of robust debate that Labor wants in this committee. To suggest that that is robust debate is genuinely embarrassing.

I won't take that as a question. Senator Chandler?

As has been foreshadowed in our contributions on the second reading debate on this bill, the opposition will not be supporting this amendment from the Greens. Defence demands continuity, competence and bipartisanship—not politics. The new committee must follow the proven model of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and membership should rightly be limited to government and opposition parties, as has been the convention for more than two decades in relation to the PJCIS. We believe that appointing the Greens or Independents would politicise classified defence matters and undermine trust with our allies.

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence. I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential.

There's a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn't it? One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee.

My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically. There's a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government's version of the truth. We're seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That's the purpose. It's a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.

Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they're just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It's not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation's many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers' benefit and for the nation's benefit.

Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn't that cosy?

Doesn't that make you feel safe?

Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You're leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn't vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips?

That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members.

Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community.

The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee's work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we're having in the Senate right now.

The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3471 be agreed to.

I have a question for the minister. Minister, in a democracy, what's the justification to exclude elected representatives from a committee, particularly in Australia, where we see one in three primary votes not going to the major parties? What's the justification for a government putting in legislation that we are excluding anyone who is part of this one-third of elected representatives that the Australian people decided to elect? Surely this undermines trust in government, in institutions. As a government, you should be leading the country, not just trying to entrench a historical two-party system. I'd really love an explanation.

Senator, your question is based on a false premise. The legislation does not operate as you describe. The legislation is very clear about membership. It allows for the appointment of government members and non-government members. This allows for flexibility, and prime ministers will exercise their judgement about the appointment of non-government members in consultation with leaders of the recognised political parties within the parliament.

Minister, who selects the additional members?

This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

So, as Senator David Pocock said, it's a stitch-up.

I think it's an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.

Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!

There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?

I've spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:

(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:

(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and

(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and

(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and

(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party.

Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5.

(3) In this section:

minority party means a party that:

(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and

(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament.

The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to.

I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 3472:

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 30), at the end of section 110ABB, add:

(4) To avoid doubt, this Part is not intended to limit or prevent in any way the performance of a function, or the exercise of a power, otherwise than under this Part by an entity other than the Committee.

This amendment would say, for abundant clarity, that whatever amendments are made through this bill to parliamentary procedure and oversight would have no impact on existing parliamentary oversight procedures. I can already see the near future, and I can tell you now that, if this bill is passed, we'll be in Senate estimates, asking questions of Defence about why on earth they're spending $45 billion to buy six boats in Adelaide that are undergunned, won't arrive for a couple of decades and will only enrich their mates, and we'll be told: 'You can't ask that question in Senate estimates. We have our secret Defence committee, where they have robust discussions about this in dark rooms, away from the public gaze.' When we ask questions like, 'How many billion dollars are you giving to Donald Trump today for AUKUS, what on earth are we going to get for it and is there a promise we might actually get a boat at the end of it?' we'll get the answer from Moriarty mark 2 along the lines of: 'Well, Senator, you know full well that this would seriously impact national security.'

Order! Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. It being 1.30 pm, the committee will report to the Senate.

Energy bills have become one of the heaviest burdens on Australian families. Everyone I speak to says the same thing. The cost of keeping the lights on, heating and cooling a home, and running a small business has climbed beyond what ordinary budgets can absorb. It is felt in every quarter, with every bill that slices further into a family's disposable income. Hardworking Australians are now making trade-offs on what were unthinkable things a decade ago. Parents are turning off appliances to protect the grocery budget, seniors are rationing heating in winter and cooling in summer, and small businesses are shutting earlier because power costs make it difficult to stay open those extra trading hours. These are quiet sacrifices, but they speak to a deeper failure—energy policy that has lost contact with reality.

Australia should not be a country where abundant natural resources coexist with crippling power prices, yet that is exactly what has happened under Labor. Ideological targets have displaced practical planning. Dispatchable generation has been pushed out faster than it can be replaced. Investment has certainly collapsed. The result is a grid under strain, wholesale prices that move like a seismograph, and consumers forced to pick up the tab for policy experiments that never match the engineering. Lowering energy costs is not a luxury; it's an economic and social necessity. Affordable power is the foundation of manufacturing, the life support of small businesses and the safety net that shields families from cost-of-living shocks. Australians are doing everything they can to cope.

A country with our resources should deliver cheaper power, not higher bills. Only the Liberals will get back to affordability, accept reality and restore balance to the energy grid.

Today I want to speak about a young South Australian named Archie. Archie was born with a serious heart condition. He had open-heart surgery at three months of age, and since then he's had four heart surgeries and 17 surgeries in total. That's not something you get used to. It's hospitals, procedures, recovery and a lot of time waiting, all before you're even old enough to understand why it's happening. For Archie, this isn't a story about overcoming something; it's just his life—regular appointments, living with scars, managing a body that needs more care than most and still being a kid at the same time. He's had to deal with a lot more than most kids his age, and the way he handles this is amazing. His attitude and joy are really infectious.

One of the things that Archie loves is cricket. In 2018, with the help of the Make-A-Wish Foundation and Cricket Australia, Archie was named honorary co-captain of the Australian cricket team during a match against India. That meant walking out onto the field, meeting the players and being part of the day, not as a patient but as someone who genuinely belonged there. Those moments matter not because they magically fix everything—they can't—but because they cut through the medical routine and remind kids like Archie that their lives aren't defined by hospitals alone.

The Make-A-Wish Foundation does that work quietly and very well. It creates space for kids with serious illnesses to just be kids, even briefly. Cricket Australia choosing to be part of that also matters. It says something about what inclusion can look like when organisations follow through for their community. I'm not sharing Archie's story today just to make a point. Archie is living his life—heart condition and all—and finding room for the things he enjoys along the way, and I think it's worth us pausing to acknowledge that.

Right across the country kids have been going back to school and starting their new year. For families, this should be a time of excitement—first-day photos, new routines, fresh starts. But instead for too many parents and carers it's a time of huge stress and anxiety about how they are going to pay for it all. If families feel like they can't get ahead, they're not alone. The Smith Family has found that nine in 10 families they support are worried about affording basic back-to-school essentials. This is now the third year in a row that more than 80 per cent of families say they cannot afford the things their children need for school.

In a wealthy country like ours, that should shame us. Why are one in six children growing up in poverty? Parents are being pushed to put school books, lunches and extracurricular activities on credit cards, going into debt just so their kids don't miss out while big corporations continue to make record profits. At the same time, Labor is still allowing one in three big corporations to pay no tax at all. Unless they choose to do things differently, this crisis will only deepen. Within the next year, more than one million children are projected to be living in poverty. Labor could make different choices. They could tax big corporations and billionaires fairly, not working people, and invest properly in families and children. The Greens will always put the needs of kids and their families over big business, billionaires and big corporations. The question is: does Labor have the courage to do the same?

With the rise in inflation and interest rates, the Labor government has again delivered Australians more poverty and more pain. There was no turning the corner, as they promised—another failure in a long list of many broken promises fuelled by policies that just don't work. Labor's focus is not on dealing with their broken economic strategy but on deflection and denial. Right now they are searching for new ways to get their hands on more of your money. There's no reward for hard work in that. In their face right now are big challenges—more people on JobSeeker and more on youth allowance, and increasing numbers relying on income support. On inflation and interest rates, Australia has higher rates than every comparable country, the UK, the USA and Canada. We differ in that Australia is the only one of those going backwards too.

As Liberals, we know energy is the economy and energy impacts everything. Our plan is leveraging from our assets—reducing emissions in a way that protects jobs and keeps the lights on, not the reckless race to net zero. After a record-breaking heatwave, the energy bill shock is coming, Australia. Brace yourself, especially those on fixed incomes and for my fellow South Aussies, who already pay the highest electricity prices in the country. The job of government is to keep Australians safe. Labor has tragically failed at that, and we all saw them dragged, kicking and screaming, to a royal commission to find out why. Small businesses are going out of business in record numbers. The usual signals of real trouble are being ignored by Labor because the reality is that they have no answers to a problem that is absolutely of their making.

I had the pleasure recently of flagging off the Two-Way Taxi Trucks South East Rally, organised by the Post Vintage Car Club of Tasmania. It was a strong turnout, with more than 68 classic cars taking part and a clear sense of pride from everyone involved. The Post Vintage Car Club has been part of Tasmania's community life for decades. It was formed by enthusiasts who wanted to preserve, restore and, most importantly, drive and ride post-vintage vehicles. That commitment is still evident today, not only in the care of the vehicles but in the way their knowledge, skills and time are shared between members.

What stood out most was the spirit of the event. This was not about speed or competition; it was a carefully planned time trial focused on navigation, care and respect for others on the road. Drivers were reminded to enjoy the journey as much as the destination. The rally also highlighted the role that events like this play in bringing communities together. The route took participants through a number of towns across southern Tasmania, creating moments of connection between locals and visitors and showcasing some of state's best scenery.

I want to say something directly to young Tasmanians who may have an interest in cars, mechanics or restoration: clubs like the Post Vintage Car Club offer a chance to learn real skills, hear firsthand stories and be part of a welcoming community. Getting involved is a way to keep these vehicles and this knowledge alive for the next generation. I want to also acknowledge the volunteers, organisers and sponsors who made the event possible. These are the kinds of people who quietly give their time to keep community life vibrant and strong.

This year six women, including three First Nations women, have been murdered in intimate partner and family violence related homicides. We are less than five weeks into 2026, and already six women have been murdered by a man that was known to them. These deaths are not isolated incidents; they are a painful continuation of the ongoing crisis of men's violence against women and children in our communities.

The number of women being murdered in Australia is totally unacceptable, and it's much worse for First Nations women and children, who continue to be disproportionately represented as both victims and victims-survivors. That First Nations women are 35 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assaults than non-First Nations women is a systemic failure. Women and children and their communities deserve much more from us in this parliament.

Let me be clear: this is a men's issue. It is men by and large perpetrating the violence, so it is men who also have to be standing with experts and victims-survivors to push for solutions. And we know that across the country they are. It is by no means simple, but we know what will make a difference: consistent, sustainable funding for frontline services; funding for men's behaviour-change programs; changing the way the media report on and how we talk about men's violence when it happens; increasing our social safety net, particularly to give victims-survivors opportunities to not just leave but recover from violence; banning gambling ads and focusing on industries that we know accelerate violence; expanding social housing options; and listening to women about their experiences, their solutions and working in partnership to implement them.

In the last parliament, we came in here and passed health amendment laws that dealt with vaping and illicit tobacco in this country. At that time, I was very concerned that 1.4 million vapers in Australia would have to become criminals to be able to meet their need, to get their fix, to help them stay off tobacco. Nothing has changed, my point of view. There has been a crackdown on the law and order supply of the illegal shops, but it isn't working. I found out overnight that a shop found selling illegal tobacco and vapes in the Newcastle area was served with a three-month closure order. The Maitland and Rutherford tobacco store received a three-month ban, and what happened five days later? They were open again. Five days after they were shut down—a yellow notice stuck up—this store is open.

There is no enforcement of the laws we have in this country. So many of the issues we deal with here on law and order, terrorism and all of these things are because we aren't doing our job as a government by enforcing these laws. We have driven honest Australians out there into the arms of large organised crime who are importing these vapes and illegal tobacco. People are leaving vaping to go back to tobacco. Tobacco levels are increasing in our water supplies because of our actions.

It is not what we wanted, but it is what we have done. That is the way we should be judged as a nation: not on what we want and what we say but on what happens here. We can't say we are tough when a three-month closure order is ignored and the shop is open five days later, trading at night from 6 pm to 9 pm up there in the Hunter Valley, where I come from. We can't say we are helping people when we are driving people from vaping back to tobacco. We can't say we're helping when we're driving millions and millions of dollars into the bank accounts of organised crime. They're burning down tobacconists across the country—300 at last count. We have done this wrongly, and it needs to be revisited.

I rise today to let the Senate know about some of the amazing activities that were going on in the lead-up to and during Australia Day on Tassie's north-west coast. On 23 January I had the opportunity to join Mayor Alison Jarman and the federal member for Braddon, Anne Urquhart, at the Devonport City Council's Australia Day awards and citizenship ceremony. It was an absolute privilege to welcome 23 new Australian citizens and to celebrate the achievements of this year's award recipients: Peter Viney, Esther Campion, the Devonport parkrun and Maybelle Ralph. I'd particularly like to recognise Maybelle. Since she was a toddler, she has raised funds for charities and inspired our community through her love of reading and her commitment to giving back. Through her Maybelle's Mission readathons, she has raised thousands of dollars for local and national charities while encouraging other children to develop a love of reading. Maybelle's compassion, initiative and community spirit show that age is no barrier to making a difference in everyone's lives.

On January 26, I had the privilege of joining the Central Coast Council Mayor, Cheryl Fuller, at the Central Coast Council's brekkie by the beach, the Australia Day citizenship ceremony and the Australia Day awards. It was an amazing event for the community to come together and welcome seven new Australian citizens and acknowledge local champions Jeanne Koetsier, Bree How, Michael Wilson, the Penguin 150 committee members and community group Due South. It was a great local community event with great people and some bloody good grub provided by local community groups.

Another great local event was Henley-on-Mersey. The sun was shining, there was great food, the drinks were flowing, and there was Douglas the donkey wearing his Australia Day cap. It was so good to see so many Australians come out, get into the spirit, support each other, act peacefully and respect each other.

Australians woke up this week to another interest rate rise, and they know exactly what that means for their wallets. Mortgage holders are being pushed closer to the edge, and renters are next in line as landlords pass on the pain. Families are already making impossible choices—rent or groceries, child care or health care—just to keep a roof over their heads.

Then we learnt that Labor are selling off public Defence land, including Victoria Barracks, to patch up the budget that they've blown. Public land that could help ease the housing crisis is to be sold off instead of used for public housing. It'll be handed to private developers while more public housing towers face demolition in my state. You are ripping the public off, and, honestly, can anyone still be surprised?

This is a government that hands out tax breaks willy-nilly to wealthy property investors that inflate house prices and lock renters out of ownership. It's a government that takes donations from gas giants while energy prices soar and that subsidises fossil fuel companies and then claims that there's no money left for housing. There are billions for submarines that may never arrive, but nurses, teachers and early educators can't afford to live where they work. There are millions for multinational consultants, but there's no budget for public housing, schools or community safety. Let's be clear. The money exists, and this is about priorities.

Australians aren't locked out of homes because they are poor; they're locked out because this government keeps heading public wealth to the corporations driving the crisis. People have every right to be angry—and they are. They are being priced out of housing, squeezed on energy and told to tighten their belts while others cash in.

The Greens will keep fighting for homes that people can actually afford, for lower bills and for a government that puts communities before corporations.

In answers to questions on notice that I received this week, I learnt that, since the start of 2024, more than 33,000 VET qualifications have been cancelled by the regulator. These cancellations happened because institutions were deregistered after not reaching the minimum standards. I'm not arguing that the government should sit idly by while Australians are getting dudded by shifty providers, but the system as it currently stands makes victims of graduates rather than helping them.

Firstly, for the people who have these qualifications cancelled, it can be devastating. If they're working when their qualification is cancelled, it may cost them their job and their livelihood. Once their qualification is cancelled, the government essentially says: 'Whoops! You paid thousands of dollars for a qualification that's now worthless. Better luck next time!' These decisions can be appealed, but appeals are often unsuccessful. In WA alone, 3,400 qualifications have been cancelled of which more than a thousand were related to child care. Several hundred more were cancelled in areas like disability support and aged care. These are sectors that are screaming out for new workers. A study by Social Ventures Australia last year found that 5,000 children in WA were living in childcare deserts. I'm not saying people who do not have skills should be allowed to take care of our children, but, for those who do have the skills, the government should be doing everything they can to let them prove their skills. Whether it's by redirecting them to skills assessments or accrediting training providers, the government needs to take an active role in making sure that people who want to work and have the skills can play their part in addressing workforce shortages in these key sectors.

On 14 December last year we saw some incredible acts of valour and bravery on the beaches at Bondi. One of the clubs I want to recognise today is North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club, inside which victims of gunshot wounds were given first aid in the immediate aftermath and in the ongoing uncertainty when the shooters were still on foot at the beach. I think it is important to recognise the incredible acts of valour of David Freedman, Michael Nearhos, Jodie Salmon, Steve Waring, Charlotte Ross and Steve Larnach, who's also the club's president. These people went out of their way and put themselves in great danger to administer first aid to people when there was great risk that they themselves would actually be injured by the shooters on the beach. There are many, many clubs and many, many individuals who showed the true Australian spirit on 14 December, but I want to recognise, in particular, North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club today and, of course, the North Bondi RSL, which I have previously acknowledged.

I also want to make the point that it is quite shocking to me that two Sydney federal members have decided to make statements which I think are very offensive to the Sydney Jewish community. The President of Israel is visiting Australia to provide comfort to the Sydney Jewish community, which has undergone a religious massacre that we've never seen in Australia before. I think it is disgusting to see that the members for Warringah and Mackellar, Ms Steggall and Ms Scamps, have decided to disgrace themselves by attempting to deny the Sydney Jewish community the support of President of Israel, who is visiting very shortly.

Well, I'm back. You can kick me out, dismiss me or try to silence me, but you can't stop me, because Australians know I have their back. Growing numbers of Australians now have mine. It's an injustice that I wasn't able to debate legislation last month, but I am proud of my colleagues following my lead. They stood tall against Labor's attempt to scapegoat lawful gun owners for Anthony Albanese's failure to check antisemitism and radical Islam.

I am proud of my colleagues for defending free speech. When you try to silence me, you try to silence millions of Australians who are tired of your cosy two-party system because it doesn't deliver. You put yourselves and vested interests before the Australians you are supposed to serve. You are not part of the Australia we know and love, the same Australia you are trying to destroy with net zero and mass migration and the Australians you won't help with the rising cost of living. More Australians are supporting me because they know you aren't putting their interests first.

Unlike you, I don't take this support for granted. We're going to earn it and show Australians that One Nation can deliver for them. I'm not part of your cosy self-serving system any more than everyday Australians are. I will never be. No matter what the media says, One Nation stands alone; One Nation will always be independent. My goal is to get rid of this toxic Albanese Labor government. We can't afford another term under Labor. I'll work with anyone who shares this goal, but I will never join them.

Working people are being made to absorb the economic pain caused by extreme wealth in this country. The Reserve Bank has just confirmed what workers across the nation already know: their wages are not keeping up with the cost of essentials and are not expected to meaningfully grow until the end of 2027. At the same time, inflation has spiked again, and people with debt are being asked to pay the price in the form of higher interest payments. That means another year where working households fall further and further behind through no fault of their own.

Nurses, cleaners, teachers and tradies are working hard, paying their taxes and trying to keep up with growing prices, yet their purchasing power keeps shrinking. Not only are these workers paying more tax than a third of big corporations in Australia, but—as we are told by the Reserve Bank—their wages are now not keeping pace with the cost of essential groceries and things that are important to every household in this country, especially the cost of housing—of mortgages and of rent.

House prices and rents are completely out of control in this country. We are in a severe housing crisis. Yet, instead of reforming tax concessions that are fuelling that house price spike and fuelling inequality, the government is presiding over falling real wages, rising interest rates and a tax system where workers are hit harder than millionaires and billionaires. This is not just an economic failure; it's a political choice with serious consequences for intergenerational inequality.

This government is responsible for a system that tackles inflation by suppressing the household income of workers while protecting housing wealth and corporate profits. Until a Labor government is willing to confront the concentration of wealth in the country, working people will keep paying the price of inequality. Until they're willing to fix the tax system and take those big tax breaks away from wealthy property hoarders, the housing crisis will get worse. (Time expired)

In December 2023, the Darwin helium plant closed, and with it Australia lost its helium sovereignty. Overnight, we became completely dependent on imports. Yet, just weeks later, the government removed helium from the critical minerals list. That was a mistake. Our supply chains are now significantly more vulnerable. Trade wars are a normality now, even with our closest partners. Helium is a critical mineral essential to our health system, our economy and our national security.

Let's start with health care. Every MRI machine in Australia relies on helium to function. Without it, these machines simply stop, delaying diagnoses for cancer, strokes and heart disease. Right now, our hospitals are vulnerable to global supply disruptions entirely beyond our control. A domestic helium supply is fundamental to a resilient health system.

This is also a major economic opportunity. Australia has the resources to meet domestic demand but also to become a leading exporter in a world facing repeated helium shortages. That means long-term jobs, regional development and sovereign capability.

We also need natural helium for renewables and the technologies needed for the green energy transition. Natural helium is essential to the growth of Australia's tech sector, needed for data centres and quantum computers for its high-performance cooling and ultralow temperatures. Projects like the Firmus AI data centre in Launceston show the high-skill jobs and economic growth that are possible when we invest in advanced technology, but those opportunities disappear without access to critical inputs.

Finally, helium is integral to the AUKUS agreement. We're committing billions of dollars to submarines and systems that rely on helium. If we're serious about a future made in Australia, natural helium must be part of the plan. We must reinstate natural helium to the critical minerals list to unlock investment, fast-track programs—

Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Senator Darmanin.

I was delighted to visit Goodstart Pakenham last month. I want to give a shout-out to Alice Spaulding, their dedicated manager, who cares deeply about running an excellent service for families. It's a vibrant centre. The children are curious and friendly. Educators are passionate about their work. Many have worked there long enough to see the children that they once educated go through school and university and then return as centre educators themselves. Pakenham is growing, and demand for services there is increasing. Early childhood education is not immune from this demand. The quality of the service run by the educators at Goodstart Pakenham is obvious. Children move on at four years old with some reading and writing, absolutely ready for school.

I want to pay particular tribute to Anselma Wong, who was a Goodstart Educator of the Year in 2024 and is an outstanding advocate for her colleagues. The reality is that, while positive progress has been made in improving their conditions under this government, early childhood education is a feminised industry, and more work is to be done. I want to pay tribute to all the workers in the sector.

The time for statements has expired.

by leave—I advise changes to ministerial arrangements. Senator McCarthy will be absent from question time today due to ministerial business interstate. In her absence, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and Independent senators.

My question is for the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday, in the Senate, you said:

The highest-spending government was the Howard government …

What is the basis for this claim?

I thank Senator Paterson for the question. I was advising the Senate that there have been times—despite what those opposite claim repeatedly in interviews and in here about the level of spending currently and its relation to other periods—where it's exceeded that. I was drawing the Senate's attention to that. If I've made an error, I'm happy to change that. I will get the figures that I was relying on.

To assist the minister, I can table the mid-year fiscal—

No, Senator Paterson, resume your seat. If you want to do something different, you seek leave. Also, you interrupted the minister.

I was responding to claims that have been made by people in this place around the level of spending. There have been times where it has exceeded the level it is now, and those opposite fail to recognise that. This government has taken responsible decisions around spending. We have made savings to the budget. We have contained spending growth, despite the period of time that we're going through now, where there are pressures on the government coming from areas like defence, NDIS, health care and aged care. They're all coming at the budget.

We have managed to responsibly manage the budget, find savings where we can and return money for budget repair to pay down the Liberal debt that we inherited and to make sure that we are finding room for the investments that the Australian people rely upon. That is responsible budget management. I'm proud to be a member of a government that take the approach we have, not the slash-and-burn approach that those opposite like to refer to—the savings that they sought in the election campaign—but a responsible approach that seeks to ensure that services are funded appropriately while managing the budget appropriately as well.

President, I seek leave to table the mid-year economic and fiscal outlooks from the departments of the treasury and finance, which have the historical Australian government data on spending.

They're government documents. You don't need to table them. In an effort to distract from his involvement in leadership shenanigans, he's now trying to create a stunt, but we all know who you are.

Senator Wong, resume your seat. Is leave granted for documents to be tabled?

Leave granted.

I table those documents.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Minister, in the most recent financial year, government spending was 26.2 per cent of GDP. Can you name a single financial year in which the Howard government spent more?

Thank you. Sorry, President, I've just been trying to get some advice. My comments yesterday—I do need to correct the record. I should've said the Morrison government, not the Howard government.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I'm waiting for the Senate to come to order. Senator Bragg, withdraw that comment.

That isn't how you withdraw, Senator Bragg.

My apologies. I withdraw.

Thank you. We're six minutes or so into question time and the disrespect in this chamber, particularly to me, is unacceptable. Now, I'm going to call the minister to answer Senator Paterson's first supplementary question and I expect there to be silence.

Thank you, President, and I would like to apologise to the Senate that I wasn't aware until Senator Paterson's question that I'd got the names of former prime minister Howard and former prime minister Morrison wrong. But the substance of the point I was making at the time was that the Morrison government was the highest-spending government. The Howard government was actually the highest-taxing government, and that was the mistake I made yesterday. I take my responsibilities seriously, so I've corrected the record. But the substance of the point I was making was correct.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

To be fair to the minister, she's not the only minister who made this mistake. Yesterday, on Sky News, Senator Ayres repeated this incorrect claim. Minister, how, as the Minister for Finance, are you making such a fundamental error about Australian government statistics, which you publish, and why did you not correct the record earlier?

I've explained that I got the names incorrect and I've corrected the record, and I would ask the same of Senator Paterson every time he goes out and does an interview where he misleads—by not acknowledging that fact. This government—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Order, Senators Watt and McAllister!

To be clear. The highest-spending government was the Morrison government; the highest-taxing government was the Howard government. Those opposite in the election campaign wanted to tax more, spend more and have deeper deficits in order to fund their nuclear powered power stations. That is the offering from the last election from those opposite. They have zero economic credibility, and we will continue to manage the budget responsibly. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Albanese Labor government is united and focused on delivering cost-of-living relief, delivering quality health care, helping more Australians into homeownership and delivering cheaper and cleaner energy. What is the government delivering to help Australians get ahead?

I thank Senator Walker not only for that question but for her strong advocacy for the people of South Australia, particularly regional South Australians and those of the Fleurieu, where she's from. And I think we would both acknowledge the bushfire that has been raging at Deep Creek since Sunday and thank all the CFS firefighters who have been working tirelessly to contain the blaze which came so close to Cape Jervis.

The question I'm asked is: how is our government delivering for Australians? Well, we've seen higher wages; the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years, with 1.2 million jobs created; the smallest gender pay gap on record; cost-of-living support; helping more Australians into homes—

Senator Bragg, please listen to this, because, in my home state of South Australia, we saw the Prime Minister in Adelaide announcing a landmark agreement with the Malinauskas Labor government to unlock 17,000 new homes, including 7,000 for first home buyers. On top of that, we've opened eight Medicare urgent care clinics across the state, from Mount Gambier to Elizabeth to Victor Harbor, and delivered $2 billion in additional public hospital funding, with $500 million for Flinders Medical Centre and the Repat, in partnership with Premier Malinauskas and his government. South Australians have also saved around $150 million on cheaper medicines, also opposed by you.

Every taxpayer has received a cut, with more to come, and all of this was delivered despite the trenchant opposition of the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation—the three parties of the right, all lined up to prevent—

I'll take that interjection. 'Careful if we get together,' says the Leader of the Opposition! Well, we've seen, in this chamber, what that might look like, Senator Cash! (Time expired)

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

Australians rightly want a government that takes real action on climate change while continuing to help with cost-of-living pressures. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to deliver important cost-of-living relief to Australians, while investing in cheaper and cleaner energy?

Australia is already a leader in rooftop solar—a world leader—and, thanks to the Albanese government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program, we are also making strides with battery storage, and we've taken around 30 per cent off home batteries to permanently cut power bills. Over 200,000 cheaper home batteries have been installed across Australia since 1 July. We are very proud, in South Australia, that we lead the nation, with the most installations per capita, with more than 26,000 installations. And this comes at a time when renewable energy is hitting record highs. This government has brought a record seven dispatchable gigawatts of new energy supply into the pipeline.

Of course, those opposite might like to know, with their attention to facts and details, how many equivalent gigawatts came on when the former coalition was in government: just one. So we are bringing on more power and investing in renewable energy— (Time expired)

Senator Walker, a second supplementary?

Australians want and deserve a government that focuses on the issues they care about, not division and disunity. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering? And what stands in the way?

I'm almost tempted to invite Senator Sterle to take my second supplementary, because he'd be funnier than I, I'm sure! He and I both know—in fact, we all know—with what energy and determination those opposite are fighting each other! We've seen the energy that they bring to opposing cost-of-living relief, energy rebates, tax cuts, higher wages—all opposed. But now their energy is directed at each other. Oh, if only their energy could possibly be directed to considering what the Australian people want! But, again—if I may just reference my home state of South Australia again—the division and disunity that we see here are very familiar to those of us from South Australia, because we have seen decades of infighting amongst the South Australian Liberals. And, of course, they rolled their state leader, just months out from an election. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. The president of RSL Tasmania, John Hardy, has described the Albanese government's announcement of a Tasmanian Defence asset fire sale as 'a catastrophic strategic error that will stand as the largest withdrawal of defence presence from any Australian state since Federation'. He went on to say:

Such a withdrawal fundamentally alters Tasmania's role in Australia's Defence posture and sends a clear signal that Tasmania is no longer regarded as a State of Defence significance.

Minister, do you agree with Mr Hardy's assessment?

I would treat anyone who has served our country with great respect for their service, but we respectfully disagree with the assertions you've just made in this place. We are undertaking significant reform of the Defence estate. We're doing that to ensure it is fit for purpose and to ensure that we can provide the Australian Defence Force with the facilities and capabilities it needs to keep Australians safe. What the audit which was undertaken and very carefully considered has highlighted is that many Defence properties simply aren't fit for purpose. They're not fit for purpose. That's why this reform was necessary.

We do have sites which are vacant. We do have sites which are underutilised. Those sites are costing millions of dollars to maintain. Because of that, they're not able to contribute—in a way that we need and the country needs—to ADF capabilities. I appreciate that this is a challenging reform and that it does mean change. But this is about making sure that the Defence estate is fit for purpose and provides the Australian Defence Force and the men and women who serve in it with the facilities and capabilities needed to keep Australians safe.

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

Defence's own figures show that the Tasmanian sites on Labor's fire-sale list are used by around 300 reservists and 450 cadets. Nationally up 3,300 reservists will be impacted by the sale—around 15 per cent of the reserve workforce. Minister, how can the government claim to strengthen Defence readiness while selling off the very facilities that train our future force who already do so much for our country?

Again, I reject the categorisation that's been used by the senator. I hope she's had the opportunity to read the audit which the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Defence released. That audit does make clear that many Defence properties are no longer fit for purpose to defend Australia. That's a simple proposition. There was a very comprehensive process gone through to look at the many locations of the Defence estate and to judge it against those criteria. Can I also indicate that the government did ask Defence to undertake a comprehensive assessment of the potential impacts upon personnel, including reservists. And all Defence personnel, including reservists, will be transitioned to alternative sites.

Senator Chandler, second supplementary?

Minister, can the Albanese government guarantee that, as a result of these estate sales, there will be no net reduction in Defence jobs, reserve opportunities and Defence training in Tasmania?

Tasmania has an historic and high level of commitment to military service. We are committed to recruitment and retention of personnel in Tasmania. Defence will retain a strong presence in Tasmania, including through the consolidation of the Burnie training depot and the Devonport training depot to a new multiuser depot, which builds on recent investments in the triservice cadet depot in Launceston, estimated to be completed by 2027, and builds on major investments such as the upgrade and maintenance of facilities at Anglesea Barracks.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. On 12 June 2023, Senator Watt, representing the Attorney-General, told the Senate that then justice Brereton would resign his appointment as Assistant Inspector-General of the ADF 'before taking up his role as the commissioner of the NACC'. On 5 June 2025 the NACC CEO told a Senate committee that Commissioner Brereton had resigned his appointment with the IGADF in or about May 2023. However, on 3 December 2025, the actual IGADF, James Gaynor, in an answer on notice to another Senate committee, said Major General Brereton never provided written confirmation of their May 2023 conversation in which he stated he would resign as an assistant IGADF, effective 1 July 2023. So, Minister, has Commissioner Brereton resigned as an assistant IGADF, and, if so, when and how?

I thank Senator Shoebridge for his question. I'm aware that he has taken quite a bit of interest in this issue in all of the previous estimates hearings, and one suspects that it will be the subject of questions next week in estimates. Not being the minister responsible for this area, I can't answer your question directly, Senator Shoebridge. But I will consult with the Attorney-General and come back as quickly as I can to respond to your question.

Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary?

Well, that says a lot, doesn't it? They have no idea whether or not he has resigned. Minister, a bombshell letter from the Attorney-General to Commissioner Brereton, sent in October of last year, pointed out repeated failures of Commissioner Brereton to disclose his moonlighting with the IGADF to the Senate, to the former A-G and to the current A-G. Given this, does Commissioner Brereton seriously have the confidence of the Albanese government to head the National Anti-Corruption Commission?

Yes.

Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary?

Minister, you don't know if he's actually still the assistant IGADF. You've got no advice from the Attorney-General about her bombshell letter, where she panned him for failure to disclose. The ongoing failure of Commissioner Brereton to deal with his own perceived and actual conflicts of interest and his failure to come even close to transparency with your government or the parliament is rapidly eroding the trust of Australians in the NACC. Why can't you see that, and why can't you do the right thing and sack him? Bring on the motion and sack him.

With due respect, Senator Shoebridge, I directly answered your last question.

No, you asked a question—do we continue to have confidence in the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission—and I answered it as simply as I possibly could, in the most direct way. I don't accept your proposition. This government did act on the issue of integrity. We have appointed Mr Brereton to the job. He continues to do his work in that regard. He has made it clear that he is not involved in these other activities. And the government— (Time expired)

My question is to my good friend and Minister for Trade and Tourism Senator Farrell.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Yes, he is. Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, great strides have been made in opening many opportunities for Australian businesses into overseas markets. This has included a secure and comprehensive trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates. Could the minister please update the Senate on the many benefits of this trade deal with the UAE and how the Albanese government has helped many Australian businesses weather the storm of dramatic changes to global trade.

I thank my good friend Senator Ciccone for that question. Of course, this is an area where I have some expertise. The Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting free and fair trade. After all, one in four Australian jobs relates to trade. With this in mind, we've been hard at work to ensure that our world-class industries are best placed not just to weather the storm but to grow and succeed. We've been building stronger and deeper trading relationships across the globe. This approach is paying off. In the last financial year Australia's total trade reached a record $1.3 trillion. I'll repeat that for Senator Shoebridge. It reached a record $1.3 trillion. It didn't just happen. We've created new opportunities and built on existing relationships to deliver for Australian businesses and their employees.

Our most recent major achievement was the implementation of a trade agreement with the United Arab Emirates on 1 October last year. Last week, I returned from a trip to the UAE, where I led the largest ever delegation to showcase the best of our produce at the gulf export expo in Dubai with the former member of parliament Mr Christopher Pyne. The Australian pavilion was a beehive of activity, with buyers seeking to take advantage of purchasing the best food in the world at competitive prices thanks to our trade deal. Notably, our beef exports to the UAE have doubled. (Time expired)

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

I thank my good friend the minister for that wonderful answer. Market diversification has been central to the Albanese government's trade agenda, and a great deal has been achieved over the past four years to grow Australian businesses, support local jobs and help sell our world-class goods and services to the world. Could the minister please provide an update on what further opportunities the government is opening for the many Australian farmers, businesses and workers.

I thank my good friend Senator Ciccone for his first supplementary question. Despite the significant trade achievements over the past four years, there is more that can be done. This includes securing a comprehensive trade deal with the European Union. The EU is our largest trading partner without a trade agreement. It's a high-income market of 450 million people. Concluding a deal will complete the last major piece in Australia's network of free trade agreements. I look forward to meeting my European counterpart soon to close the gaps on the very few remaining issues, and I'm confident that a deal can be done and will be done, which would require a better offer by the EU on agricultural market access.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

Thanks again to my good mate the minister for that answer. Minister, creating export opportunities for Australian farmers, businesses and workers has clearly been a priority for this government. What action has the Albanese government taken to support and promote Australian world-class exports of goods and services to the world?

I thank my good friend Senator Ciccone for his second supplementary question. With an increasing level of global economic uncertainty, new export strategies are required to stay resilient and competitive. The Albanese Labor government is delivering on our election commitment to work with industry to grow and diversify into overseas markets. Recently, I announced that 40 peak industry bodies would join the Trade Diversification Network as part of the government's $50 million Accessing New Markets Initiative.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources. In December last year, the Albanese government opened up expressions of interest for 25,000 square kilometres of ocean in the Otway Basin. Is the minister aware that this summer we saw extreme weather events that completely shut down the Great Ocean Road, from catastrophic fires through to flash flooding that washed holidaymakers out into the ocean? Does the minister think it's acceptable to be giving away our oceans to oil and gas companies in a time of climate emergency when we should be rapidly transitioning to renewable energy?

Thank you very much, Senator Whish-Wilson, for that question. I'll just reflect on some of the previous answers and discussions about friendship and the way that we ought to think about these things. There is a lot of interest over there, I think, on these issues of friendship. I watched a group of friends at that house before that funeral. I saw Senator Paterson looking like a bank robber who pretends to be a security guard—

Minister Ayres!

President—

I'm assuming, Senator Whish-Wilson, you are asking me to draw him to the question, and I intended to do that before you stood.

Senator Whish-Wilson, it is not a time for a statement. Seriously! Minister Ayres, I draw you to Senator Whish-Wilson's question.

Thank you very much, President and Senator Whish-Wilson, for drawing me back. As you would know, Senator, we as a government disagree with the approach that you would advocate, which, in our view, would wreck the prospect of progress in international climate negotiations. It makes for good slogans and good T-shirts but in no way advances the position on climate or energy. Fifty-two per cent of Australia's oceans are already protected. We're working towards highly protecting 30 per cent. That does not mean, and it should not mean, stopping Australia's gas exports or the need for us to provide gas for industry, much of which means lower emissions and sustainable Australian industry. The approach advocated by you is bad for the environment, bad on global emissions, bad on climate progress and bad on jobs. (Time expired)

Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary?

Minister, apart from the extreme weather events on the Great Ocean Road, which have been linked directly to climate change, we have also seen a record heatwave. We've seen two now in south-east Australia this summer. How are we going to transition off fossil fuels to get emissions as low as we need to get them to protect our families and future generations from a climate breakdown if you keep opening up more oil and gas fields in the ocean?

This is the difference between practical action that actually makes a difference on climate and energy questions and the sloganeering to no effect that comes from the Greens political party.

It's not practical if it doesn't work.

Adopting the position that you advocate would be disastrous for the climate, would be disastrous in emissions terms, would be disastrous for Australian industry and would mean that we'd lose the framework that is critical to delivering these things that Australia is providing a leadership role on. Releasing new acreage helps address—

Order! Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Minister Wong?

President—

Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat.

Order! Senator Allman-Payne, whilst I hadn't named you directly, it was very clear on the three or four times I called for order I was meaning you. While I had the Leader of the Government in the Senate on her feet, you continued to interject.

You are not in a debate with me, Senator Allman-Payne. I have called you to order. That is a direct order. Please continue, Senator Ayres.

If you actually cared, genuinely, about the progress in climate, you would adopt the position that this government has adopted. If you actually wanted to make progress instead of go on a sort of constant quest for emotional self-fulfilment, you would support the government's approach. (Time expired)

Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary?

Just south-west of this 25,000 square kilometres of ocean you're going to open up, off the coast of Adelaide we have a dead ocean from a toxic algal bloom that has been linked to warming oceans that have been linked to rising emissions that have been linked to fossil fuels. What have you got to say to communities in South Australia when you are opening up new areas for oil and gas exploration in the oceans in a time of climate emergency? I can't work out whether you're deliberately misinforming the Senate around climate change or you actually have a plan to properly reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy. (Time expired)

What this government is doing, Senator Whish-Wilson, is transforming our electricity system, supporting—just recently, with $5 million—our industries to move to lower cost electricity in the manufacturing processes. We are moving, under this government, from what it was under the previous rabble to a position of global leadership on climate, energy, industry and electrification. I know part-time Pauline over there disagrees with it, but we are investing in regional jobs and regional industry—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. I have the senator on his feet.

I'm just going to wait, Senator McKim. I haven't called you, Senator Whish-Wilson, because I'm actually waiting for your colleagues to come to order—perhaps you can assist. Senator Whish-Wilson.

I've got a point of order on irrelevance. Are you really going to say that to communities in South Australia who are suffering from a toxic algal—

Senator Whish-Wilson, if you're calling a point of order, I expect you to make a point of order, not make a statement. I don't know how many times I've reminded the Senate that you don't stand up and make statements. Minister Ayres, please continue.

It's the old barefoot investor over there. You can't see a disaster that you don't want to politicise. You can't see a problem—like this problem. What you'll get from our government is progress, effort and a coherent political framework—

Thank you, Senator Ayres.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the government's decision this week to slash interest rates for large companies that borrow from the government's $5 billion Net Zero Fund. The Net Zero Fund is funded by the National Reconstruction Fund, which has an investment mandate to charge borrowers a rate two to three per cent above the five-year government bond rate. However, this week the government has announced that investments from the Net Zero Fund will only have to achieve an interest rate of one per cent below the five-year government bond rate. That is, in effect, a three to four percentage point cut in interest rates for investors in large-scale wind and solar projects. The Australian Financial Review reported on this decision:

… Labor is in effect willing to lose money on renewables projects.

In the very week that Australian families are having to pay more on their home loans thanks to Labor's reckless spending, why is the Labor government giving an interest rate cut to billion-dollar companies that invest in solar and wind projects?

I think Senator Canavan's position on investment in renewables, in decarbonisation, in energy efficiency and in low-emissions technologies is well known. He and I disagree vehemently on these issues, but I will acknowledge that he has remained consistent over many years on this.

We believe, on this side of the chamber, that it is necessary for us to drive decarbonisation. We believe it is necessary to drive energy efficiency and we also believe it is necessary to try and scale up domestic manufacturing in renewable and low-emissions technology. That is jobs and economic activity in Australia—the capability and the capacity to manufacture low-emissions and renewable technologies here. There are a number of reasons for that, which are very much economic, not ideological. We know that the global market is transitioning. If you're serious about wanting to make sure our children grow up in an economy where we can deliver products and services to the world, where we can be part of supply chains that will be valued in a very different global economy, then we have to transform the Australian economy.

Senator Canavan?

A point of order on relevance: I have given the minister 90 seconds, but she hasn't gone to why they are getting a cut but homeowners aren't.

I believe the minister is being relevant, and I'll continue to listen carefully to her response.

I thought I was outlining the public policy rationale and the jobs rationale and the economic rationale for why we believe that leveraging more private sector activity in these areas is a good thing for our country and a good thing for Australian jobs, and that's what the government is doing.

Senator Canavan, first supplementary.

This week the government's Clean Energy Finance Corporation has announced that it is funding lower interest rates on purchases of Hyundai and Kia fully electric vehicles. As the CEFC stated, 'eligible customers could save a minimum of 0.5 per cent up to 1.0 per cent on their finance rate across Hyundai and Kia.' Why is the government cutting interest rates for cars made in Korea while the government's reckless spending is driving up interest rates for Australian families who just want to buy a home made in Australia?

First, it is true that we no longer manufacture cars in Australia—and thank you for reminding us of that, because we in South Australia will never forget Joe Hockey standing at the floor of that chamber and daring the car industry to leave, and being so proud. That was in your Productivity Commission phase. They were so proud to be the Liberal government that stopped working with car manufacturers to ensure that we no longer have car manufacturing in this country.

Senator Canavan?

A point of order on relevance: the question is about a government-announced program this week, the day before the interest rate rise, but the minister is going to things that happened 10 years ago or more.

The minister is being relevant to your question, and I'll continue to listen carefully.

I wish we lived in a country that still made cars and had the capacity to produce electric vehicles in Australia so that we would be in a position where we could provide tax breaks for Australians to buy Australian cars. But that is not the case, and we all know whose responsibility that was.

Senator Canavan, second supplementary.

The government's net zero low-interest deals for big companies and electric vehicles are pushing up government spending, creating inflationary pressures and leading to higher interest rates. How much is the government spending on its net zero agenda? And how much is that increasing interest rates for Australians who would just like to stay in their own homes?

Well, the problem with Senator Canavan's question is an example of an ideological position—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Wong, I'm sorry. The interjections across the chamber are disorderly. Minister Wong.

The difficulty with Senator Canavan's questions is that they are an example of ideology getting in the way of economic logic. Senator Ayres, I think it was yesterday or the day before, talked about the way in which the government is ensuring jobs and investment in one of the projects in his portfolio—

Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres! Perhaps you can go outside and have a chat.

As I was saying, Senator Ayres described very eloquently, yesterday or the day before, the way in which investment by government is ensuring jobs in Gladstone. Senator, you know, because you are an economist, that your government invested in the CEFC. You also know that utilising government funds to leverage private sector investment is all about Australian jobs. (Time expired)

Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres, the running commentary needs to stop.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher. The Prime Minister promised 100 per cent renewables would deliver the cheapest form of power. The Capacity Investment Scheme is a key part of Labor's reckless energy plan that shifts the cost and risk of wind and solar onto taxpayers. Australian families and businesses are already paying soaring energy prices. If Labor are so confident this is the cheapest approach, it should be able to state the cost clearly and publicly. Can the minister please inform the Senate of the total cost of Labor's Capacity Investment Scheme in the 2025-26 budget. To assist the minister, is it within the quantified contingent liabilities?

A point of order. My recollection—I might be wrong, Senator Hanson—is that the Capacity Investment Scheme is in the climate portfolio, not the Treasury portfolio, so you would need to address your question to a different minister.

The question has been directed to Minister Gallagher.

I am addressing it to Minister Gallagher because it is to do with the Treasury and it's about the budget papers.

That's your entitlement to do that. Minister Wong?

With respect, President, the Westminster system works on ministers who are responsible under the administrative arrangements for portfolios and agencies in their area. So it is not unreasonable for us to request that the minister who is responsible for the agency—if I'm right, and I think I am—is the minister to whom it's addressed.

As you would be aware, Senator Wong, I've given Senator Hanson the opportunity to redirect her question. She has informed me that it is directed to Minister Gallagher. I will invite Minister Gallagher to answer the question in her capacity and in her portfolio areas. I will leave it at that, Senator Hanson.

I am wondering, Senator Hanson, if you could repeat the last bit of your question. I couldn't hear the exact question; I heard 'contingent liabilities'.

The last part of the question is: can the minister please inform the Senate of the total cost of Labor's Capacity Investment Scheme in the 2025-26 budget. To assist the minister, is it within the quantified contingent liabilities?

I don't have the budget papers with me, but it would be in the contingent liabilities, and it would probably also feature in the statement of risks as well, so it is fully accounted for. There is a review of the Capacity Investment Scheme currently underway, but the costs associated with it—I'm happy to come back and provide it. I don't have that document in front of me, sorry, Senator Hanson, but I'm very happy to provide that number to you. It is accounted for, and it was accounted for in MYEFO. If you talk to big emitters, it has been an important part of our response to addressing climate change, to reducing emissions and to supporting the economy as that transition occurs. It's a worldwide energy transition that's happening, and we have to respond to it. I know there are different views about that.

When we came to government, 24 out of 28 of the ageing coal-fired power stations had announced they were closing within the decade. Eight had already closed, including Hazelwood, because they were old and at the end of their life. So rebuilding the energy grid, and supporting big emitters with reducing their emissions, is a necessity. We have to provide an energy grid that works for the future, and the reality is that the infrastructure and policies we had under the former government weren't delivering that change. The government has worked across the economy to support that transition. I will come back on the exact figure. The review is underway, and the books do account for it.

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

Minister, I'm very happy to hear that you intend to give me those figures on the Capacity Investment Scheme, because Labor's Capacity Investment Scheme is listed in the budget papers as 'not for publication', so you are keeping the true cost of Labor's 100 per cent wind and solar energy strategy a secret from the Australian people. You've just told me you're quite happy to give me the figures—and I want those, so that's wonderful. If you're not going to come up with it in the budget papers, if it's not supposed to be for publication, why— (Time expired)

I was trying to assist, Senator Hanson. I answered your question. It is factored into the budget. It is contained in the contingent liabilities. There is a review underway. Where figures are commercially sensitive, we can't release them, but I am happy to provide you with whatever information I can around the Capacity Investment Scheme. For example, 23 Capacity Investment Scheme agreements have been executed, with projects representing seven gigawatts of capacity, and negotiations are continuing with 33 projects. The CIS, the Capacity Investment Scheme, is delivering at least 40 gigawatts of new renewable and clean dispatchable capacity to replace capacity from the ageing and increasingly unreliable coal plants, placing downward pressure on electricity prices and helping deliver the Australian government's Renewable Energy Target by 2030.

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Minister, I'm asking you to tell us how much it's costing the taxpayers for wind, solar and batteries. That's what we have to know. Is a $50 billion, or $60 billion? How much is it costing the taxpayers? Why are you keeping it secret from the taxpayers? The taxpayers are footing the bill for this; they have a right to know. Now, you said you'd give me figures, so I'll be interested to see what figures you intend to give me.

I am explaining to you, Senator Hanson, that I will try and provide you with whatever information I can. Where those investments are commercially sensitive or not for publication, of course that is a constraint, but I can also give you figures on what is actually happening with building the new energy system here.

This is about making sure energy remains affordable in light of the fact of our current ageing infrastructure, including those coal-fired power stations that are no longer providing the energy that we need. That's the reality. They're closing. They're ageing. They're breaking down. I remember, even just a few years ago—if you had a heatwave, people had to try and manage their electricity output. Because we have put new energy into the grid, the energy system is a lot more stable than it was.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, my good friend Senator Walsh. How is the Albanese Labor government's historic Better and Fairer Schools Agreement supporting students, families and teachers heading back to school for a new school year? How are these agreements delivering stronger public schools, more support in classrooms and better outcomes for students? And how is it helping families with back-to-school cost-of-living pressures?

Thank you, friend, for the question. Schools are back across the country. Many children have had their first ever day of school—including your gorgeous daughter, Zara. We wish them all the best. There are relieved parents, some nervous kids and teachers who are back in classrooms prepped and ready to go for the year ahead. As someone who proudly comes from a family of teachers, I know what this time of year feels like for them. They go back knowing that teaching isn't just a job; it is a calling. It's about giving all children every chance to reach their potential. That's why the Albanese Labor government is united in our commitment to our public schools.

For the first time ever, we have agreements to fully fund every public school student in Australia to a hundred per cent of their fair funding level. Through the better and fairer schools agreements, we're delivering an additional $16.5 billion in Commonwealth funding to public schools over the next decade—the biggest new injection of Commonwealth funding to public schools ever. This investment means stronger public schools, more support in classrooms and better outcomes for students, particularly those who need extra help. It also matters for families. Back-to-school costs are real, and properly funded public schools help ease pressure on household budgets while making sure every child gets a fair go, no matter where they live or what their parents earn.

None of this works without our nations' teachers. They do one of the most important jobs in this country. Our government is backing them with fairer funding, better support and a clear focus on what helps kids succeed. We are united in delivering stronger public schools and better outcomes for Australian kids.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

The better and fairer schools agreements are being rolled out with more funding this year for Australian schools. How is this funding tied to real, evidence based reforms in classrooms this year, particularly to lift reading, writing and numeracy outcomes for those students in our communities who need the most support?

As a government we are proud to be fully funding every public school in Australia to 100 per cent of their fair funding level. This record new investment is tied to reform, and that reform is already being delivered. We're rolling out year 1 phonics checks nationally so children who are struggling to read are identified early and supported before gaps widen. We know this works because we've seen the improvements in your home state, Senator, in South Australia, where phonics checks have been in place for several years.

We're applying that same evidence based approach nationally. We're also strengthening maths in the early years with a new early-years numeracy check, because, again, we are united in building strong foundations for Australia's children.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Thank you, minister—you are a great friend of public schools and therefore a great friend of mine. Why is the Albanese Labor government's approach of strengthening and fully funding public schools so important, and what does that mean for families facing cost-of-living pressures?

Thanks, Mate, for the question. We're united in our belief that education sets people up for life. We know strong public schools matter for families and for the future of this country.

The contrast with the opposition could not be clearer. When they were last in government, they ripped $30 billion out of public schools, and that is a stain on them that will never wash off. Since then, they've opposed just about every cost-of-living measure this government has brought forward to help families. On the side of the chamber, we take a different approach. We are fixing the system that they broke. We are united in our commitment to our public schools and to every student in our public schools. While you are all focused on yourselves and your iPhones right now, we are united in our focus on Australia's future.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. My office has been contacted by John, whose father is living with dementia and has been waiting for residential aged-care place for more than 12 months. After being hospitalised, John's father was deemed unsafe to return home. He has remained stuck in the Modbury Hospital in South Australia for 47 days, costing his family more than $3,800—as well as taxpayers thousands of dollars more—and taking a serious toll on his mental health. John told my office that his father was not alone. An entire ward occupied by older Australians waiting for aged-care placements was what his father shared. Minister, will your government take full responsibility for this national aged-care crisis, which is leaving thousands of older Australians, like John's dad, stranded in hospitals?

Thank you, Senator Ruston, for the question. Thinking about John and his father, I understand how challenging it is for people who are facing these circumstances and who are, in many ways, facing a very significant change of life. This is a complicated and very longstanding issue, as you will understand, Senator Ruston, in our aged-care system. Those pressures are being felt particularly acutely in some regions.

The Commonwealth has responsibility for the aged-care system, and we are working very closely with the states and territories—who, as you know, have responsibility for the hospital system—to manage the issue. Of course, our view is that every day that an older Australian spends in hospital when they should be in a more appropriate care environment puts a lot of pressure on those families. I'm sure that John, his family and his father are feeling that, but it also puts pressure on the hospital system. This system wasn't fit for purpose for older people when we came to government. That is exactly why, Senator Ruston—

Senator Ruston!

we are rebuilding our aged-care system—

Senator Ruston!

from the ground up—

Senator Ruston! Three times I've called you.

to make sure that people are getting the care that they need where and when they need it. Senator Ruston, we were grateful for the constructive approach that the coalition took to that work, but we observe also that this was work that could have been done in the period when you were in government.

Senator Ruston!

We are moving very quickly to make up ground for the work that should have been done in the decade that you were in office. We are essentially attempting to do a decade's worth of work in aged care in just a few years.

Before I call you, Senator Ruston, you need to stop the running commentary. First supplementary?

My office has been contacted by Ron, who lives with Parkinson's disease and is cared for full time by his wife, but she is now experiencing serious mobility issues herself. Ron was approved for a level 4 home-care package last October but has been told he faces a 10- to 12-month wait, despite the urgency of their situation. Minister, do you accept the excessive home-care wait times caused by your government's decision to ration care are causing incredible distress to older Australians as well as placing more pressure on our hospital system?

Thank you, Senator Ruston. As you know, we are making a substantial investment, backed by legislation, to roll out further packages so that families can get the support that they need. People whose needs are urgent are being prioritised, and I am advised that they are being offered care much sooner. There are longer wait times, but we are, pleasingly, expecting to see some of those come down.

Senator Ruston, second supplementary?

Yesterday, Labor health ministers in South Australia and New South Wales revealed that 1,200 older Australians in New South Wales and 363 in South Australia are currently stuck in hospitals waiting for aged-care placements. Both ministers called out the federal government for the fact that more needs to be done to fix this national problem. Minister, do you agree that more needs to be done to move older Australians out of hospital and into the aged-care system?

As I indicated in my answer to Senator Ruston's primary question, a great deal needs to be done in the aged-care system because of the neglect that characterised your approach to this policy area during your very long period in government. It was the finding of the royal commission, and we moved very swiftly, on coming to government, to start to address it. It's meant bringing in new legislation, it's meant providing new resourcing and it's meant working carefully to ensure that the workforce is available to support people and to deal with the ageing population. All of those demographic signs were there when you were in government, Senator Ruston.

All of that information was before you.

Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston, I've lost count of the times I've called you. I've also asked you to stop the running commentary. So, for the remaining 20 seconds, please be quiet. Minister McAllister, please continue.

So, yes, we intend to continue to work—as we have done from the very first moment of coming to government—on building the aged-care system so that it is fit for purpose and so it can meet the needs of Australia's ageing population and make sure our people have the care that they deserve.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Further to an answer I gave in question time to Senator Hanson—I said if I had some numbers I would come back to her—I can confirm that, in the 2023-24 budget, $9.9 million over five years was provided to AEMO for arrangements related to the Capacity Investment Scheme, and $6.4 million was provided to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to design the auction process. The Capacity Investment Scheme and the work that has gone into that indicate that $73 billion in investment in our electricity sector will be generated by the arrangements under the scheme. Other costs relating to specific projects, whilst accounted for in our budget books, are not for publication due to commercial reasons.

The documents in relation to this order for the production of documents are being processed in the usual way, as is outlined in Minister O'Neil's letter to the Senate of 26 November. There are a substantial number of documents that may be in scope. It is important that these documents are considered in a thorough manner, particularly given the expansive scope of the order, which goes to a period of almost 12 months. The government, having an eye on the work of the many public servants who are engaged in the work of complying with these orders for the production of documents by various senators—Senator Bragg and Senator Payman and 'Senator ChatGPT'—generating these enormous volumes of material—

You need your own renewable energy power.

As I said yesterday, people worry—as Senator Watt was pointing out—about the amount of power that's going to be required to electrify industry and to support these data centres. The amount of power and staff that need to be engaged in complying with these vanity exercises, these vainglorious efforts for relevance from people who otherwise—

Senator Bragg sought a congratulatory letter the other day. Senator Payman's proposed order requires ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails, instant messages and electronic messages. That is a list generated by artificial intelligence right there that just betrays the complete lack of—oh, it's sensitive soul old Braggy on his feet again.

Minister, we don't need commentary.

Point of order, Deputy President. I believe the minister was impugning Senator Payman by promoting an idea that perhaps she hadn't done her own work.

Senator Bragg, that's not a point of order. Minister.

Work—you wouldn't know the meaning of it.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister, let's stick to the topic.

You're very sensitive.

I actually care about the people who work for a living—a concept that may be foreign to you, Senator Bragg—in the department, who are working every day to comply with these vainglorious and ridiculous orders for the production of documents.

Minister, resume your seat. Senator Henderson.

Deputy President, on a point of order, I would ask that you ask the minister, who's being most disrespectful, to withdraw that comment. On a second point of order, on a number of occasions—most recently, a couple of minutes ago—he has not referred to senators by their correct name, so please address that.

I will remind the minister to refer to senators by their correct name. If a senator has been offended, I'll ask the minister to withdraw the comment. I'm not entirely sure, to be honest, exactly what's being asked to be withdrawn, but if you have offended a senator—

If you asked me to withdraw—even though we're not quite sure what we're withdrawing—I withdraw it unreservedly.

Senators over there don't understand their responsibilities to the parliament, but there are, in this portfolio alone, 3,995 pages worth of documents. That is the entire length of the normal edition of The Lord of the Rings three times over—sought by people who will never read it, who have never opened any of this material in their lives. It's four times the length of Odgers' 14th edition—sought by people who've never opened it. I have to correct the record for yesterday. I did say that it was eight times the length of Senator Bragg's latest self-published book—and that was very unfair. It's 16 times the length of Senator Bragg's self-published book.

The truth is, what is this all about? It's this anxiety and antipathy from Senator Payman and Senator Bragg, who don't want young people to be able to access five per cent deposits. They're hostile to the interests of young Australians who want to get a foot on the ladder. That is a disappointing attitude, but it's the kind of attitude that's consumed the Liberal Party for its whole life, and it's the only strain of consistency that you can see amongst them.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Recently I was reminded of a quote I'd seen a while ago. I tracked it down to former senator Rex Patrick's website. He quotes former Labor minister Barry Jones as saying:

In Canberra I feel like a member of a football team which never plays at home—the public servants have collectively about 85% of the information and we have about 15%—much of which is acquired from leaks and newspaper reports.

Every day, many of us in this place try to get that number up to 16 or 17 per cent. What we saw yesterday was the 85 per cent punching down on the 15 per cent. I thought I'd fallen through a portal to 10 years ago. I thought I was back at UWA, with the student politics that was on display yesterday afternoon. It was an act of juvenility and arrogance in equal measure. It was summed up when Senator Scarr sought to clarify the purpose of an amendment to the motion which gave rise to this attendance. Now, I'm not sure who it was—perhaps it was Senator Gallagher—but someone from the government benches called out that its purpose was 'to annoy you'. That just about says it all.

OPD 208 relates to the Australian Government 5% Deposit Scheme. Now, a five per cent deposit sounds great. The bar to get a mortgage is lowered and more people have the opportunity to buy their first home. But let's think about what a five per cent deposit means. It means a 95 per cent mortgage. It means hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest for banks over a period of a loan. The banks love it. Just yesterday it was reported that the Minister for Housing's director of policy, the guy who came up with the five per cent deposits, has left for the Commonwealth Bank. That's not a bad little rort! It also means, as more people are able to enter the market and demand increases, the cost of housing will increase. Even Treasury has said that this program will push up house prices. So if you get into the program, congratulations. You'll soon be joining the ever-expanding group of Australians who are behind on their mortgage payments as the RBA tells us that inflation is back on the rise and that the rate-cutting cycle is over.

For those who don't manage to get into the scheme, its effect on house prices means the Australian dream will just keep drifting away. I'd like to acknowledge the efforts of Senator Bragg, who has struggled to have the modelling for the five per cent deposit program released through freedom of information, a system which this government believes needs to be more secretive. I don't want Australians to think that this is just a Canberra-bubble transparency issue, however. For the Australians who have been priced out of the housing market, it's all too real. The government hiding evidence that their programs exacerbate unaffordability means they can avoid having to take action on the things that would make housing more affordable in a systemic way.

We've heard that this government is thinking about addressing the tax concessions that have turned housing from a place to live to an investment vehicle. A reform budget is reportedly in the pipeline, and I hope those reports are accurate. The capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, as I have said for years now, must be addressed. They've been putting upward pressure on house prices for decades, and first home buyers of Australia have been increasingly unable to keep up with these price rises. If we want to make homeownership something that is available to many and not the few, we must attack housing affordability from every single angle.

In October it was reported that we were on track to fall at least 27 per cent short of the 2029 housing target. We cannot leave current settings as they are and hope that things will just miraculously get better. We need to look at tax settings, we need to alleviate the skills shortages, we need to reduce the cost of building houses, and we need to break free of the ball and chain of nimbyism. If we do not do so, the trend towards Australia becoming a nation of renters subordinate to a landed elite will accelerate.

I rise to take note of this particularly disappointing explanation by Minister Ayres. I want to commend Senator Payman for bringing this motion to the Senate, because it highlights the failure of this government to comply with orders of the Senate or to comply with FOI arrangements. I'd say that the people of Western Australia are getting good value from Senator Payman and her OPDs. The government make it sound as if it's a crime that we would dare ask questions or seek to get the information which is germane to policy judgements that they are making and are getting wrong.

The Labor Party is great at politics, but they're very bad at doing stuff. They're very bad at management, and this is a great example of a policy announced in an election campaign, five per cent deposits, in which the government would remove all the means testing and make it available to anyone, thereby supercharging the demand side of the market. This was announced in May, and then three months later they thought: 'Maybe we should get some modelling done. Maybe we should see whether this might actually have an impact on the housing market.' So they went off to Treasury, and they said to Treasury: 'We've got this new policy coming in later this year. It's a big policy. We're uncapping a government scheme. We're giving everyone free insurance, so you can get a 95 per cent mortgage, whoever you are and no matter what your circumstances are, pretty much'—quite a significant intervention from the federal government in the housing market—'We forgot to ask you for modelling when we announced it in the campaign. Could you please go away and work out how much damage this might do?' I'm sure they didn't express it in that way. That's my own editorial, in case you were wondering, Deputy President. So they sent off an email to the Treasury, and the Treasury did some analysis and they came back with a number, and they said that the changes that the government was making to the five per cent deposit scheme would increase prices by 0.6 per cent. The Prime Minister, when he was asked at some stage about this, said it was 0.5 per cent—and we won't split the difference on a relatively small number, but that was the number that came up.

As a result, we also moved a motion in this place to get access to the modelling, back in August. Senator Payman's motion was back in November. And all we have received back, in the OPDs, is just pages and pages of redactions, which are pretty useless and don't really make any sense. The same can be said for the FOIs, which came back with pages and pages of redactions, including the key part, underneath where it says '0.6 per cent', where all the assumptions and the commentary would be—the sensitivity analysis. Now, I'm sure that Treasury would have said, 'Well, 0.6 per cent—it could be, but here are a whole lot of factors that need to be taken into account, and qualifications.' But you know what? We're not allowed to see those. Those are state secrets. The Commonwealth funds its own Treasury to do modelling on policy programs for the community, but we are not allowed to see that modelling. Whether we do an FOI or an OPD, the government has some ridiculous reason for not giving us this information.

That's why the Senate is, frankly, frustrated. And it's not just the Liberal Party or the National Party; it's the Greens; it's the crossbench—everyone is frustrated, because our job is to get to the bottom of things, and, whether the government likes it or not, we're trying to do our best to get to the bottom of the basis upon which policy judgements are made by this government, how they spend taxpayer funds and how they administer programs.

At the moment, there's a lot of maladministration—a lot of wasted money. So we're trying to do what we're paid to do. And the government cries and cries, like a little baby, that we've moved too many motions or something. But we're never going to give up on trying to get to the bottom of why these policy judgements were made and whether they were made on a sound basis.

I'll tell you what: the evidence is in, because Mr Albanese says 0.6 per cent, but the market data shows that, in the first month of operation, the market jumped by 1.2 per cent, which is double. So that's why we want to know what the Treasury advice said, because we already know that it's wrong.

I rise, also, to speak on this motion. I've got to say, the minister's response today was extraordinary. It was insulting. It trivialised an issue that is affecting the lives of millions of Australians—first home buyers; young people; people who've given up on getting into housing. And he doesn't think this is serious. He made a lot of jokes; he thought it was an amusing issue. And he defended the hardworking public servants who try and get this data out to the Senate to inform decisions. He didn't deal with the critical question that this seeking of information is trying to address.

We are in a housing crisis where we need to know what works and what doesn't and the impact of policy changes on the critical crisis in housing. This OPD is looking for documents which show the effect of that five per cent deposit scheme on house prices—the second time the minister has been required to attend and explain the failure to comply with this matter. We're a chamber of review, and it's important that we get the data, the information that we need, so that we can take apart and examine, look at, the rationale and the modelling of the impact of this decision on pushing up house prices.

Prices are completely out of control in this country and they are affecting the lives of so many families and households. The parliament had no oversight of the recent expansion of the five per cent scheme which removed income limits entirely for people to have access to this scheme. Where is Labor's commitment to the low-and-middle income earners, the first home buyers, who really need the most help?

We've had people across the country who are experts—economists, the Reserve Bank, Treasury; so many experts—tell us, they all warned, that these changes would result in increased prices in housing, and they have. If you feed demand, you push up prices where supply is constrained—especially in the case of moderately priced housing, which is where first home buyers are focused. This change has pushed up prices at the lower end of the market. Prices of homes eligible for the scheme jumped 3.6 per cent in the last three months of 2025. That is incredible. First home buyers out there are despairing. They were despairing before a 3.6 per cent increase in that last quarter.

These are extraordinary times, and we have a right to the information, the assumptions, that are in this modelling. Now, with another interest rate rise, workers, renters and mortgage holders are going to cop even more economic pain from rising inflation, so we need real solutions informed by decent data. We need to cut tax breaks for wealthy property investors and build social and affordable housing but we also need to stop the very lucrative revolving door between ministers offices and the hugely profitable big-donor corporates, like the Commonwealth Bank. We need to break the link between those who advise and those who benefit from decisions.

When the Minister for Housing—or the 'minister for higher house prices' as the Financial Review called her today. When her adviser takes up a job at an institution that's amongst the greatest beneficiaries of Labor's policy in this case, what are mortgage holders, renters and first home buyers supposed to think? I'll tell you what they think. They think it stinks. They see it for what it is. They don't like it. They know it's a revolving door, and they know that they are affected by decisions which advantage the wealthy, institutions and advisers and do down those who are trying to make it work out there in the housing market. The revolving door corrupts our democracy. It prioritises the interests of big business over the community.

Australians are fed up with the jobs-for-mates mentality that has plagued successive governments. This is why we've supported—here, in the Greens—strengthening lobbying oversight by extending the ban on former ministers lobbying to five years and applying it to senior staff. The Senate has a right to ask for information and the Senate has a responsibility to hold ministers to account. When ministers come here to talk about the data they have not supplied, we should not be insulted and we should not be trivialised. We should be respected and provided with the information we need so that we can actually make the decisions that help homebuyers in a housing crisis, that help renters and that can come to grips with the biggest crisis we've seen in the postwar period, which deserves a serious minister bringing serious responses to the Senate. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Senator Paterson and Senator Chandler in question time today.

We saw in question time yesterday and through the correction that Minister Gallagher was forced to provide to the chamber today the importance of the truth in this chamber and why Australians should be very wary about believing anything that Labor are saying. We heard, through the last debate, the minister make a joke of a serious matter with regard to orders for the production of documents and the complete lack of respect that Labor has shown in this chamber with respect to delivering information that the chamber—the parliament, the representatives of the people—have asked for. They show no respect for that and they do the same in question time. They will do anything that they possibly can to deflect from the truth, from the reality.

Yesterday, on a day when interest rates went up by 25 basis points and Australians were hurting, the Labor Party tried to say that the Howard government was the highest-spending government in the last 40 years, and of course we know—because the minister was forced to correct the record today—that wasn't true. The government tries to deflect from its high spending, which is driving inflation up and keeping interest rates higher for longer. It tries to deflect from that. In fact, the Howard government never achieved a spending-to-GDP ratio anywhere near what this current government is doing. The current government's spending-to-GDP ratio, according to their own documents, is 26.2 per cent of GDP. The highest level for the Howard-Costello government was 25.1 per cent in 1996-97. And let's remember, they were coming off the Hawke-Keating years, when spending did run out of control, and it was that Howard-Costello government that put in spending parameters and delivered budget surplus after budget surplus after budget surplus—paid off $96 billion of Labor debt, left zero debt when we left government in 2006-07 and had put billions of dollars into the Future Fund.

That's the government that Senator Gallagher tried to blame for having the highest spending. And of course today she had to correct for the pandemic, when all of us were concerned that the Australian economy wouldn't crash because we had to close so much down. And yes, we did spend a lot of money during that time, but Labor wanted us to spend more money; let's not forget that. Labor complained when we stopped JobKeeper. Labor complained when we decided it was time to cut back on programs. They said, 'Spend more.' So you can't believe a thing they say. This government is the highest-spending government, outside of the pandemic, in 40 years. It's that simple.

Yesterday we also saw that the Defence Force, desperate for money, is having to flog off our heritage—defence heritage around the country—to pay the bills. It's shameful. In my home state of Tasmania there is no question that it will be much harder for young people to engage with cadets, whether Air Force, Navy or Army, because it's not going to be in their home town. We don't know whether Devonport or Burney is going to have a base anymore. They're combining the two into one. The 44th Transport Squadron, which has been there for decades, is being sold off. It's a disgrace. And the facility at Scottsdale, which, for 60 years, has been at the forefront of food innovation, in developing materials and meals for our Defence Force, and received an $18 million upgrade in 2014—they're going to flog that off, too. That capacity is being taken out of Tasmania. It's no wonder that the head of the Tasmanian RSL said:

Such a withdrawal fundamentally alters Tasmania's role in Australia's Defence posture and sends a clear signal that Tasmania is no longer regarded as a state of Defence significance.

It's shameful. This is an extraordinary position to adopt, given Tasmania's longstanding and disproportionate contribution to Defence recruitment. It's an outrage. (Time expired)

I want to get some facts on the record here. We just heard Senator Colbeck draw attention to some items that we were debating earlier this afternoon—that the highest-spending government was the Morrison government and the highest-taxing government was the Howard government. We won't be taking lectures from those opposite, the same Liberals who left us with much higher and rising inflation and a mess to clean up in the budget. The coalition's many false claims and their record are among the many reasons that nobody takes the Liberals seriously on the economy anymore.

If we want to talk about false statements, what about on the Insiders program just this past Sunday, 1 February? Ted O'Brien, from the other side, made a number of false statements that just don't stack up. Ted O'Brien claimed that this is the highest-spending government in 40 years. Spending as a percentage of GDP peaked at 31.4 per cent, under the Morrison government. We brought it down to 24.4 per cent in 2022-2023, and it is forecast to stay below 27 per cent and gradually fall over the forward estimates. Real spending growth averaged 4.1 per cent under the coalition from 2013 to 2022, when they were in government, whereas it's averaged 1.7 per cent under our government, including over the seven years through to the 2028-29 forecast. Even when the COVID years are removed, average real spending growth was higher under the coalition, at 2.6 per cent.

Contrast that with the performance of this government. We have found $114 billion in savings already, and $20 billion of that was in the budget update just less than two months ago. And we have engineered the biggest nominal improvement in our history in a three-year term, a $233 billion budget improvement, and we have delivered a couple of surpluses and got the debt down to $176 billion. Our last budget update alone included the same amount of savings as the Liberals had in their last seven budget updates combined. So again I say on taking lectures from those opposite that, really, the Australian people know better.

Those outcomes that I just talked about then in terms of budget management are those that have been put in place since we came to office in 2022. We had the first back-to-back surplus in almost two decades, returned over 70 per cent of all tax receipt upgrades to the bottom line, compared to our predecessors, who returned only about 40 per cent, and debt in 2024-2025 was $188 billion lower, as I said, than was forecast prior to the 2022 election, saving the nation around $60 billion in interest costs over the decade.

I think it's worth getting the facts on the record just to be clear that the biggest-taxing government in modern Australian economic history is not the Albanese Labor government but was the Howard government. The federal tax take hit of 24.2 per cent of GDP in 2005-2006 was higher than the 2024-25 of 23.7 per cent.

In addition to this, I would also say that, were those opposite in government, that spending would be higher. In fact, the coalition also opposed the Labor tax cuts for all 14 million Australians that we proposed to bring in and did bring in on 1 July last year, including those earning less than $45,000. Two days before the election, the member for Hume snuck out the coalition costings, which revealed $75 billion in higher personal income taxes and a whole range of other high taxes on motorists and the housing construction industry, higher student debt, bigger mortgages for tens of thousands of Australians and higher power bills. Those opposite want to lecture us about spending, yet their proposal was to spend more. At the same time, this government, with careful and responsible budget management, has delivered savings, lowered taxes and brought in a range of measures to support the Australian people.

Government senators are guilty of suffering from the effects of long COVID—selective memory and forgetfulness. When we talk about the budget decisions that were taken by the Morrison government, let's remember only one thing: the pandemic. In fact, had Labor's measures been adopted by the Morrison government, that level of spending as a percentage of GDP would have been considerably higher, not lower.

Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, was elected on one pledge. He said that Australians would be better off under Labor. Well, the beginning of 2026 has been marked by a trifecta of trouble for Australian families and Australian businesses, with energy costs rising, inflation rising and now interest rates rising. And who is paying the price for this? Australian families and Australian small businesses. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has said that electricity prices increased by 19.9 per cent in the year to November 2025, and it identified seven per cent in just one single month. The average residential energy debt for Australian families is now up by almost $1,500, or 38.6 per cent, since Labor was elected in 2022, and 205,000 Australian families are now on electricity hardship programs.

Inflation is the menace in any economy. It hurts pensioners. It hurts young families. It hurts businesses. The inflation rate has now risen to 3.8 per cent. The trimmed mean rate for inflation is now 3.3 per cent. Both of those numbers sit outside the RBA's band for inflation, so it's no surprise that the RBA has had to step in to correct the government's bad management. That bad management is being driven by excessive levels of government spending. The inflation rate in Australia is now higher than in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Japan and Germany. That is the record of that Labor government. And, of course, interest rates—Australian families woke up this week to discover that they had to find more in their income in order to meet mortgage repayments because the banks, not surprisingly, have now followed through on that RBA rate decision and increased interest rate payments for Australian families and households.

This is what happens when you have a government that doesn't understand this economic fact: high levels of government spending always result in higher levels of inflation, which always result in higher interest rates. That is the economic law that Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese think that they can ignore. But there is one Labor government minister who understands what's happening, and she belled the cat in the media this week. Congratulations to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, for calling her own government out. And what did the minister say? She said that it was 'unwelcome' that inflation had ticked up. She also said, when asked how the government can respond, that it's important that we make sure that the government is 'repairing the budget'.

Why does the budget need repair? Because the government's spending in the budget is now the highest it has been for 40 years. The government's own economic documents say that government spending for 2025-26 will be 26.2 per cent of GDP. That is the highest level of government spending outside of the pandemic. It is the highest level of government spending in 40 years. Government spending is growing at four times the rate of growth in the economy. This is why 2026 has started off badly for Australian families and Australian businesses—and guess what? Australians are about to find out that it's going to get worse under Labor. (Time expired)

It's actually good to rise today to participate in this debate, which I think has been quite a great debate about how each side of politics has been addressing the cost of living, spending and taxation. It's been really good to listen to. Old Johnny Howard has been rolled out again today and—

Senator Dolega, we address people properly.

Sorry. Former prime minister Howard has been rolled out into the debate again today. It takes me back. And how could we not go back and think of how, when they're not fighting and sniping and stabbing each other in the back, that side of politics actually delivers cost-of-living support for working Australians? They introduced Work Choices.

Now, I have to give a trigger warning for people, because, at the hands of those opposite—not all of them here today but their side of politics—WorkChoices single-handedly caused so much destruction for working Australians. WorkChoices had a real impact on Australians. Australians who were on an award wage had a real pay cut of around $97 a week thanks to the actions of those opposite. Seventy per cent of workers lost their shift loadings, 68 per cent of workers lost their leave loadings, 65 per cent of workers lost their penalty rates, 49 per cent of people lost their overtime loadings, 25 per cent of people no longer had public holidays, more than 3½ million Australians lost their protection from unfair dismissal, and unknown numbers of Australians were sacked or treated unfairly and had no recourse.

My dad was one of those people who was affected by WorkChoices and by those opposite. By God, the trade union movement and working people will never forget what you mob are like when you have your act together, and that's why we will always continue to fight you.

But let's also have a little bit of a talk about how we on this side of politics, the government side, address cost-of-living pressures for everyday Australians. We are taking steps to implement policies that deliver real outcomes for people in need. We started that on 1 January this year with medicines. PBS scripts came in at $25. We talked about the Howard years. Scripts on the PBS have not been that low since 2004, so we are delivering real cost-of-living measures for people who need them with their medicines. For those on benefits, like pensioners, their scripts on the PBS are capped at $7.77.

We're also delivering real cost-of-living support when it comes to health and mental health for all Australians. We are investing in Medicare mental health centres, and I know that the new Medicare mental health clinic we've opened on Steele Street has been warmly welcomed by the Devonport community in my duty electorate of Braddon. People have warmly embraced coming and getting mental health support without the need for their credit card; all they need is their Medicare card. They've warmly embraced our Medicare urgent care clinic at the top end of Steele Street, where people can come in and get the urgent care and support they need without needing their credit card, just their Medicare card.

We've tripled the bulk-billing incentive, and we've seen over 1,200 GPs sign up to become Medicare bulk-billing practices. People can actually make the decision to choose to prioritise their health, rather than choosing whether they go to the doctor or pay for school fees or pay for groceries. We're putting health back as a priority, which is easing cost-of-living pressures.

I was talking about wages being cut under the Howard government. We've been increasing wages. Since we've come into government, we have supported a 15 per cent wage rise for the most vulnerable and needed workers in our community: aged-care workers. We've also supported workers in early learning. These are some of the most underpaid workers with some of the most important responsibilities that we have: caring for our little ones while their parents go to work. We always talk about the dignity of work. Getting parents back into the workforce and contributing so they can have the life they want is pretty bloody important.

We've increased public sector wages, after deliberate suppression and attacks— (Time expired)

We have a government that has nowhere else to go. Their lies have become so many and so big, the gaslighting has grown so immense that now they have been forced to admit that they deceived the Australian people and told a big, fat one when they said that the highest spending government was the Howard government—

No. It was the Morrison government.

with absolutely no basis to the claim. Then, to cover up their embarrassment, they put some spin on it.

Government senators interjecting—

I've hit a nerve. I'll take those interjections, because I've hit a nerve because they're embarrassed at the fact they made that claim, and then they put a spin on it to try and say, 'Oh no, it was actually about the Morrison government.' Righto! You can convince yourselves as much as you want.

The government's contempt for the intelligence of Australians could not be any clearer. Instead of being honest about how its reckless spending has driven up interest rates and inflation, all we hear from the Albanese government is that inflation was at six per cent when it came to office. How convenient that Labor omits the context behind this figure! How convenient that Labor refuses to mention the pandemic! Heaven forbid they had been in government when the pandemic hit, we would be in a worse situation than we are currently in—and you thought it couldn't get any worse than what we're currently have. How convenient that Labor overlooks the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression and a crisis that sent inflation soaring around the globe! How convenient that Labor disregards the reality that Australia emerged from the pandemic stronger than most other developed nations, thanks to the coalition government's economic management! How convenient that Labor tries to erase the fact that its own pandemic measures would have cost taxpayers an additional $81 billion! But we know they love to spend like this.

Labor's year zero mentality has come as no surprise. This government discard inconvenient truths and rewrite history because they're manufacturing the facts to suit their political agenda. For almost four years the Albanese ministry of truth has been beavering away. There was the Prime Minister's historical distortion of Gough Whitlam's dismissal. There was the Prime Minister's historical revisionism of John Curtin's decision to look to America—an interpretation which Peter Jennings said 'would fail as an undergraduate essay'. And there are a litany of Labor promises that the government conveniently no longer mentions. Will I get some interjections? No doubt I will. I'm waiting for them.

There is a clear pattern here: the promise of a $275 cut to power bills; every year, the promise that people are better off under the Labor government; the promise of cheaper mortgages; the promise to build 1.2 million new homes; and the promise that, when you visit the GP, all you need is a Medicare card. Where have the promises gone? Down the Orwellian memory hole.

Government senators interjecting—

There are those interjections again. And there is the big lie churned out by the Albanese ministry of truth that it inherited a trillion dollars of debt. It's a lie that they repeat ad nauseam.

I'm hitting another nerve there. It's a lie so egregious it was even exposed by their friends at the ABC. When the coalition left government, net debt was $516 billion—almost half of what Labor claimed. Keep in mind that $343 billion was for pandemic measures which saved one million businesses and kept four million Australians in jobs. And yet isn't it ironic that Labor's trillion dollar debt lie has come back to bite them? The fiction they fabricated to smear the coalition is now an emerging problem of their own making. Fancy that!

Thanks to the Albanese government's reckless spending, Australia is hurtling towards $1.2 trillion in debt by the next election. This debt bomb—not a bunker buster but an opportunity obliterator—will land on generations of Australians to come. When future generations ask, 'How did we get here?' not even the Albanese ministry of truth will be able to erase its record of its reckless spending. The millions squandered on a divisive referendum, the billions taken from Australian taxpayers to subsidise a handful of university students, the Labor policy that failed the fairness test, and, of course, billions in handouts to green energy groups to roll out— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Farrell) to a question without notice I asked today in relation to the Attorney-General's response to the national anti-corruption commissioner.

It was pretty extraordinary that we had a prominent story today in the ABC detailing the correspondence that went between the current Attorney-General and the NACC commissioner which set out in detail the series of concerns the Attorney-General has with the NACC commissioner's failure to properly disclose conflicts of interest—failure to disclose them to her predecessor, failure to disclose them to herself and failure to disclose them to the Senate in questions that were asked in committees.

That letter was, I think, properly characterised as a bombshell, because up until then there has been this wall of silence, this pretend wall of solidarity from the government around Commissioner Brereton. It didn't matter how appalling his behaviour, how many times he couldn't see a conflict of interest that whacked him in the face like standing on a rake. It didn't matter how many times that happened, we got this mantra from the Albanese government, 'The NACC commissioner has our full confidence.' We now find out that that response is absolute rubbish, because this letter from the Attorney-General shows that at least she's been watching. Maybe she's not allowed to say anything in public because the Prime Minister is gagging her from making any public comments, but this secret letter written in October made it very clear just how real the concerns are that the Attorney-General has with the NACC commissioner. As I said, he couldn't see a conflict of interest if it ran up and whacked him in the face.

So what does she do? She says, 'I want a detailed response from you.' The Attorney also noted in her correspondence to Brereton that in his public statements—I'm going to quote here from the Attorney-General. She said this in her letter to the NACC commissioner: 'In your declaration you note that if a matter comes before the commission affecting the interest of an individual or entity with which you have an affiliation, you will consider if an actual or perceived conflict arises and, if necessary, take steps to mitigate it. I would suggest it would be preferable for you to declare all relevant affiliations and interactions to the CEO. If an actual conflict of interest arises, it should always be mitigated through non-participation in decision-making.'

Reading through the lawyer speak, that is the A-G schooling the National Anti-Corruption Commissioner on how you deal with a conflict of interest. Commissioner Brereton, or Major General Brereton, was saying: 'If an actual conflict of interest turns up, I'll have a think about what to do with it. I might do something with it, maybe, kind of.' What the Attorney-General said is, 'If there's an conflict of interest, get out of the bloody room! Don't be anywhere near it.' She is no doubt saying that because Major General Commissioner Brereton is the bloke who sat in on all the key decision-making about the robodebt referral until the final meeting, even though he had a rock-solid conflict of interest because he knew people who were the subject of that referral.

Again, he was told how grossly wrong he was by the inspector, but I still don't think he accepts the inspector's reports, because the arrogance of the man is extreme. Brereton still doesn't accept that the inspector got it right. He accepts that he's been overturned, but he still thinks the inspector is wrong. Even though the inspector schooled him on the conflict of interest, the Attorney-General then has to say to him, 'Mate, if you've got a conflict of interest, get out of the room,' because he failed to do it on robodebt, and it looks like he was keeping the door open to do it going forward.

If you want to be depressed, have a read of the nine-page response that Commissioner Brereton gave to the Attorney-General, an essay in self-justification for why his failure to disclose time after time was justified. One of my favourites, in the middle of his essay to the Attorney-General, was when he was answering the complaint that the Attorney had about Commissioner Brereton failing to disclose all the work he did for the IGADF in questions that I put to him in the Senate. He goes around and says, 'No, I was only asked questions about my role as a major general,' even though he needs to be a major general and a reservist in the Defence Force to do the IGADF work. He then tries to squirm out of that and says: 'No, I wasn't being asked questions about my role in the IGADF; that's why I didn't tell you anything about it. I was only being asked questions about my role as a major general.' The guy couldn't see transparency if it bit him on the bum. He couldn't see a conflict of interest if it whacked him in the face, and he doesn't deserve to be the NACC commissioner. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I present Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 1 of 2026, together with ministerial correspondence, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 1 of 2026. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 155 legislative instruments registered between 22 October and 25 November 2025. In this monitor the committee has commented on two new instruments and one ongoing instrument.

The first new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care Systems Modifications) Rules 2025. This instrument amends the Aged Care Act 2024 and the Aged Care Rules 2025 to, among other things, allow certain determinations to be corrected if they're deemed to be incorrect and to extend certain notice requirements.

The committee is raising concerns under scrutiny principle (l), which requires the committee to scrutinise instruments as to whether they amend or modify the operation of primary legislation. Such instruments may limit parliamentary oversight and subvert the appropriate relationship between parliament and the executive. In this case, the instrument directly modifies the Aged Care Act.

Beyond this, the committee is particularly concerned that the instrument inserts new provisions into the act which allow the minister to further prescribe matters through delegated legislation. The instrument then relies on these new powers to amend parts of the Aged Care Rules. For example, the instrument inserts the new subparagraph 317(1)(b)(i) into the Aged Care Act. This enables the minister to prescribe laws and programs that may provide a basis to establish that individual contribution rate determinations, income determinations and asset determinations are incorrect. The instrument then relies upon this provision to insert the new section 317-1 into the Aged Care Rules to prescribe these laws.

Where an instrument amends primary legislation, the committee's longstanding expectation is that this approach must be comprehensively justified in the instrument's explanatory statement and that the instrument itself should be time limited and operate no longer than strictly necessary. In this regard, the committee does note that the instrument will cease operation on 1 November 2026 and that the rule-making power itself ceases to have effect on 20 September 2026. The committee does consider that these safeguards are in line with its scrutiny expectations.

However, the explanatory statement does not sufficiently justify why it is considered necessary and appropriate to use delegated, rather than primary, legislation to modify the Aged Care Act, particularly to create new ministerial rule-making powers. This is especially pertinent as the instrument relates to means testing for funded aged-care services and therefore directly impacts Commonwealth expenditure and the ability of individual service recipients to access funded aged-care services.

The committee drew the inclusion of these funding provisions in delegated legislation to the attention of the Senate in Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 8 of 2025. The committee is therefore seeking the minister's advice as to whether further detail can be provided about why it is considered necessary and appropriate for the instrument to amend the Aged Care Act, particularly by introducing new rule-making powers into the act.

The second new instrument that the committee has commented on is the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025. This instrument specifies, among other things, the process and requirements governing applications for Australian naval nuclear power safety licences. This includes matters that the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator needs to be satisfied of and to consider when issuing licences, the conditions that apply to such licences and matters related to licence suspensions. The committee has resolved to seek advice from the Minister for Defence in relation to scrutiny principles (e) and (g). Scrutiny principle (e) relates to the clarity of drafting, including the use of potentially unclear or undefined terms. Scrutiny principle (g) relates to the adequacy of an instrument's explanatory materials. The instrument appears to use a range of terms that are undefined or unclear. For example, subsection 80 (6) of the instrument provides that licence holders and other authorised persons must not construct an item that is important for nuclear safety unless they obtain approval from the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.

However, neither the instrument nor the explanatory statement provide explicit guidance as to the intended meaning of this term 'important'. Furthermore, several unclear and undefined terms identified by the committee are contained in provisions that impose requirements or conditions upon licence holders and authorised persons. Breaches of these conditions may be subject to civil penalties or constitute offences subject to terms of imprisonment. Furthermore, these offences impose strict liability and, in certain respects, reverse the evidential burden of proof. The committee is therefore seeking the minister's advice about the intended definition of unclear and undefined terms in the instrument or examples of guidance in relation to the intended meaning of those terms for those who may at some point need to access the law.

Finally, the committee is seeking further advice from the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors regarding Aged Care Rules 2025. This interim instrument sets out requirements relating to the new aged-care framework, including care and service obligations, pricing and payment arrangements, complaints handling, compliance and enforcement processes and aged-care provider registration requirements. Delegated Legislation Monitor 8 of 2025 was the document in which the committee sought the minister's advice on the automation of administrative decisions and consultation; the incorporation of non-legislative documents into the instrument; conferral of board discretionary powers; privacy; coercive powers; and the availability of independent merits review in relation to the instrument.

On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the minister for his positive and constructive response, which sets a high standard for committee engagement and was of great assistance to the committee. There was an extensive list of requirements that we asked the minister to respond to, and I acknowledge the presence in the chamber here of the deputy chair of the delegated legislation committee, Senator O'Sullivan. I think he concurs with me that we were pleased with the level of response, which, sadly, hasn't always been the case.

In particular, the committee welcomes the minister's advice in relation to automated decision-making under the instrument. The minister advised that automated decision-making is intended to only apply to decisions that are supported by objective and binary criteria and methods. More complex discretionary or subjective decisions will continue to be made by a human. The minister also advised that the department is working with other Commonwealth agencies towards the development of consistent best-practice arrangements for automated decision-making. The committee supports moves towards the development of a consistent framework across government services, particularly given the apparent increase in the number of provisions allowing for automated decision-making.

The committee also welcomes the minister's advice regarding the use of restrictive practices under the instrument. The instrument sets out several types of restrictive practices, including physical, mechanical and chemical restraints, and imposes conditions on their use except in emergencies. The minister advised that the use of restrictive practices is subject to various safeguards, including that restrictive practices may only be used as a last-resort measure for the shortest time necessary in a way that is proportionate to the risk and with informed consent obtained by supporting the person to make their own decisions wherever possible. The minister also advised that restrictive practices are subject to monitoring and reporting requirements. Furthermore, the minister explained the types of emergencies in which certain conditions on the use of restrictive practices will not apply. These include when an older person poses a physical risk to aged workers or other residents or where a safety incident such as a fire or flood takes place and restraint is required for an older person who may lack capacity to understand the risks.

The minister also noted that commonplace residential care activities, such as the risk of a resident falling out of bed, while significant and serious, should not be considered emergencies in the context of coercive powers. In light of this, the committee sought the minister's advice about whether the explanatory statement can be amended. The committee is also seeking further information from the minister on a number of other matters. With these comments, I commend the delegated legislation monitor No. 1 of 2026 to the Senate.

I wanted to make a few brief comments and concur with the report and the comments made by Senator O'Neill, the chair of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee. It is an important committee. Through some analysis, we've worked that some 90 per cent of rules and regulations that come through this parliament actually go through delegated legislation. That's on word count and the number of actual clauses. There are considerable amounts of legislation and rules that are imposed upon the Australian people, so it is important work.

I did want to add my thanks to the Minister for Aged Care. There has been a considerable amount of work done, and we've gone on quite a journey to get to the point where we are now with this delegated legislation, ensuring that the law is clear to people that are applying the law and these rules. It was absolutely essential. I think it's a good demonstration—all ministers should look to what Minister Rae has done in working with his department to ensure it's best practice. I recommend all ministers have a look at that, because we shouldn't be just imposing laws on people without it being fully disclosed and clear what is being imposed. So thank you to the chair and the collegiality of that committee. It continues to provide a great service to the Australian people.

Question agreed to.

I present the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Security and Intelligence on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's advisory report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. This report also concludes the committee's review of ASIO's compulsory questioning powers under the ASIO Act. A review commenced under the previous parliament and was informed by extensive evidence provided to the committee.

ASIO's compulsory questioning powers have been subject to repeated review since their introduction back in 2003. In recent years, the powers have been used only sparingly, meaning there are limited examples against which their operation and effectiveness can be assessed. Nevertheless, the committee carefully considered ASIO's experience with the regime as well as the concerns raised by submitters regarding the extraordinary nature of these powers. The committee also examined the amendments proposed in 2025 under the ASIO amendment bill No. 2, as it did in 2018. The committee has since concluded that ASIO's compulsory questioning powers remain necessary.

Now, these powers were originally introduced to address the critical gap in ASIO's intelligence-gathering capabilities—namely, the inability to compel the questioning of individuals who are unwilling to engage voluntarily at a time of heightened terrorist threat following the events of 11 September 2001. Without the questioning warrant regime, that gap would persist today.

The rapidly evolving and increasingly complex security threat environment facing Australia reinforces the committee's view that ASIO must retain the capacity to question individuals who may hold valuable national intelligence, whether willing or not. At the same time, the committee's acutely aware that compulsory questioning is an extraordinary power for an intelligence agency to possess. It is therefore appropriate and reassuring, I should add, that ASIO continues to use these powers sparingly and judiciously.

The committee does not accept the proposition that infrequent use demonstrates that the powers are unnecessary. On the contrary, the committee hopes that these powers that ASIO has are rarely used; they are needed just in case it is the requirement of the organisation. The committee is satisfied that the compulsory questioning framework is both necessary and largely fit for purpose. Accordingly it supports the repeal of the periodic sunset provisions, making the powers ongoing subject to future amendment or repeal by this parliament.

To accompany this entrenchment, the committee makes four recommendations aimed at further strengthening safeguards, accountability and oversight, including oversight by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. It's worth nothing that they have a royal-commission-like powers. With the permanency of these powers, regular review is more important than ever. The committee therefore considers it to be appropriate, as proposed in part 1 of the bill, that a further statutory review be undertaken within three years of the commencement of the amendments. Subject to the committee's recommendations, the report recommends that the bill be passed by the parliament.

I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report 1 of 2026, dated 4 February 2026.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest2 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, dated 4 February 2026, together with ministerial correspondence. I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026

Chair's Tabling Statement

Wednesday, 4 February 2026

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026.

This Digest contains the committee's consideration of 22 bills introduced between 24 November 2025 and 20 January 2026 and amendments agreed during this period. The committee has commented on 7 new bills and 1 amendment and concludes its examination of 11 previously introduced bills.

I wish to draw Senators' attention to the committee's examination of the exposure draftCombatting Antisemitism Hate and Extremism Bill, which was tabled out of session on 19 January 2026 in Scrutiny Digest 1 of 2026. Some of the measures proposed in that exposure draft bill were retained in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 and the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which were passed by the Parliament on 20 January 2026.

The committee has concluded its scrutiny of the exposure draft bill in this Digest, having received prompt responses from the Attorney-General and the Minister for Home Affairs prior to the passage of the legislation as introduced. The committee has, however, reiterated its concerns about the extremely truncated consideration of this legislation under guillotine; each bill being introduced and passed in under 12 hours.

The committee identified a statutory review of the proposed reforms as necessary, and I note that the government's inclusion of statutory reviews by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the legislation as passed.

I also wish to highlight an emerging trend that the committee has observed across several ministerial responses considered within this Digest. I refer to the inclusion of statements about the expected or intended operation of proposed legislation in accompanying explanatory materials or ministerial responses—which are often claimed to mitigate the committee's scrutiny concerns.

While such statements are of course helpful to improve the understanding and accessibility of the law, courts have held that they cannot correct deficiencies in the legislation or override the ordinary meaning of its text. Accordingly, the committee will rarely consider statements of intent or expectation alone to be a 'safeguard' for the purpose of moderating the committee's concerns.

In relation to the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025, for example, the committee had previously queried why the Information Commissioner is not required to consider the skills, qualifications and training of a staff member to whom they may delegate their discretion not to investigate an FOI complaint. In their response, the Attorney-General referred to the explanatory memorandum having indicated an employee's experience and training will be considered and their own expectation that the Commissioner will exercise these powers appropriately.

Similarly, this advice outlined the Attorney-General's expectation that, in lieu of a statutory requirement to give reasons for refusing to deal with an FOI request that is considered frivolous, vexatious, harassing or intimidating, agencies will clearly explain their decisions. While these statements are welcome, they beg the question as to why such intentions are not manifested as safeguards in the text of the bill itself.

Finally, I would also address the committee's concluding examination of the ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025. Thebill proposes to remove the existing sunsetting clause that applies to the extraordinary coercive powers in Division III of Part 3 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, which have been the subject of longstanding committee concern.

The minister has advised the committee that successive reviews and amendments to this framework over time have resolved earlier uncertainties, which now support the compulsory questioning powers framework being made permanent.

The committee takes a different view; that the proportionality of extraordinary powers cannot be assumed once and for all. By requiring Parliament to revisit and reassess measures to ensure they remain properly calibrated and constrained, sunset clauses provide an indispensable safeguard that should not be lightly removed. Accordingly, the committee has drawn these concerns to the attention of senators and has recommended that the sunset clause be retained.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2026 to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Australia likes to think we're set up as a fair country where everyone gets a go, but the truth is that, without a federal human rights act, those values are too often optional. Right now, Australians often have no clear legal protection for their own rights—for our rights—the right to housing, to health care, to education and to live with dignity. When those rights are ignored, people fall through the cracks, usually the same people every time. We see it when families are pushed into homelessness because there is no enforceable right to adequate housing. We see it when people with disabilities are left without essential services because decisions are made on cost not on dignity. We see it when regional communities lose access to health care or when social security settings trap people in poverty instead of supporting them into work.

These aren't abstract principles; these are everyday decisions that shape whether people can live decent, secure lives. These are basic human rights not simply privileges to lose. That's why the Inquiry into Australia's Human Rights Framework made a clear and considered recommendation: Australia needs a federal human rights act, not as a slogan but as a practical tool to improve decision-making, accountability and outcomes. The inquiry didn't just say what we should do; it showed us how.

Appendix 5 of that report sets out a model human rights act designed for Australia—balance, sensible and democratic. It protects our rights while respecting the role of parliament. It helps governments get decisions right the first time instead of forcing people to fight injustice after the damage is done. A human rights act won't fix everything overnight, but it will change the culture of government from 'can we' to 'should we'. It will make fairness a part of the system, not something people have to beg for. If we're serious about dignity, equality and a fair go, then it's time to put human rights where they belong—into law.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present three government responses as listed on today's Order of Business and seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

The documents were unavailable at the time of publishing.

I move:

That the Senate takes note of the document.

I will also be referring to the government response on the final report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's Inquiry into the Management and Assurance of Integrity by Consulting Services. I want to thank colleagues, particularly Senators Colbeck and O'Neill, for their work on these inquiries. It was a big job, and we worked very collectively and cooperatively on it. It is rare that you see tripartisan recommendations in this place on such a large body of work, which makes Labor's incredibly woeful response to the two consultant inquiry recommendations, to me, all the more disappointing.

Australians are tired of seeing the same story play out over and over again. First, there's a massive scandal. In this case, it's PwC deliberately monetising confidential Treasury information. We cannot forget that this was one of the most shocking breaches of public trust in recent memory. PwC made millions of dollars in fees, and staff gloated in internal emails about their success. Next, an inquiry is announced and evidence is gathered. Between the two inquiries, we held 22 public hearings and received 144 submissions. Australians paid attention. We unearthed a tidal wave of malpractice, poor governance and structural failures. We asked serious questions about integrity, influence and the hollowing out of the public sector. Our reports were issued, with clear road maps for how reform needed to unfold. Between them, the two inquiries made 52 evidence-based recommendations, which were agreed by Labor, the Liberals and Greens. Then, just when the public expects decisive action, the government shrugs. It issues a short response and quietly moves on. That is not accountability. It is not leadership, and it is not good enough.

What good is the Labor Party if our community and our Senate go through all of that work and then it simply makes tiny steps towards progress? What is a Labor government for if not to deal with such a significant failure of governance and integrity in our community? This is a government of gestures. When it comes to critical reform in response to a crisis like this, it shrugs; it gestures. Despite a truckload of evidence and comprehensive recommendations, the government is once again choosing to tinker around the edges. Instead of committing to the kind of wholesale reform we need, the government's response is to fob off our reports with tiny baby steps that nowhere near meet the scale of the crisis.

Let me remind everyone what these inquiries found. They laid bare systemic problems in the way that federal governments engage with consultants. They showed that successive governments have allowed a massive and unchecked expansion of the consulting industry inside the heart of decision-making. They raised serious concerns about conflicts of interest, revolving doors between public office and private profit, and horrible workplace cultures, rife with bullying and sexual harassment, where profit and earnings are king. They showed that audit quality is in decline, with ASIC calling for concerted action from both Deloitte and KPMG to lift their game.

There is no shortage of scandals that these inquiries uncovered. Who can forget KPMG's systemic power mapping of government department staff? They were colour-coded, laid out to a person, named and graded for their land-and-expand potential. Then KPMG lied about it. They said they didn't do it, but there were the maps that proved that they misled the Senate. People who charge millions for their work, people who ask for your watch to tell you their time—we need to do better, and these scandals were multiple.

What about the scandal around the then CEO of PwC, Luke Sayers, who was paid $30 million—an astronomical amount of money—for his eight years at PwC, through the years of scandal and deceitful monetisation of confidential information? This is a man who could not recall any crucial conversations with the ATO and who looks to have experienced more damage from an intimate photo scandal than from his serious failures in management and leadership at the top of PwC. PwC's unwillingness to provide the Senate with key documents was symptomatic of its problematic engagement with the various committees and the many hearings.

There's been a vast array of ethical failures, unchecked conflicts of interest and a lack of regulation in the consulting and auditing sector. The scandals have been frequent and global in nature, and yet what have we seen in response from this Labor government? There's review after review, no urgency and not enough meaningful action. I'm hearing from whistleblowers and witnesses who gave evidence to our inquiries in good faith that they're incredibly disappointed at Labor's quiet retreat from what is really needed here. There's no clear commitment to end the practice that allowed this situation to arise in the first place. The recommendations were tripartisan. If the government genuinely wanted to clean up the consultancy sector, it would support its own Labor senators' recommendations. Instead, their response has failed to meet the moment. It's one thing to have shared outrage. It's another to ensure that the tax leak scandals never happen again.

We have the evidence of the consultancy sector ripping off the public and taxpayers and we have clear recommendations. So when will this government act? The government noted all 40 recommendations in the second report. They noted them. There has been no action in structural reform of the kind that is clearly recommended, laid out in these reports; no action on stopping the revolving door; no action on holding PwC or Luke Sayers truly accountable; no action on conflict of interest or banning political donations from contractors; no independent regulator of the consulting sector—and the list goes on.

Six months ago, I stood in this chamber and expressed my outrage at the government's decision to allow PwC to rebid for government contracts. It was a decision that Senator Colbeck, Senator O'Neill and I strongly opposed. We wrote a joint letter arguing that we saw no meaningful justification for giving PwC the green light while significant investigations remained ongoing. Regardless, they were let back into contracting to the public sector. What a shame. What a shocking failure of governance by the Labor government. This was gutless. It was a gutless decision, so far from the standard that Australians face in their own workplaces and community for their own behaviour.

The government's refusal to clean up the unethical practices rife across the consulting sector is the reason why I introduced a bill to this parliament to ban unethical contractors. It's not enough to have a code of conduct. There have to be consequences. As any parent of a small child knows, there must be logical consequences for behaviour. Unless there are, kids repeat it. People with bad ethics in the consulting sector certainly do. We have to close the legal loopholes that allow government contractors who behave unethically to get away with it. They are laughing all the way back into public consulting and all the way to the bank.

The government response reiterates that the government is aiming to 'reduce the government's reliance on contractors and consultants and rebuild capability within the APS'. This is coming from a government that spent more on consulting firms than the Morrison government. The recent biannual consultant spending data shows that, in the last six months of last year, the government had committed to spending over $600 million in contracts worth $2 million or more. Is this the behaviour of a government that is truly reducing its reliance on outsourcing?

The Greens will continue to push for real reform. We want to see real reform, real transparency, real accountability. We will not accept a system where public policy is shaped behind closed doors by those with the deepest pockets and the best access. Australians deserve a government that works for them, not one that looks the other way when the warning signs are flashing red. What are you for, Labor? Not just for the scandal—you must be there for the action. When confronted with two of the most damning inquiries into consultant influence ever conducted by this parliament and probably internationally, the government has chosen inaction dressed up as responsibility. We need a government willing to legislate real safeguards, not tinker with voluntary guidelines and endless reviews—not gestures.

The Greens have been clear about what meaningful reform looks like: having cooling-off periods to stop the revolving door; banning firms who make dirty political donations; having an independent regulator in the consulting sector; and rebuilding a strong, independent, well-resourced public sector. Instead, these government responses send a message to consulting firms that business will continue as usual, even when the status quo has failed. Well, meaningful reform would have upset powerful interests! And that's what we must do if we're going to see the real change that these reviews ask for.

I'm proud of the work that we've done as a parliament—in particular, the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—in getting to grips with the egregious and unethical behaviour in the consulting sector that we uncovered and reported on in our report to which the government has responded this week. I want to take the opportunity, in particular, to thank Deputy Chair Alex Hawke, Senator Paul Scarr and Senator Barbara Pocock for their dedication across party lines to the monumental task that unfolded before us.

I'm proud that ordinary Australians are now alive and alert to the ethical failures of the big four accounting, assurance and tax advice providers in this country and globally. I've said many times in this place that these big partnerships that morph between being Australian and being international entities as much as it suits them provide the financial information verification that ensures the proper functioning of the financial markets of our country. What they do, how they act and what they say and produce have an impact on the superannuation earnings of every Australian—every single one of us and every cent of the $4 trillion under management.

The fact is that the government is paying close attention to these issues and to the work of the committee. It is unusual in this place that a government responds to the findings of a committee over the course of the inquiry, but that is exactly what happened in the case of this inquiry. There has already been significant response and action in response to what we uncovered, and I'm pleased to say that, as a result of the hard work of the PJC, there's a body of work in this report that will stand the test of time. I stand by it and I stand by all of the recommendations. It is a tool of guidance not only for our nation but for all democratic nations across the globe confronting similar practices in the financial sectors in their sovereign nations. Indeed, you can name the UK, China and South Africa as countries that have really suffered in huge economic terms as a result of the failure of these entities.

Let us never forget how PWC's monetisation of confidential government information brought the entire sector into disrepute. It has significantly altered the way that government conducts procurement already and how we engage with those consulting firms. We know that this inquiry has significantly altered the landscape for those firms and how they conduct themselves when it comes to their work with government and the corporate sector. Our scrutiny through all the tools of parliament will continue.

So shocking were the actions and the accompanying contemporary emails from PwC employees celebrating the 'hustle', as they called it, and the 'intelligence' that the government had to respond immediately to what we found. Tax promoter penalties were significantly expanded, hundredfold, to in excess of $780 million, with enhanced power for the Australian Taxation Office and the Tax Practitioners Board to break the business model of deception that was embedded in their previous action.

As seen in the government's response, Treasury has consulted on the regulation of accounting, auditing and consulting firms with the regulation of partnerships, conflicts of interest, the role of regulators and competition of the audit sector. That consultation and scrutiny needs to continue, and the government, having noted the recommendations, now has considered and almost unanimously agreed a road map for further action. Having noted all 40 recommendations, this government is committed to the continuing vigilance and necessary change.

Our Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services continues our vigilance. We'll be hearing for the second time from the leaders of the public accounting bodies next month in what I can assure Australians will be regular and ongoing scrutiny of their quasi-regulatory responsibility for professional standards in the finance sector.

The findings of the committees of the Senate and the parliament more broadly through the two major inquiries were quite frankly egregious. Let's remind ourselves of the lowlights. Deloitte failed to disclose conflicts of interest in two separate cases with the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Home Affairs where the firm was advising the government on its tender process while also subsequently consulting to one of the bidding companies. Ernst & Young possessed an enormously inadequate cultural environment that was recorded in the landmark Broderick report. KPMG engaged in mass power mapping, sharing internal resources of how power was distributed in government departments with classifications for how inclined public servants might be at the time towards the consulting firms, even going so far as to call relevant officials 'sponsors'—such contempt.

Ironically and pathetically, KPMG Australia was slapped with a $615,000 fine for widespread cheating on an integrity exam. In that instance it was only because the American PCAOB had the grit to issue the penalty; it was unobserved here in our own country. Then there was PwC, a firm that held itself out as an arbiter of the corporate ethics and professional standards but was revealed to be engaging in basic double-dealing. A senior partner given privileged access to confidential government information, Peter-John Collins, returned to PwC Sydney and plugged our national secrets into a process at PwC Global. Peter-John Collins's goal was to create the saleable product for PwC Global at the expense of his fellow Australians. He did that without any correction from his seniors. He did that to financially and professionally benefit himself and his hundreds and hundreds of largely unregulated partners—including the then CEO of PwC Australia, Mr Luke Sayers, and the then head of tax, Mr Tom Seymour, who went on to become the next CEO.

Corporate ethics, governance and accountability start at the top. When you have a 1,000-plus partnership model that encourages sales at any cost, you end up with leaders like Luke Sayers and Tom Seymour, and you get the international fix-it operators like Kevin Burrowes, parachuted in at massive cost to clean up the mess. I regard each of these men, chosen to lead PwC, as having had significant moral failings. Mr Burrowes, the fixer brought in by PwC Global in response to the Peter-John Collins scandal, blatantly misled the Senate, deliberately failing to reveal the portion of his salary that he receives from PwC Global for the work that he does for that part of the network. A mere $1.2 million—oh to be in a situation where you could forget that was your annual salary from the global entity! He simultaneously runs PwC Australia and earns $2.4 million per year for that work. He's a $4 million man serving two masters—his partners in PwC Australia and his partners in PwC Global. What a conflict of interest!

Work continues everywhere on these matters. Our committee, within government, has revealed and worked alongside government on this issue. I want to acknowledge the efforts of the media in unearthing so much of this. I note also that an AFP investigation into matters related to this professional failure saga goes on. This is not over. Serious cultural and ethical failings will always expose themselves. Indeed, much is revealed over time. Denial does not offer a fig leaf in this situation.

I also note PwC's most recent failures in audit, with Corporate Travel Management and Camilla. These problems cannot be allowed to continue. They suggest a continuation of the deterioration of the core function of these vital entities. Their failures result in serious implications for shareholders and participants in the financial markets—that's every Australian who works and has superannuation invested.

Many whistleblowers, whom I want to thank, bemoaned the failures that they observed daily in their workplaces. There are wonderful, ethical people—people of hope—who are counting on us to continue this work. They want to serve the sector. They want to serve the community and they want to be proud of the work they do in our country. It's a shame not enough of them are listened to, celebrated in their sector or reach leadership positions.

I stand by every word and recommendation in the Ethics and professional accountability report. It's a detailed and accurate account of ethical failure at scale. It's a noteworthy report, a significant contribution to public knowledge for public good. It is a revealing guide to the breathtaking ways in which major partnerships that provided the audit, assurance and consultancy services to major companies and to governments abused the trust they had once rightfully earned and held. No-one can unsee what the committee revealed. A fundamental trust has been breached.

As the eyes and ears of our fellow Australians, who send us here to work on their behalf, I ask all senators and members to commit to continue our work together with the Assistant Treasurer, the Attorney-General, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and the heads of every government department to ensure that the road map to improvement—accepted by the government without rejection of a single one of 40 tripartite recommendations—continues to be considered and informs further necessary action in the national interest to build on the significant work already undertaken in the course of the committee's inquiry and since the delivery of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

On Tuesday 28 October last year, I gave an adjournment speech that discussed the governance failings and questionable conduct of the Shire of Augusta Margaret River in Western Australia regarding the proposed Scott River wind farm, a wind farm that has the potential to desecrate the Scott River wetlands and, in turn, Blackwood River. I did not name the CEO of the shire, Ms Andrea Selvey, as this issue covers the last 10 years of the shire's dealings, so I was surprised to receive correspondence. However, Ms Selvey took it upon herself to accuse me of making unsubstantiated allegations and inaccurate and inappropriate remarks during my speech.

Ms Selvey then published a statement on the shire's website proclaiming that my comments are misleading, irresponsible, unfair and completely without foundation. She claimed that my lack of evidence 'shows a lack of personal and professional integrity'. One would think Ms Selvey might have investigated the actions of the shire before she made these allegations against me, as she has publicly defamed me. Who knows? Ms Selvey might have been led into believing that I do not have the evidence by people who had already removed the evidence from their websites. I have 3,624 pages of evidence, which I tried to table on Tuesday.

In Ms Selvey's submission to the Committee of Privileges, she doesn't deny the allegations but claims (1) that the public officers embedded a wind farm into the shire's corporate plan and then outsourced the project directly to their own private not-for-profit incorporation—well, they did do this; (2) that the officers exploited their roles in public office to provide AMRCCE with public policy and public funding—well, they did; (3) that the shire outsourced the wind farm to bypass obligations that would otherwise apply to a government body—well, they did; and (4) that the statement 'birds of a corrupt feather work out how to make a profit together'—I think taking all the evidence down from the websites might be seen as corrupt, but maybe it's just me. Ms Selvey is claiming that these remarks have caused her personal distress and reputational damage.

As I understand it, all of these governance failings and misconduct began before Ms Selvey was even appointed as the shire's CEO, but perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the efforts to suppress the evidence have taken place only recently. Community members were approached by Ms Selvey, asking them for evidence. Ms Selvey also contacted Facebook community group administrators, requesting that they delete the recording of my speech. Clearly, the public officers of the shire are worried about what I said in my speech. They should be. I refer to the Local Government Act 1995, an act of the WA parliament, whereby the CEO is an employee of the local government and subject to the shire's employee code of conduct and the councillors are legally bound to 'act lawfully, honestly and in good faith; avoid improper influence, misuse of office or confidential information; manage or disclose conflicts of interest, gifts and impartiality interests; treat others with respect and courtesy; refrain from harassment, bullying or victimisation; and comply with meeting procedures and standards of debate'.

I think I've made myself clear. I take my role as a senator of the federal government representing the people of Western Australia very seriously. In this instance, my constituents, who have legitimate concerns and have farmed in the Scott River region for multiple generations, have been run over roughshod in the reckless pursuit of building a wind farm in an ecologically sensitive area. I will not stop shedding light on this issue. I will pursue the corruption that is rife within all levels of government on behalf of all Western Australians. Australians have had enough.

One Nation will abolish the reckless pursuit of net zero and lower the price of power for all Australians. Our energy policy puts Australia and Australians first. It creates more reliable and affordable power for households, businesses, manufacturing and farming. Cheaper power makes Australia competitive again. Cheaper power makes Australia more productive and simply better off. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition. I believe the whips have been informed.

Leave granted.

I table a petition from 1,607 signatories calling on the federal government to revoke its endorsement of David Connolly as NT Administrator.

by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary delegation to the 151st Inter-Parliamentary Union assembly and the bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland, which took place from 12 to 23 October 2025. I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This report provides an overview of our delegation's participation in the 151st Assembly of the IPU, as well as our bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland. I was very pleased to be part of the Australian delegation to the 151st assembly, which took place in October last year. Our delegation was very ably led by the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Milton Dick, and included the Deputy Speaker, my good friend Ms Sharon Claydon; Senator Brown, who sits right near me here in the chamber and is a fine representative for Tasmania; Senator McLachlan from the opposition, a senator for the great state of South Australia; and me.

Our program included bilateral visits to Romania and Switzerland followed by the assembly itself in Geneva. These visits provided valuable opportunities to deepen parliamentary relationships and to engage directly with counterparts on shared global challenges.

In Romania, I was particularly interested to learn of the important role the country is playing in supporting Ukraine. Romania is currently hosting around 100,000 Ukrainian refugees and has become a critical economic and logistics conduit enabling Ukrainian exports, particularly grain, to reach global markets through Romanian ports and infrastructure. What may also interest Australians here at home is that Romania played an integral role in assisting Australians to flee Ukraine following Russia's illegal full-scale invasion in February 2022. Romanian authorities worked closely with Australian officials to facilitate safe transit for Australians seeking to leave the conflict zone, a practical demonstration of international cooperation in times of crisis.

Across our meetings in Romania, our delegation also emphasised Australia's strong commitment to democratic principles and institutions. Many of our discussions focused on the growing threat of misinformation and disinformation, particularly in the context of foreign interference. As highlighted in Romania's most recent presidential election, the risk of large-scale cyber campaigns—something one might have once associated with science fiction—has become a real and present national security challenge.

Our visit to Switzerland, and particularly to Geneva, provided further insights into the role of multilateral institutions in responding to global challenges. Switzerland's longstanding commitment to humanitarian diplomacy and international law aligns closely with Australia's own values and foreign policy priorities.

At the assembly itself, Australia joined 129 member parliaments in an exercise of global parliamentary diplomacy and collective problem solving. The theme of the general debate was upholding humanitarian norms and supporting humanitarian action in times of crisis. The Speaker, the Hon. Milton Dick, played a particularly significant role at the assembly. In his capacity as a member of the IPU Executive Committee and chair of its subcommittee on finance, the Speaker provided detailed briefings on the financial governance and organisation, promoting transparency and accountability across the IPU.

He also addressed multiple geopolitical groups, including the Asia-Pacific and Twelve Plus groups, and answered questions from delegations on the floor. The Speaker also led Australia's advocacy on humanitarian protection, contributing to the general debate and ensuring recognition of the Australian led Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel in the IPU's Geneva Declaration. This was a substantial achievement, with over 100 countries now endorsing the declaration, including Switzerland and the United Kingdom, which partnered with Australia in its development.

Ms Sharon Claydon as Deputy Speaker also made a significant contribution. She was endorsed by the Asia-Pacific group to continue Australia's mandate on the IPU Bureau of Women Parliamentarians, where she will serve until 2027. Ms Claydon participated in high-level discussions on gender equality, political participation and parliamentary workplace safety. She also represented Australia in parity debates, focused on advancing women's leadership and politics. Ms Claydon also contributed to sessions on implementing IPU's anti-harassment policies, drawing on the Australian parliament's own reforms and experiences in strengthening standards of behaviour.

Senator Brown and Senator McLachlan likewise represented Australia very ably across a wide range of bilateral meetings and committee engagements. Over the course of the assembly, the Australian delegation conducted more than 20 bilateral meetings with counterparts from Africa, Europe, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific, strengthening parliamentary links and promoting Australia's democratic values and regional perspectives.

I also had the privilege of serving as co-rapporteur to the Standing Committee on Sustainable Development. We developed a proposed resolution on the role of parliaments in combating protectionism, reducing tariffs and preventing corporate tax avoidance. The resolution recognises that tax avoidance is one of the most significant barriers to achieving sustainable development goals as it deprives governments of the revenue required to fund essential services.

I thank all of my colleagues for the wonderful work they did on behalf of the nation.

Question agreed to.

I am informed by the team from the Department of the Senate that, if I don't proceed with what's on the paper in front of me, estimates may not proceed next week. It's only my commitment to the institution that leads me on, against every fibre of my being, to read the following words. I table the following documents:

Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026 [Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2025-2026].

Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026 [Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2025-2026].

Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2026 [Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026].

I see leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2024-25, be referred to committees for examination and report.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the President, I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2025-26 for the Department of Parliamentary Services.

I table portfolio additional estimates statements for 2025-26 for portfolios and executive departments.

The list read as follows—

Estimates of proposed additional expenditure 2025-26

Portfolio additional estimates Statements

Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio.

Attorney-General's portfolio.

Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio.

Defence portfolio.

Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Education portfolio.

Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.

Finance portfolio.

Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.

Health, Disability and Ageing portfolio.

Home Affairs portfolio.

Industry, Science and Resources portfolio.

Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio.

Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.

Social Services portfolio.

Treasury portfolio.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning online gambling, social security benefit restriction notices, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, government responses to committee reports and the observer of the Housing Australia board.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs — Joint Standing Committee —

Appointed—Senator Thorpe

Community Affairs References Committee —

Discharged—Senator Blyth

Appointed—

Senator Askew

Participating member: Senator Blyth

Economics References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into funding and resourcing for the CSIRO

Participating member: Senator McKim

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I 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—

Financial markets are changing. And so is the way people hold and exchange value.

Across the world, digital assets are reshaping finance. Blockchain technology and tokenisation are unlocking new ways to invest, trade and transfer wealth. They promise faster settlement, lower costs, and broader access to markets that were once out of reach. Tokenisation can turn real-world assets like property, commodities or bonds into digital tokens that can be traded instantly and securely.

This is not a distant future. It is happening now. Global institutions are experimenting with tokenised securities, central banks are exploring digital currencies and investors are demanding safe, regulated ways to participate. Digital assets are a growing part of the global financial system. They offer new ways to trade, invest and build businesses, unlocking capital markets and strengthening Australia's competitiveness as a financial centre.

Australia must keep pace. If we get this right, we can attract investment, create jobs and position our financial system as a leader in innovation.

But with opportunity comes risk. It is currently possible for a business to hold an unlimited value of client digital assets without any financial law safeguards. The collapse of FTX and other failures showed what happens when digital asset businesses operate without proper oversight. Billions were misappropriated, consumers were devastated and confidence was shattered. We also know that cryptocurrency remains a vector for scams and fraud. Australians have lost millions to schemes that exploit gaps in regulation and consumer understanding. These risks cannot be ignored.

This Bill responds to those challenges by reducing loopholes and ensuring comparable activities face comparable obligations, tailored to the digital asset ecosystem. It focuses on the potential source of risk: the businesses that hold digital assets on behalf of consumers, rather than the underlying technology itself. This means it can evolve as new forms of tokenisation and digital services emerge.

This Bill delivers on the Government's commitment to modernise Australia's financial regulatory framework and prepare it for an ever-digitising economy. It ensures digital asset and tokenised custody platforms are subject to the same standards of consumer protection, transparency and integrity that apply across our financial system.

This is about future-proofing Australia's regulatory settings. The Bill supports innovation and competition while giving regulators the tools to act swiftly when new risks arise. It extends long-standing, well-understood financial services obligations that can be applied across a diverse and rapidly developing industry.

It is another important step to make the Australian economy more dynamic, resilient and productive. It advances our commitment to smarter regulation—regulation that gets more investment flowing more efficiently and effectively across the economy. It will boost confidence, attract investment and support jobs and wages by providing clear, trusted rules for emerging digital markets—helping to make Australia a global leader in financial technology.

These reforms will increase integrity in the digital asset ecosystem. Together with the world-first Scams Prevention Framework and our proposed reforms of Australia's anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regime, this Bill will help remove bad actors and restore trust in digital asset markets. It will make it harder for criminals to operate and easier for consumers to participate safely.

Two new types of financial products will be introduced into the Corporations Act: digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms. This ensures that businesses holding and dealing in client digital assets are subject to the same consumer protections and licensing requirements that apply across the financial system.

These include prohibitions on misleading and deceptive conduct and unfair contract terms, design and distribution obligations, and supervision and enforcement by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Anyone providing services in relation to digital asset or tokenised custody platforms—such as advising on, dealing in, or arranging for others to deal in them—will be treated as providing a financial service. They will therefore need to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence, as other financial service providers do. Using the existing licensing framework avoids the need for a new regime, reducing complexity and compliance costs for business.

Operators will be required to meet minimum standards set by ASIC covering how client assets are held and how transactions and settlements are conducted. Operators must also provide a Platform Guide to clients, explaining how the service works, including custody and transfer arrangements, fees and charges, key risks, and client rights. It replaces the need for multiple product disclosure documents and ensures transparency for investors.

The Bill also delivers proportionate regulation, providing targeted exemptions to avoid regulatory duplication. Small-scale operators with less than $10 million in transaction value across a rolling 12-month period will be exempt from licensing, as will businesses that deal in or advise on platforms only incidentally to their main, non-financial activities.

Flexible powers are provided to the Minister and ASIC to respond to emerging risks and technologies. The Minister may designate certain facilities as financial markets or clearing and settlement facilities, or exempt them where that treatment would be inappropriate. The Minister may also prohibit particular products or activities that present systemic or consumer risks. ASIC's existing product intervention powers and the government's existing regulation-making powers will extend to cover these new financial products.

There will be an 18-month transition period. This will help businesses and ASIC get familiar with navigating the reforms in practice. The Bill will ensure a smooth pathway to the new regime, including providing temporary relief for businesses trying to do the right thing.

Together, these features create a pathway to clear, consistent and enforceable framework that protects consumers, provides regulatory certainty for industry, and maintains flexibility as technology and markets evolve.

As digital assets grow in use and scale, this Bill lays the foundation for managing future risks to financial stability. It closes the gap for unregulated digital asset intermediaries and gives Australians the confidence that their assets are protected.

Stakeholders have long called for this Bill, engaging in four rounds of public consultation on the policy and legislative approach. The Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the Bill and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002. We have listened, improving regulatory clarity and ensuring seamless interaction with existing law.

The Government is committed to strengthening Australia's position as a global leader in financial innovation—one where technology supports productivity, competition and long-term economic resilience.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 16 March 2026.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

COPYRIGHT AMENDMENT BILL 2026

The Copyright Amendment Bill incorporates two important reforms to facilitate the use of copyright materials for public benefit, while also continuing to provide support to those working in the creative and media industries who rely on copyright for their work.

First, the Bill establishes an Australian orphan works scheme. The scheme will support use of 'orphaned' copyright materials for which the copyright owner cannot be identified or located by limiting the remedies available for infringing use.

This will provide prospective users with greater legal certainty and will open up access to a larger collection of material held by our institutions for the benefit of the Australian community.

The scheme will also protect the interests of rights holders, including by providing a means by which they can assert their rights should they later be identified.

This Bill also clarifies that the Copyright Act applies consistently to physical, online and hybrid classes. It makes clear that parents can assist students with their lessons and that persons other than a member of school staff (such as members of the local community) can be involved in classes without impacting applicable copyright rules.

This measure will provide greater legal certainty to those providing education, without disturbing the licensing frameworks that support the creative and media sectors' important contribution to teaching and learning.

The Bill also makes minor and technical amendments to clarify and update the Copyright Act.

Turning now to each of the measures in the Bill in more detail.

Orphan Works (Schedule 1)

First to the orphan works scheme in Schedule 1.

Current law

An 'orphan work' refers to copyright material for which the owner cannot be identified or located to seek their permission to legally reutilise it. Copyright generally requires someone to seek the permission of the copyright owner before using copyright material. This cannot occur if the copyright owner is unknown or cannot be located, and means that where copyright material has been 'orphaned' it cannot be used for socially and creatively beneficial purposes, without legal risk.

Introduction of an orphan works scheme

The Bill proposes the introduction of an orphan works scheme that would limit liability for those seeking to rely on it, if the conditions in the Bill are met. In doing so, the proposed scheme will facilitate use of orphan works by providing greater legal certainty for users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners, and allowing more Australians to enjoy the important benefits of the large amounts of orphaned material held by Australia's cultural institutions.

There may be some circumstances in which, despite a reasonable search being conducted to try to identify a copyright owner prior to relying on the scheme, a copyright owner later comes forward. Given the nature of orphan works and the conditions that must be met prior to use of the scheme, it is anticipated that such instances will be rare. However, should this occur, the Bill provides copyright owners the ability to assert their rights following the use of an orphan work. This includes the ability to negotiate reasonable payment for the use and seek injunctive relief in relation to continuing use of the work.

Remote learning (Schedule 2)

Current law

Turning now to the remote learning measures in Schedule 2.

Section 28 of the Copyright Act currently permits teachers and students to perform or communicate copyright material in the course of educational instruction, without it being considered a public performance or communication to the public, as long as other relevant conditions are met.

The effect of this provision is that the performance or communication does not require permission or payment under the Act.

With the rise of digital learning, uncertainty has grown over whether this provision extends to online and hybrid classes. Questions also arise about the application of the provision when parents and other community members are involved in the class.

Scope of amendments

The Bill proposes to amend section 28 to clarify that it applies when:

The proposed reforms clarify that the rules in the Copyright Act apply consistently, regardless of whether a lesson is taking place in person or online. This recognises that not everyone involved in lessons may be able to attend in person.

They also acknowledge the educational value of parental and community involvement in classes. By allowing parents, carers and others to assist students with their lessons or deliver the educational instruction, the changes promote stronger partnerships in educational settings.

The amendments are not intended to impact current licensing arrangements, which also play a vital role in Australia's education system.

Other minor measures

Finally, turning to the other minor measures in the Bill.

The Bill will make a number of minor and technical amendments to the Copyright Act to improve its operation.

These include:

(Schedule 3, Part 1)

(Schedule 3, Part 2).

(Schedule 3, Part 3)

(Schedule 3, Part 4).

Conclusion

The Bill will strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act by:

CORPORATIONS (REVIEW FEES) AMENDMENT (TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2025

This Bill validates certain fees charged by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) between 1 July 2011 and 11 March 2025, including the indexation applied to those fees.

These fees include late fees, 10-year upfront fees and special company review fees.

This amendment is administrative in nature. It corrects a technical error recently identified by ASIC, in the application of indexation introduced for these fees in the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 1).

This error had the unintended effect of resetting indexation, while the Explanatory Statement to the 2011 Amendment Regulations indicates that the intended policy outcome of Parliament was to apply indexation consistent with ASIC actions.

The passage of this Bill will have no impact on the fees being charged to users of the ASIC business registers.

It ensures that the Government has been authorised to collect the relevant fees in line with the long-standing application of indexation charged by ASIC.

These fees are well known to the business community and are publicly accessible via ASIC's website.

This follows an earlier regulatory amendment the Government made on 11 March 2025, under the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (2025 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2025 to ensure that ASIC is authorised to collect the current fees that are charged to businesses, in line with the intended policy outcome.

In making the regulations, and this Bill, the States and Territories were notified of the proposed changes on 5 February 2025, and in September 2025, under the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations arrangement.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.

With some joy, I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (DRAUGHT BEER) BILL 2025

Australians have always known how to come together—around the kitchen table for a cuppa, over a snag at your mate's birthday barbecue, or cheering from the sidelines at the kids' Saturday netball game.

Mr Speaker, this bill delivers another reason for Australians to come together.

This Bill delivers on the Government's commitment in the 2025-26 Budget to freeze the indexation on draught beer excise for two years.

And as Assistant Treasurer, I feel it is very important to support liquid markets.

This Bill is a win for beer drinkers, brewers, and every pub, club and hospitality business across the country.

Mr Speaker, for many Australians, the local pub isn't just a place to have a drink.

It's where the community meets.

It's where people unwind after a week of hard work, where mates catch up, where you celebrate your team's win.

It's where tourists get their first real taste of the real Australia—and learn that we don't drink Fosters, and there's much better on tap from top notch local brewers.

Keeping those places strong matters. They employ hundreds of thousands of people and play a big part in local life.

This pause is about giving pubs, clubs and breweries a bit more certainty—delivering around $100 million of support.

Under long-standing arrangements, beer excise is indexed twice a year—every February and August. Those increases are automatic, and keep taxes in line with CPI.

This legislation pauses those biannual increases for draught beer from 1 August 2025 through to 31 July 2027.

The excise will then resume indexation from that paused rate in August 2027.

It's a moderate and targeted measure, but one with real impact.

It builds on the broader tax relief we announced earlier this year for Australia's brewers, distillers and winemakers that are not only central to our culture and way of life, but also to jobs, innovation and exports.

Currently all eligible brewers, distillers and winemakers can get a tax remission under the scheme up to a cap of $350,000.

The Government is also increasing these caps to $400,000 per financial year from 1 July 2026, under legislation we have recently consulted on.

From Burnie's whisky to Burdekin rum, from Brisbane beer to Barossa shiraz—producers right across the country will benefit.

These measures are practical, targeted support, that makes a real difference in the lives of pub owners and pub goers alike.

And I look forward to visiting pubs in as many electorates as I can to carry out the important task of post-legislative implementation assessments.

The measure in this Bill was previously moved as Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2025 on 24 July 2025. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the Excise Tariff Proposal now requires incorporation in the Excise Tariff Act.

This Bill is complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025.

This Bill makes the same changes to Australia's excise laws.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (DRAUGHT BEER) BILL 2025

The Government is delivering on its 2025-26 budget commitment to freeze the indexation on draught beer excise for two years.

The measure in this Bill was previously moved as Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2025 on 24 July 2025.

Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the Customs Tariff Proposal now requires incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act.

This Bill is complemented by the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025.

Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PRESCRIBING OF PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS) BILL 2025

The Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 introduces historic reforms to health legislation that empower nurses to work to their full scope of practice and improve access to medicines for people across Australia.

This Bill advances scope of practice reforms identified by the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce and the subsequent Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce Review.

It amends the National Health Act 1953 to authorise registered nurses, endorsed under the Registration Standard: Endorsement for Scheduled Medicines—Designated Registered Nurse Prescriber, to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), attracting Commonwealth subsidies.

This change empowers nurses to provide safe, high-quality care directly to people in the community, reducing the need for GP visits or long waits in overcrowded hospital emergency departments.

Enabling prescribing under the PBS by designated registered nurse prescribers ensures the medicines they prescribe are affordable for patients. This reform aligns with the Government's commitment to cheaper medicines, and with the National Medicines Policy. It promotes equitable, affordable, and timely access to high-quality medicines and services.

Currently, our registered nurses, who are highly skilled and highly educated, remain underutilised in primary care. Allowing them to prescribe under the PBS will boost efficiency, strengthen care coordination, and ensure GPs and nurse practitioners can focus on patients with more complex needs.

Designated registered nurse prescribing strengthens the health system by easing workforce pressures and building long-term capacity and sustainability.

Improved access to primary healthcare reduces avoidable hospital visits and preventable hospitalisations. In rural and remote communities, people often travel long distances and face long wait times for basic care.

This reform allows people, especially those in rural and remote areas, to receive affordable treatment with greater equity.

Designated registered nurse prescribers will help relieve pressure across acute and primary care. They will ensure individuals receive care when and where they need it.

The list of medicines able to be prescribed under the PBS by a designated registered nurse prescriber will be considered by the independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.

Since 2017, the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officers have conducted extensive research and consultation on nurse prescribing models. The NMBA developed the standards for designated registered nurse prescribers through multiple rounds of public consultation, which received strong support.

All Health Ministers endorsed the scheduled medicines standard, which came into effect in September 2025. The first cohort of nurses is expected to complete their education and receive endorsement as designated registered nurse prescribers by July 2026.

To maintain integrity and safety, the Bill also amends the Health Insurance Act 1973. It subjects designated registered nurse prescribing under the PBS to the Professional Services Review scheme, a peer-review mechanism that safeguards the PBS and other programs.

This Bill delivers on the Government's commitment to ensure our health workforce operates at full scope, enhancing safe and timely access to medicines. It's a win for nurses and a win for all Australians.

TRANSLATING AND INTERPRETING SERVICES BILL 2025

Australia's translating and interpreting services have a long history and play a vital role in our community. This Bill will establish a new Act to provide a clear statutory foundation for these services, reflecting the Government's commitment to the work of the Translating and Interpreting Service—TIS National—and the important role it plays in our modern, multicultural Australia.

The Australian Government began providing translating services in 1947, and interpreting services commenced not long after. These services were introduced to support post-World War II migration. The Government recognised then—as it does today—the critical importance of these services to migrants making their new home in Australia.

Since 1947, these services have continued to grow and evolve to meet the needs of the Australian community. In 1973, Australia established the world's first telephone interpreting service, which remains a core component of the services today. The Government's translating and interpreting services are now provided by TIS National in the Department of Home Affairs.

TIS National's services facilitate communication between people with limited English proficiency and the agencies and businesses rely on for vital services. TIS National operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and provides over 1.3 million interpreting services each year, in over 150 languages.

Australia is a diverse, multicultural society with a rich Indigenous heritage and a successful migration story. Over one quarter of us were born overseas, having migrated from over 200 countries. The diversity of the Australian population provides us with a variety of languages, beliefs, traditions and cultures. That is why we have the Multicultural Access and Equity Policy—a key policy ensuring that all Australians, whatever their cultural and linguistic background, are able to access Government programs and services, which in turn means they can fully participate and contribute to our society. The services that TIS National are vital in upholding this commitment to Australians.

Beyond helping us achieve access and equity outcomes, the Government's translating and interpreting services also play a vital role in supporting social cohesion in our multicultural nation.

Australia's multicultural diversity is fundamental to the character of our nation. It is who we are.

All Australians have an equal right to participate in the social, political and economic life of our country.

However, this often isn't always the experience of diverse Australians. This is why the Government recently established an Office for Multicultural Affairs and elevated to Cabinet, for the first time, the stand-alone position of Minister for Multicultural Affairs.

The Government's translating and interpreting services play a vital role in supporting a multicultural Australia. Over the years, new migrants and humanitarian entrants have relied on these services to engage with the community and build their lives as full participants in Australian society.

Services like this help new Australians navigate the complexity of our country and access essential support. They make it easier for people to engage with government and community services. For patients, these services can mean better access to healthcare, the ability to explain their symptoms in their own language, receiving the care they need.

During the height of the COVID pandemic, Translating and Interpreting Services were absolutely vital. For many families with limited English, a simple call to TIS number 131 450 meant they were able to access life-saving information, where to get vaccinated, how to stay safe, and the latest health advice when they needed it most.

And day to day, we know that TIS National provides an invaluable service with its Free Interpreting Service—available to all parliamentarians and ensuring that their constituents are able to access assistance and support from their representatives, regardless of their English ability.

Ultimately, the Government's translating and interpreting services help us to harness the economic and social benefits of our diversity and build a more productive and socially cohesive Australia for all of us.

This Bill does not seek to change the way in which the services of TIS National are provided or funded. It will simply provide a clear legislative framework for the services, providing certainty and ensuring their continued availability to support our community into the future.

To achieve this, the Bill will establish express legislative functions for TIS National, as functions of the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs. These functions include the provision of translating and interpreting services to government departments, across all levels of government, and private sector entities to facilitate communication by and with people with limited English language proficiency, including visa holders and newly settled migrants.

The functions also enable the operation of TIS National's 24/7 phone interpreting service, which supports calls to triple zero emergency services. Further, the functions will enable the development, training and support of translators and interpreters, and ensure ongoing powers to enter into contracts and arrangements to provide these services.

The Bill also includes provisions to make clear that arrangements entered into before commencement of the legislation, including those arrangements that continue to be in force when the legislation commences, will continue to have effect. This appropriately ensures that established arrangements are able to be maintained and provides certainty for all parties—and reinforces that the purpose of this legislation is to provide a statutory framework for existing, longstanding functions and services provided by TIS National.

The Bill will also provide a power for the Minister to make rules—a disallowable legislative instrument—to prescribe matters required or permitted by the proposed Act, or necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to the Act. This will enable the Minister to specify further functions to support and sustain TIS National's operations and important role in the provision of translating and interpreting services for the Australian community, into the future.

The Bill sends a strong signal about the Government's commitment to a united and prosperous multicultural Australia.

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

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

I move:

That the Senate notes:

(a) that under the Albanese Labor Government, the cost of everyday essentials has risen sharply—insurance up 39%, power up 38%, rent up 22% and groceries up 16%;

(b) failed policies have contributed to housing shortages, higher rents, persistently higher inflation, and increased exposure for families to further interest rate rises and higher mortgage costs; and

(c) there is an urgent need for action to address the worsening cost of living crisis facing Australian families and small businesses, driven by persistent inflation and higher interest rates, and exacerbated by the Government's reckless spending.

Australians are living through the most severe cost-of-living crisis in a generation. It is a crisis that has been made worse, not better, by the choices of the Albanese Labor government. This debate is not about slogans or ideology or misrepresentations; this is about outcomes. It is about whether Australians can afford to live, to rent, to buy a home, to raise a family or to retire with dignity.

Under this government the cost of everything is going up, and Australians are entitled to ask why. Australians don't experience the cost-of-living crisis through Treasury forecasts—I have to say some pretty bad forecasts, given what's now transpired—or spreadsheets. They experience the cost-of-living crisis through the weekly shop, the struggle to put food on the table, their rent notices, their insurance renewals and the crushing weight of higher mortgage repayments.

After nearly four years of Labor, Australians are paying more for the essentials of life. Insurance is up 39 per cent, energy is up 38 per cent, rent is up 22 per cent, health costs are up 18 per cent, education is up 17 per cent, and food is up 16 per cent. These are not luxuries; these are the basic costs of living that so many Australians are forced to pay and that more and more Australians are struggling to meet. The government's attempt to claim that the cost of living is easing has no credibility.

Just days ago, millions of Australian mortgage holders were hit with another devastating blow, the thirteenth interest rate rise under Labor in less than four years. For families already at breaking point, this was not an abstract monetary policy decision. This was a direct hit to household budgets. The average mortgage holder is now paying more than $20,000 a year extra in interest compared to when Labor took office. This is crippling. Within hours of the interest rate rise decision being made, millions of Australians received notice from their banks saying their mortgages were going up by 0.25 per cent.

This comes on top of grocery prices soaring, power prices soaring, escalating insurance premiums and rents that keep climbing. Despite repeated assurances from the government that inflation was coming down, we now know that that simply was not true. Inflation rose to 3.8 per cent in December, accelerating over Christmas, when family budgets were already under so much strain. The Reserve Bank, alarmingly, has now upgraded its inflation forecast and expects inflation to remain above the target range for at least another 2½ years, and the consequences are clear. Interest rates are higher for longer. Higher interest rates keep on crippling Australian families. Real wages continue to fall. There is slower economic growth and rising unemployment. That is the price that Australians are paying for poor fiscal discipline by this hopeless and incompetent Labor government.

Labor would like Australians to believe that this crisis is global, unavoidable and beyond the government's control, and this is simply not true. Australia's inflation problem has been kept higher for longer because government spending has been allowed to surge exactly at the wrong time when the economy is already operating at capacity and supply is constrained. This is not a controversial view; it is the consensus amongst every serious economist in this country. For instance, the AMP's chief economist, Shane Oliver, has stated very plainly:

The best thing that Australian governments can do to help bring down inflation would be to cut government spending back to more normal levels …

IFM Investors's chief economist, Alex Joiner, has warned that 'the fiscal guardrails have come off'. These are not political figures. They are independent economic experts sounding the alarm bells, and I want to particularly draw on the alarm bells sounded by the respected economist Judith Sloan, who has laid bare the core failure of this government's economic strategy. Her analysis in her recent article in the Australian, entitled 'Jim Chalmers thought he had discovered an economic secret sauce. He was wrong', is simple and devastating.

Australia does not have an inflation problem caused by insufficient demand. It has an inflation problem caused by excess demand in a supply constrained economy which is driven by government spending that is poorly targeted, poorly timed and poorly disciplined. Labor's approach has been to spray money broadly without adequate means testing at a time when housing supply is constrained, labour markets are tight, infrastructure bottlenecks are worsening and construction capacity is stretched.

The failure, the desertion by Labor, of the importance of means testing and a whole range of different programs has had dramatic consequences. When subsidies are paid regardless of income, wealth or need—which of course deserts the way Labor used operate when it used to provide government support to those who most needed help. We now see this government through its failure to means test child care and the five per cent deposit scheme—which is now open to anyone, including the children of billionaire families. That has a shocking consequence on this economy, pushing prices higher and forcing the RBA to respond with higher interest rates.

Such is the powerless state of the budget that we even saw the member for Corio and Minister for Defence, Mr Marles, announce a fire sale of more than 60 defence sites, which frankly is a shock, because it included the historic Fort Queenscliff. This represents a disgraceful betrayal of our community, the Geelong region in Victoria, and shows contempt for one of Australia's most significant historic defence sites. So the government is now so desperate that they are selling off our history. Fort Queenscliff was a very special place of service, sacrifice and national memory.

What a disgrace this government is, after more than 10 years of doing everything they could to sell off Fort Queenscliff which is one of the most significant Defence assets in this country. It was built in 1862 to protect Melbourne from potential Russian attacks, served as a vital costal defence hub and is now a centre of military history. So much of the fort is heritage listed by the Commonwealth, and yet this reckless and uncaring government could not care less about the impact that these sorts of decisions have on our community, on our state and on our nation. I can tell you, I'm going to fight this every step of the way, as I know other senators and members on our side of politics are going to fight in relation to some of these historic sites which play such an important role in our defence capability.

I do want to quote from this article by Judith Sloan because it really bells the cat about how incompetent this government is when it comes to curbing the cost of living and running the economy. She said, in part:

… here's the thing: it has become increasingly clear that Chalmers simply doesn't understand how the economy works. When confronted with the unwelcome CPI release last week, the Treasurer pulled out all the talking points given to him by Treasury and attempted to tell us that black is white.

Evidently, inflation is now all about the evil workings of the private sector. It has nothing to do with government spending.

She goes on to say:

The Treasurer is living on another planet if he thinks that the ramp-up in government spending is not making inflation worse. Just look at the figures. According to MYEFO, real government spending will increase by 4.5 per cent this financial year; it grew by 5.5 per cent last financial year. Government payments as percentage of GDP are close to 27 per cent, another record outside Covid and several years in the early 1980s.

We now see the RBA, the Reserve Bank of Australia, being forced to increase the interest rate, the cash rate, because of Labor's economic incompetence, because of its mess. The Reserve Bank only has one blunt instrument, interest rates, so when fiscal policy pours fuel on inflation, monetary policy must slam on the brakes. That is exactly what is happening right now, and Australian families are paying a very, very heavy price. This is a stark indictment of the government's economic mismanagement. The Treasury's secretary is urging restraint. The Reserve Bank board is urging restraint, and yet the Treasurer continues to accelerate spending.

So irresponsible is this Treasurer that he decides to deliver this five per cent deposit scheme—under our previous government, it was very constrained, means tested and targeted to first home buyers who most needed government help—and open the flood gates. Now, anyone can apply for this government subsidy. It is a disgrace, because it says everything we need to know about this government. It does not care about those who most need our help. It is spending money like a drunken sailor, supporting the children of millionaires and billionaires, with no regard for the impact that this is having on everyday Australians. Of course, we know that housing costs are a key driver of inflation, and we know that this scheme alone is driving up housing costs, making it tougher for those who are desperately saying, 'How, in this day and age, will I ever raise the money to buy a house?' This government's policies are making the problem worse.

Let's be clear about the scale of Labor's spending surge. In this financial year alone, Labor has added around $50 billion in new discretionary spending decisions—almost the value of the entire defence budget. Government spending is now growing 13 times faster than it was projected to grow under the coalition. Spending has increased from 24 per cent to 27 per cent of GDP—the highest level outside a recession in nearly 40 years. This is not responsible economic management; this is fiscal recklessness. This is a government that does not care about the growing black hole in our budget.

Why were voters not warned about this before the election? Why was this not disclosed properly in MYEFO? Why is the Treasurer still trotting down the street on his horse like the emperor with no clothes, pretending that everything is okay? It is not okay. This is a shocking cost-of-living crisis. So many Australians are suffering. Until this government restores fiscal discipline, Australians will continue to pay a very heavy price.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Henderson be agreed to. A division is required. There being no divisions on Thursdays after 4.30 pm, we shall return to the question at a later time.

Strong communities require dependable and generous people. Geoff Hall, a longstanding member of the Labor Party in Wagga Wagga, who passed away on 14 January 2026, is being remembered widely as exactly that: a dependable, wise and generous man who was dedicated to his regional community. Geoff was the heart and soul of Labor in the Riverina. He could be relied upon to always be there, organising election booth packs, managing rosters, engaging respectfully and advocating for his local community. Born into a Labor home, he lived a Labor life, and he has now gone to his grave as a Labor man to his bootstraps and beyond. I extend my condolences to Regina, Louise, Frances, Bevan and your families on the passing of Geoff, a man of true conviction and a strong Labor voice for regional New South Wales, who will be greatly missed.

I recently had the opportunity to revisit the extraordinary national heritage listed Baiame's Ngunnhu, also known as the Brewarrina Fish Traps. These fish traps, which are over 40,000 years old, harness timeless, innovative technology. Their skilful architecture allows for the efficient herding and catching of fish and reveals a deep understanding of the region, with the fish traps proving resilient to high and low river flows. They're also a shining example of sustainability, with the rock weir and pen system encouraging people to take only what is needed.

However, not too long ago—in the context of millennia—there was a sustained period where the fish traps were at risk of being destroyed. Paddle steamers entered the region, and, to accommodate those steamers, settlers blew up natural weirs and rock formations. This sowed division within the community and, in the course of that action, damaged the river. These ingenious fish traps that had sustained so many for millennia could well have been lost because the wisdom and voices of the people who lived on, loved and intimately knew this part of the world were being ignored. We in the Labor government hear these stories. We reflect on them and we learn from them. The Labor government understands that the needs of the regions are understood best by those who live in the regions, and that's why we work with our regional partners to deliver for regional Australia.

In Brewarrina, for example, the council, in partnership with the PCYC, developed an idea for a multipurpose youth and sports complex. Following a competitive merit based grant process, they secured over $10 million in funding from the Australian Labor government through the Growing Regions Program round 1. Then, instead of plonking in some sports centre design that might meet the needs of a metropolitan precinct, they worked with their architect to ensure that, much like with the fish traps, the flow of regional life was incorporated into this design. In doing so, as Brewarrina Shire Council general manager David Kirby stated to me, it will be more than just a sports centre; it will be a place where young people can find opportunities, inspiration and connections, where families and people of all ages can gather and where community can flourish.

It is this sentiment that the Labor government understands. Regional New South Wales does not need colour-coded spreadsheets that fund ill-fitting buildings as favours for politicians or political parties obsessed with infighting and their own sense of importance over prioritising their constituents and communities. Regional New South Wales needs political parties that understand, represent and respond to their needs ethically and with decorum.

Next week, members of the New South Wales Labor Party from across regional and remote New South Wales will descend on the town of Orange for the New South Wales Labor Country Conference. They'll ensure that strong regional voices are at the forefront of the development of Labor policy. Unlike those opposite, our Labor branches and members are part of a united party that seeks to serve all Australians, from Broken Hill to Bateau Bay, from Moama to Mt Druitt, from Wagga Wagga to Woy Woy and from Cooma to Campbelltown. These delegates, nominated by their grassroots local branches and unions, are everyday Australians who, like the much-loved and recently deceased Labor member Geoff Hall, care deeply about their local communities. They'll speak up for their regions to ensure that they have what they need to continue to foster opportunity, inspiration and connection. I will be there, and I'll certainly be listening to the voices of citizens from the regions and members of the great Labor Party who speak to our party and the Labor Albanese government on behalf of the people they care for and live with in regional Australia.

I stand here today in the Australian Senate a proud member of the Liberal National Party of Queensland. As a Queensland senator, I strongly believe in the coalition between the Liberal Party and the National Party. Since 1949, the greatness of Australia has come from the people and long periods of coalition rule, where Liberals and Nationals have focused on the economic and national security of Australians. It is in the national interest that the coalition is reformed—indeed, reforged—sooner rather than later. Our disunity is giving a free pass to Australia's worst Prime Minister. So I encourage all my friends in the Liberal Party and in the National Party to focus on what unites us rather than any differences.

In our LNP Senate team of Susie, Matt, Paul and I, we have four strong fighters for Queensland from all corners of Queensland—two Liberals and two Nationals. We are members of the same party as Premier David Crisafulli and the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Adrian Schrinner. Matt Canavan has done more to expose the hopes of net zero than anyone else in this country, proving that net zero is an economic dementor that sucks the energy out of the Australian economy. We've got Susie McDonald, who has forgotten more about northern Australia than most of us will ever know. Paul Scarr is the go-to person on understanding the modern, diverse Australia that is made up of multicultural communities. We work together as an LNP team, and I hope and pray we continue to work together as a coalition team.

So, as we move on from last year's election loss, I look forward to a reformed coalition bringing forward policies based on our shared values of lower taxes; smaller and better government; less regulation; building roads, dams and bridges for the future; trusting families, individuals and businesses to get on with their lives; trusting farmers; trusting small businesses; controlled immigration; and building aspiration through work and through homeownership. Our country, our home, is safer, stronger, richer, happier and more comfortable when the coalition is in power. For the sake of Australia, for the sake of Australians, I hope, I pray and I beg that the coalition is reformed—because it is not about us; it is about Australia.

The Northern Territory has the highest rate of domestic violence in the country. Nearly 100 women have been murdered by their partners over the last 25 years. In speaking about domestic violence, I'm not a bystander. I know what it means to be brutally assaulted and hospitalised. I am a survivor and I've lived with the consequences of domestic and family violence that stretch far beyond the incident itself.

I've also seen what violence looks like when it's tolerated. My cousin Carolyn, a twin and mother of four in her late 30s, was deliberately mown down and murdered by her partner. Then there was her sister Stephanie, another cousin of mine and a mother to my niece Keira, who was in her late 20s. I had to ID Stephanie's lifeless body after she was killed in a violent car crash. Stephanie was in the front passenger seat of a car when her companion, who was driving, was attacked by her abusive partner seated in the back seat. There was my niece Linda, a mother of two small boys, who was callously stabbed by her ex-partner in a town camp in Alice Springs. Her life was cut short because she chose to escape a violent relationship. Their lives were changed forever. There was my Aunt Roslie, my mother's sister, who was stabbed to death in a town camp in Katherine, this time by a woman known to her. There was my Aunt Rita, the wife of my loving uncle. He died of kidney failure before her life was taken. She was beaten and stabbed by a group of women in a town camp in Alice Springs, leaving my young cousin an orphan.

Violence continues to plague Aboriginal communities because violence was normalised in traditional Aboriginal culture. But you won't hear a peep about this from the activists in the Aboriginal industry or from those opposite. They prefer to turn a blind eye to domestic violence today and romanticise Aboriginal traditional culture in its entirety.

Domestic violence continues to plague many parts of our country, not just Indigenous communities, because there's a failure to draw clear lines, because perpetrators are allowed to remain in positions of authority, because accountability is avoided and because the message sent to victims is to endure rather than to expect justice. That's why I reject claims that stronger sentencing is excessive. Excuses do not protect women. What protects women is consequences. When there are no consequences, there's no deterrent. I've seen what happens when perpetrators face no real consequences: violence escalates, victims are silenced and communities learn to tolerate the intolerable.

It doesn't have to be like this. This week the Northern Territory government introduced legislation that provides a clear, unequivocal and consequential response to domestic violence. Thanks to Lia Finocchiaro's leadership, the Territory has proposed the strongest sentencing laws in the country for domestic violence murderers. Under these changes, offenders would face a mandatory minimum non-parole period of 25 years. That's 25 years in prison. Importantly, a new mandatory non-parole period doesn't mean automatic release. Offenders will still face rigorous parole thresholds before they are ever considered for freedom.

I support these strong measures because they prioritise the safety of women and children. Strong sentencing matters. It matters for deterrence, it matters for community safety and it matters for restoring public confidence to the justice system. This reform is about prevention. It's about enforcement. It's about sentencing and corrections that protect victims, rather than a justice system that seeks to rehabilitate perpetrators at any cost.

Australian women mustn't endure what the law should prevent. I hope other Australian states and territories will follow the example of Lia Finocchiaro and her Attorney-General, Marie-Clare Boothby.

Labor governments are reforming governments, grappling with the major challenges facing our nation. Australia's ageing population is one of the major forces that will shape our economy and our society in the coming decades.

Ensuring that Australians retire with dignity and continue to live meaningful and fulfilling lives in retirement sits at the heart of the Labor Party's commitment to superannuation. It's a commitment to Australians in retirement. Prior to the superannuation guarantee, Australia's retirement system was patchy, inconsistent and inequitable. The age pension was too low and the defined benefit schemes that did exist were largely the province of white-collar workers, were usually paid at the discretion of the employer and were not transferrable between jobs.

Arguing the case for the superannuation guarantee in 1991, the great Paul Keating said that for retirees it would be 'the difference between a full, active life and a life governed by budgetary exigencies and the vagaries of politics'. Since the introduction of the superannuation guarantee in 1992, the superannuation and retirement savings of Australian workers have grown, with trillions of dollars now under management, particularly in APRA regulated funds.

Across the OECD, government expenditure on public pensions averages around nine per cent and is projected to increase on average. Australia, meanwhile, spends around 2.3 per cent of GDP on pensions and is the only OECD country where this is projected to decrease in the future. As a result, Australia's superannuation guarantee remains one of the boldest and most transformative pieces of economic architecture, not only in our nation's history but around the world.

There is more work to do. The reforms to the superannuation system implemented by the Albanese government seek to address some of the areas that require improvement or change. The workforce of today is very different from the workforce of the early 1990s: workers are more diverse, flexible and mobile. As a result, more employees have been falling through the gaps and missing out on their superannuation entitlements. During the 2022-23 financial year, the Australian Taxation Office estimated that $6.25 billion of super, owed to employees in Australia, was either not paid on time or not paid at all. Unpaid or delayed superannuation payments prevent the compounding growth of retirement savings and can cost Australian workers significantly through their career and reduce the lump sums they retire with significantly, as well. Women are among the worst affected by unpaid super issues, particularly women in low-paid industries.

The Albanese government's Payday Super reform, which takes effect in July this year, addresses this head on. Employers will be required to pay superannuation within seven days of payday, bringing contributions into line with wage cycles. This ensures that workers' savings begin growing sooner and improves compliance, as employers failing to make appropriate contributions can be identified sooner and the issue can be corrected. Equally significant is the reform to make super payable on paid parental leave. Career breaks, predominantly affecting women, compound the gap in retirement savings between men and women in Australia. Extending super to paid parental leave helps to reduce this gap and recognises that the decision of parents to take time out of the workforce to raise children should not mean sacrificing their financial security later in life.

Australia's superannuation system remains world leading because it has evolved over time. It was a Labor government that put it into place and it is a new Labor government that continues to improve this system. There are aspects that still require improvement: for women, for the young, for people who don't own their own homes. And we need to pursue some of the fiscal benefits that motivated the creation of the system but have not yet been fully realised.

The Liberals, by contrast, have done just about everything they can to undermine the superannuation guarantee and the superannuation system in this country, opposing the introduction of the guarantee when they were in government and delaying scheduled increases in the superannuation guarantee along the journey. They have unjustly attacked industry superannuation funds to satisfy extreme and ideological predilections. At the last election, they had a platform encouraging young Australians, yet again, to draw down on their super to pay for a housing deposit. Those are the types of policies that would make Australians worse off in the long term. That is not the Labor way. Labor's way is one of imagination, vision and values. (Time expired)

I rise tonight after a visit to a little multi-educator family-day-care facility at Latrobe in Tasmania last week. Addisons family day care has been operating for about 15 years as a multi-educator family-day-care model. They are currently caring for about 50 children from 35 families, and I've raised this matter before in the chamber. Not long prior, I visited a little place called Abracadabra family day care at Spreyton, which has been operating for 20 years as a dual educator model. Tanya is looking after some children there, and there are about 35 children at that facility, again from a number of families.

The issue I want to raise tonight relates to a sincere request for the government to get on with the job of implementing recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission's review of childcare services. If it doesn't, the running of these two facilities will be under threat. I was talking to Natalie last week, and the expense to her service, if this recommendation isn't implemented, will be something in the order of $600,000 to make alterations to the facility. In terms of Tanya's facility at Spreyton, the reality is that it may need to close, and all of those families and all of those children will lose access to the service. Interestingly, I was talking to the local council after I met with Natalie last week, and the deputy mayor said that these services aren't just appreciated in the local community; they are loved. That is the value that's placed on them by the families that utilise these services. In many cases, more than one generation of children have been through these multi-educator family-day-care centres.

Just to put it into context, I'll read out recommendation 5.3 of the Productivity Commission review, which is:

Allow two family day care services to be run in a single venue in regional and remote Australia.

The National Quality Framework should be amended to allow two educators to provide education and care to up to 14 children at any one time at an approved family day care venue. No more than eight children can be preschool age or under.

This amendment should only apply to approved family day care venues in Inner Regional Australia, Outer Regional Australia, Remote Australia and Very Remote Australia as defined in the Australian Statistical Geography Standard.

The minister has said on a number of occasions that the government is implementing the recommendations of the Productivity Commission review. That's very good, terrific. But in terms of these two small providers, in an area of childcare shortage, can you please just get on with it. These services are needed. Both of them have waiting lists of over 100. I acknowledge that the government is providing a significant amount of money to support another private facility in Latrobe. One other centre said that it was going to close, and a new provider is coming into town, so the government is funding a temporary service. But we can't afford to lose the services that are there, and we certainly can't afford to lose ones that are so greatly appreciated by the community. As I said, the deputy mayor of Latrobe said to me on Friday, 'These services are not just appreciated; they are loved.'

Please don't leave this situation to hang. They are currently operating under exemptions granted by the state government. The state government is doing its bit. Can I say, Minister, please get on with the job of implementing recommendation number 5.3. There's no controversy. It just helps take the pressure off these services—in some cases it allows them to continue to operate. But it also provides really important and valued services for local communities. (Time expired)

I remind honourable senators that the legislation committees will meet to consider estimates, commencing on Monday 9 February 2026 at 9 am.

Senate adjourned at 17:40