If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the recent military strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the death of its brutal dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the death of its brutal dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In moving the suspension of standing orders, events are currently unfolding, as we can all see on our television screens, in real time. The security situation is volatile. Australians, as we know, in the region are watching developments by the hour. There is a further possibility of an escalation by the IRGC. In moments like this, when history is literally being made before our eyes, the Senate cannot be a procedural spectator. This chamber must be able to respond immediately to put Australia's position clearly on the record, but, more than that, to send a clear signal to our allies and adversaries and give certainty to Australians both here at home, including, obviously, those who fled the Islamic regime, and abroad.

Standing orders, as we know, are here to keep the Senate orderly. They are not meant to stop the Senate speaking when the national interest—and this is about now, today—demands clarity and speed. In the first instance, we need to be able to acknowledge the moral clarity shown by the United States and the State of Israel in confronting the threat posed, not just in Iran but globally, by the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear ambitions. As we know, Iran's regime has divided the international community while advancing its nuclear and ballistic programs and while exporting violence through proxies. The United States and Israel have acted in the face of that reality.

The reason we must suspend standing orders is simple: this is urgent. As I have said, Australians and, in fact, the world, are watching these events, some of the most historic in our time, unfold in real time on our TVs. As we know, for decades, the Islamic Republic has pursued nuclear capability while expanding its ballistic missile program and entrenching a network of proxy militias in the region. That combination of nuclear ambition and ideological expansionism has long been recognised one of the gravest threats to international peace and security. A nuclear armed Iran would not simply alter the balance of power in the Middle East, as we know; it would shatter it. It matters to Australia, and that is why this suspension—and I would ask all senators to support the suspension. It's not often you actually watch such a significant event. Australia may not be taking part in it physically, but it actually matters not only to Australians here on the ground but also to Australians overseas and those who fled the regime and now call Australia home.

The motion, when you look at it, rightly condemns the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. They are the hardline security apparatus that have dominated Iran's political system and brutalised and slaughtered their own citizens for decades. The motion also, when you look at it, condemns them for what they have done to women—the violent repression of women demanding basic freedoms. As we also know, it is the IRGC that has been linked to extremist and antisemitic activity affecting Jewish Australians here on Australian soil. If we are not suspending standing orders at this point in time today for a matter this urgent so that the Australian Senate can clearly and articulately put its opinion on the record and send a clear signal, both here in Australia and more broadly, to those abroad and, in particular, to our allies who have shown the decisiveness and the moral clarity in relation to what has now occurred, I quite frankly do not know what urgency therefore is.

In moving the suspension of standing orders, this is not a debate that can just be parked until later in the program. As I have stated, this is precisely the kind of moment when standing orders should give way to what is clearly in the public interest. Australia's position should not be ambiguous. We need to be able to stand here today and reject, unequivocally, any future Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons capability. We need to stand here today and condemn the IRGC's sponsorship of terrorism and destabilisation. We need to condemn their attacks on civilian infrastructure, and we need to ensure that our Jewish friends know we stand firmly against antisemitism and foreign interference on Australian soil. That is why I commend this suspension to the Senate.

Let us be very clear, this suspension is not about national interest; it's about political interest. You know how you most know that? Because we have this unholy alliance between Senator Michaelia Cash and Senator David Shoebridge—what an unusual combination!—combining to agree to deliver the numbers to suspend the Senate. Senator Cash and Senator Shoebridge together—what an extraordinary demonstration of the fact that they will do anything in order to engage in a political stunt while there is a war going on. What we know—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order, senators! Senator Cash was just heard in complete silence.

Labor's war!

Senator Shoebridge! Such disrespect—

You are not debating me, Senator Shoebridge.

Senator Shoebridge, I am demanding order in this Senate and I am demanding silence. The respect shown to Senator Cash—whether or not you agree with the proposition that was put—will also be shown to Senator Wong.

Labor has started a war.

Senator Faruqi, Order!

Senator Wong!

Senator Paterson! I'm not going to sit here and call every single senator. You are being disrespectful towards me. I've called for silence. I've called for the same respect that was shown to Senator Cash to be shown to Senator Wong. Senator Wong.

Thank you. Not content with wanting to work with One Nation, the Liberals now want to work with the Greens to get on board. It is really a demonstration that what used to be a party of government is interested only in political stunts in this chamber, and Senator Michaelia Cash is prepared to do deals with Senator David Shoebridge to get the numbers to provide the space for a political stunt. Now, what I would say is that we are seeing the coalition, the Liberals and Senator Shoebridge and the Greens playing politics on a motion on a conflict where Iran continues to attack the region, people are dying, Australians are stranded and the government is working to respond. That is what is happening here.

Senator Cash, if you had wanted an orderly debate on this, rather than throwing a motion at us five minutes before this debate, I would have been open to a sensible debate in the national interest. But, no, instead you work with the Australian Greens for this stunt in order to take up time on Closing the Gap. Can I just make a comment about Closing the Gap—and I'll have more to say about this in the debate after you vote with each other to delay Closing the Gap? I understand the Liberals don't want to debate Closing the Gap. I understand that the coalition and One Nation don't want to debate it, other than to say things which are hurtful to First Nations people, but you are a party that should know better.

Senator McKenzie!

You are a party that should understand that this is an important debate, and I'm not surprised you're on your feet.

When you have quite finished, Senator Allman-Payne! If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Your interjections have been incredibly disrespectful.

Order! I am waiting for order. Minister Wong.

I'm unsurprised that the coalition may try and have a political stunt delay Closing the Gap. It doesn't matter that there was an alleged terrorist attack targeting First Nations Australians. It doesn't matter that First Nations are grappling with disbelief and fear. What does matter is that this is a time when the Senate is supposed to show respect and commitment by taking allocated time to debate progress for First Nations people in this country.

What is extraordinary is that the Greens political party is supporting the Liberals and the Nationals to deprioritise the Closing the Gap debate for a stunt on Iran. From a party that has no stake in Indigenous representation at any level of any state or federal government, I am unsurprised, but we stand with Senator McCarthy and the First Nations caucus. We want a debate that is scheduled for Closing the Gap, and we invite you to do the right thing. On that basis I move:

That the motion be now put.

It is outrageous, Senator McKenzie. The behaviour in here is outrageous.

Senator Shoebridge, I will name you if you do not come to order.

Senator Bragg, I will name you if you don't come to order. Senator Wong has asked for the motion to be put. The question is that the motion be put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion to suspend standing order be agreed to.

I move:

That a motion relating to the recent military strikes on the Islamic Republic of Iran and the death of its brutal dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business.

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

I move:

That the Senate:

(a) congratulates the United States of America and the State of Israel for their sustained efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, acknowledging the long-standing threat posed by Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs to regional and global peace and security;

(b) welcomes the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a brutal dictator who has oppressed the Iranian people for decades, as a result of the American and Israeli attacks;

(c) reaffirms Australia's rejection of any future Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, recognising such an outcome would severely destabilise the Middle East and pose unacceptable risks to international peace and security;

(d) condemns in the strongest terms the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) for its sponsorship of terrorism globally, including its role in orchestrating antisemitic attacks targeting Jewish Australians on Australian soil, acts which represent a direct attack on our social cohesion and national security;

(e) condemns the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran for its use of state-directed violence and its support for proxy militant groups engaged in terrorist activities in multiple regions, undermining peace, stability and the rule of law;

(f) deplores the recent attacks by Iran on civilian infrastructure in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, including the suspension of operations at Dubai's major airports due to regional hostilities, and condemns the IRGC for targeting civilian populations and civilian facilities; and

(g) expresses strong support for the Iranian people in their ongoing struggle against the IRGC.

In speaking to the motion, I have to say, quite frankly, that I think that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has shown that she is not prepared to put Australia's position on the record. All that she could contribute to the debate this morning were cheap political scoring points. I was a little surprised that the government were not going to move a motion today to the effect that the coalition has. As I said, this is one of the most historic moments history will ever record—one of the most historic moments. We come in here this morning, and not only is there silence by the government; more than that, they do everything they can to shut the Senate down from properly debating this motion. The Senate, though, has rightly agreed to suspend standing orders. Now we debate this motion at a moment, as I said in my suspension speech, that will be recorded as a turning point not just in modern Middle Eastern history but globally.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead. For decades, he was the supreme authority of a regime that imprisoned dissenters, crushed protests, slaughtered Iranians at home, empowered the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and oversaw the systematic repression of the Iranian people. His leadership entrenched a theocratic system that exported terror abroad—we are well aware of that here in Australia—whilst denying, as we have been watching now for months and months and months on TV, freedom at home.

Let me be clear on behalf of the coalition, who put forward this motion and supported the suspension of standing orders so that the Australian Senate could clearly record its position on the death of the ayatollah and what it means. He was the architect of decades of repression. He is gone. This is the figure who presided over violent crackdowns on students, on women, on journalists, on ordinary citizens demanding nothing more and nothing less than respect and dignity. He is gone. This is not insignificant, as Senator Wong would want us to believe; it is, quite frankly, historic. In saying that, the coalition will acknowledge the moral clarity, the resolve and the decisiveness shown by the United States of America and the State of Israel.

For years, Iran advanced its nuclear capability, expanded its ballistic missile program and strengthened a web of violent proxies across the region, all under Khamenei's watch and all within the operational muscle of the IRGC. The United States and Israel did not ignore that trajectory. They undertook sustained efforts to degrade Iran's nuclear infrastructure. They targeted the command-and-control structures that enabled escalation. They made it clear that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Iranian regime would not be tolerated. They have also acted to prevent a regime that openly called for Israel's destruction from acquiring the ultimate weapon that could do so much global devastation. For that, for drawing a line against nuclear proliferation and regional destabilisation, the coalition is grateful—grateful for the decisive action taken before a nuclear threshold was crossed, grateful that our allies were prepared to shoulder the burden of confronting an escalating threat, grateful that the message has been sent to the international community that we will not be paralysed in the face of existential danger.

A nuclear-armed Iran would have shattered regional stability. It would have emboldened Hezbollah, Hamas and other proxies. It would have accelerated proliferation, it would have placed existential pressure on Israel, and it would have severely undermined the global non-proliferation regime. That matters profoundly to us here in Australia. We are a trading nation, dependent on secure sea lanes and stable markets. We have Australians living and working throughout the Middle East. We have communities here at home who fled that violent repressive regime. They know because they experienced. So many of us sat with the communities and listened to their stories of, quite frankly, living in hell. They experienced the consequences of Iranian linked extremism.

But this is a moment that is not only about strategy; it is, as we have now seen on our TV screens, about freedom. For decades the Iranian people have lived under repression. It was Iranian women who marched, demanding basic rights—rights that we have here in Australia and we live with each and every day. It was Iranian students who filled the streets, calling for liberty. It was Iranian workers who protested corruption and economic mismanagement.

Do you know what the response was from that vile, repressive Iranian regime? It was the IRGC that answered them with batons, bullets and prison cells. This motion rightly condemns the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC. They are the hardline security apparatus that has dominated Iran's political system and has brutalised, slaughtered, tortured, murdered its own citizens. It is the IRGC that, on our television screens you could see, were crushing peaceful protests; it is the IRGC that oversaw imprisonment and the execution of dissidents; it is the IRGC that violently enforced the repression of women and girls; it is the IRGC that funds and arms proxy groups across the region; and it is the IRGC, as Australians—in particular, Jewish Australians—know, that has been linked to extremist and antisemitic activity affecting Jewish Australians here, right here in Australia, on our home soil. When foreign directed networks seek to intimidate Jewish Australians, that is not a distant geopolitical issue. It is a direct challenge to our sovereignty, our social cohesion and our national security.

With Khamenei's death, a door has opened to the possibility of a different future for Iran: a future where nuclear ambition does not eclipse prosperity, a future where the IRGC does not dictate political life, a future where women are not beaten for defying the strict religious dress codes, a future where young Iranians are not imprisoned for demanding, again, what we as Australians live and breathe each and every day—basic freedoms. We should say it plainly: freedom is what we all want for the Iranian people. We don't want chaos. We don't want anarchy. What we want for them is the freedom to determine their own destiny without the fear of the IRGC.

The motion also, though, expresses deep concern at the recent Iranian attacks on civilian infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, including the disruption of operations at major airports in Dubai and other places. Targeting civilian infrastructure is reckless escalation. It endangers innocent lives, including Australians'. It destabilises aviation routes and threatens regional security. It underscores precisely why the IRGC's conduct cannot be normalised.

The coalition's position is clear, and that is why we wanted the suspension of standing orders today, as this historic moment is unfolding. We reject unequivocally any future Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, we condemn the IRGC sponsorship of terrorism and destabilisation, we condemn attacks on civilian infrastructure by the IRGC, and we stand firmly against antisemitism and foreign interference on Australian soil. The death of Khamenei marks the end of an era of impunity for a regime that believed it could oppress at home and destabilise abroad without consequences. That era of impunity is now over.

Of course, as commentators spoke about over the weekend, what comes next is something that we all hope for: we want the Iranian people to finally be able to chart a freer path. The coalition is very, very clear on where it stands. We stand with freedom. We stand with those in Iran who have risked everything for dignity, who have risked everything for the basic freedoms that they have been denied now for so long. We, of course, stand against nuclear proliferation and we stand against terrorism. But we also stand with our allies—and that's why the first paragraph of the motion is so important—when they act to prevent existential threats from materialising.

As I said, the Senate was right—despite the opposition by the foreign minister and the government—to suspend standing orders. Again, I record my sincere disappointment that, at such a pivotal moment in history, when the Ayatollah, one of the most evil people in history, has been killed, and where a door is opening—a door that hopefully signals freedom for the Iranian people—the government did not think this motion was important enough to actually stop the business of the Senate and suspend standing orders. The Senate, though, was right to suspend standing orders; silence at this profound moment would have been abdication.

This is a moment of consequence for regional stability and for global security but, more than that, for the Iranian people themselves. This chamber I hope will send a very clear message: 'no' to nuclear weapons in Iran, 'no' to the IRGC's campaign of repression and terror, 'yes' to freedom, 'yes' to security and 'yes' to solidarity with the Iranian people. I thank the Senate, without the government, for allowing us to debate this important motion, and I do commend the motion to the Senate.

While I was sitting here listening to that debate, I was actually receiving some messages from counterparts in the region. That is the real work around a conflict that is real, that is costing lives and that is occurring as we speak. I again say to Senator Cash, if the Liberal Party had genuinely wanted a debate on this, they could have spoken to us. It is true that, between Saturday night, when this occurred, and the Senate sitting, we've been occupied by some other matters. I haven't been focused—

Senator Paterson!

 We received this information on Saturday night. I was briefed. I engaged with my counterpart the foreign minister of Israel. We were up very early because, obviously, briefings occur. We had a National Security Committee of the cabinet. We set up the consular crisis centre. We made announcements. You would have seen, I hope, some of the press conferences around that to ensure Australians were informed, and, obviously, the Prime Minister and senior ministers again met last night. So, if the opposition had wanted a serious discussion about a war that is going on, they could have done us the courtesy of saying so.

Because, Senator, the government was focused on two things. The first priority is to keep Australians safe. We have 115,000 Australians in the region, and, with respect, my priority is those Australians; it is not the opposition. If the opposition had said to us, 'We want—'

An opposition senator interjecting—

Senator, I'm so sorry—I know, you're a senator, and I respect the role. But we have 115,000 Australians in a region which is currently seeing casualties across the region. We have seen Dubai airport hit. It is a very challenging situation, and I want to start by making clear to the Senate our first priority is to keep Australians safe, and we are working around the clock to do that.

Now I have some general comments about what we have seen. People would have seen the Prime Minister's and my statements Saturday night with the Deputy Prime Minister, then in the media yesterday and also this morning. I want to make clear that Australia stands with the brave people of Iran. They are struggling against oppression. The Iranian regime has been a destabilising force, including through its ballistic missile program, its nuclear program, its support for armed proxies and its brutal acts of violence and intimidation. Australia has consistently called for the Iranian regime to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Iran's citizens. We know that the regime has instead initiated a brutal crackdown that killed thousands of its citizens.

We have said that we support the action taken by the US and Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. We have also made clear that Australia did not participate in these strikes, but obviously we are in contact with our international partners. We have said we don't want to see further regional escalation. We know the consequences of that, and we are seeing some of that now. We urge the protection of civilian life, and, going forward, there will need to be a resumption of dialogue and diplomacy. And we join with our other partners in calling for all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law.

I also want to make some comments about the indiscriminate attacks that the Iranian regime is currently making against party countries, not only Israel—and we mourn the loss of life on all sides—but countries who are not a party to this conflict, like the United Arab Emirates, with whom we have a very close relationship, and the countries

of the region who are being affected even though they are not parties to the conflict.

In relation to Australians overseas, we are working around the clock, as I said. It will be a challenging period—a very challenging period. I've made clear that Australians requiring urgent consular assistance can contact the emergency centre on 1300555135 in Australia or 61262613305 from outside Australia. I made clear publicly that there are about 115,000 Australians in the region. They are my priority, not Senator Cash's motion. And people would be aware of the traffic through the region. I think it is about 11,000 people a day coming in and out of Australia utilising Etihad, Emirates or Qatar. That gives the Senate chamber some indication of the scale of the disruption.

We have opened the registration portal for all Australians in Israel and Iran. That was a decision on Sunday. This morning I directed that we open that registration portal, given what had happened overnight, for the UAE and Qatar as well. At the moment, communication is patchy and the situation is very distressing. We will continue to provide what information we can, as quickly as we can. Our focus at the moment is to provide that information and to continue to work with the airlines to try to ensure that we have availability on commercial flights as they become available. We hope we will see that in the near future.

I would also make this point to the Australian Greens: this issue didn't start with the strikes over the weekend. Iran has oppressed the human rights of its citizens for four decades. Very little is said by your party about that.

You are supposedly an antinuclear party, united in trying to prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But I haven't seen the Greens say anything about the games Iran has played, including preventing the International Atomic Energy Agency from conducting independent inspections. That's because it doesn't fit your narrative. It's very selectively loud.

You are lying, like always.

Acting Deputy President, I'd ask you to—I mean, the interjections are revealing, both from over here, complaining about their staff allocation, and from over here. He ought to withdraw that imputation.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Thank you, senators. Interjections are disorderly. If there is disagreement with what is said, then that can be had in the course of the debate. I understand, Senator Shoebridge, you made a remark that I won't repeat, but I would ask that you withdraw it.

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. I give an indication to the chamber that Senator Wong, as every other senator, is entitled to be heard in silence, and that respect should be shown.

Iran has directed antisemitic and hateful attacks on Australian soil. I understand—we understand, as a government—there are a range of views about this conflict in the Australian community. There are those, like Senator Cash, who have a particular view. There are those, like Senator Shoebridge, who have a particular view. There are those, like the Iranian Australian community, many of whom are very supportive of the action that has been taken—not all.

We don't pretend that this isn't a complex and long-running issue, nor does this government ignore the facts. Iran has brought death and destruction under its regime for decades. Those are facts. We do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei. I would like to go through what this government has done in respect of Iran since we came to government. I think it is important to note that we have taken stronger action than any previous Australian government. We've expelled the ambassador. We suspended operations at our embassy in Tehran. We've listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism. We've sanctioned more than 200 Iranian linked individuals, more than 100 of whom are linked to the IRGC.

I make the point that those opposite really want this debate. They want the politics of this debate. But, in nine long years in government, there was not one new sanction on Iran. There was not one word of complaint when Iran was elected to the Commission on the Status of Women, a committee they're a member of. Now, this party teams up with the Greens to have a political stunt to show how tough they are on Iran.

Finally, I will close with an amendment. As I said, I saw Senator Cash's motion, not because she sent it to me but because it was circulated. I think I received it while I was sitting in the cabinet. Our amendment is only in relation to paragraphs (a) and (b) and to add two additional paragraphs. I move the amendment as circulated:

Omit paragraphs (a) and (b), insert:

a) Supports efforts by the United States and Israel to prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security;

b) Stands in solidarity with the Iranian Australian community, and recognise their relief of Iranian Australians following the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, a brutal dictator who has oppressed the Iranian people for decades;

c) Condemns the Iranian regime for its decades of attacks and destabilisation of its neighbours, through its ballistic missile and nuclear programs and support for armed proxies;

d) Calls for dialogue and the pursuit of diplomatic pathways to restore peace and security;

It is an opportunity for there to be a sensible motion before the chamber. Again, I would say that, as a matter of courtesy to the chamber, if the chamber had wanted an organised debate on Iran, the government would have facilitated it. But you chose not to do that. Senators Cash and Shoebridge chose to delay the Closing the gap report to date, which was scheduled, in a suspension of standing orders because they both have a similar agenda, which is to try and elevate the politics of this issue. We're not focused on the politics of this issue. We're focused on the 115,000 Australians who are in the region and on continuing to put our view as to a future for the region in which all peoples of the region know peace and stability.

Again, we now see Labor and the coalition, but with their new friends in One Nation, coming in to support another US forever war. Labor, the coalition and One Nation are now the three war parties in this parliament. They've never seen an attack by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu that they haven't wanted to back in and support.

We have seen the Albanese Labor government rush to be the first country in the world to back in Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's latest illegal war—literally rushing to back in a war that Labor knows is in gross breach of international law. There's a reason that the Foreign minister has refused to even discuss whether or not this war is illegal, and it's that Labor knows it's illegal. Labor know that the argument put forward by their friend Donald Trump and his running mate Benjamin Netanyahu—that this is about stopping some imminent nuclear threat in Iran—is a lie, just like they knew that the so-called weapons of mass destruction that were used to justify a previous Labor war were a lie. Labor are going in to bat for Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu in this illegal, widespread attack against the Iranian people, and they know they're doing it on a lie.

It is extraordinary that neither Foreign minister Wong nor Prime Minister Albanese is willing to come out and tell the Australian people the truth: US military bases here at Pine Gap and the North West Cape are being used to target and support Donald Trump's illegal attacks on Iran. They know that that's the purpose of Pine Gap. They know it's used to target military attacks in the Middle East. It's been used to target military attacks in Gaza, and now it's being used to target military attacks in Iran, and what do Labor say? They say, 'We won't even mention it; we won't talk about it,' because it's bloody awkward for Labor to back in a war which has already killed more than 100 schoolkids in the first 24 hours. Schoolgirls are being pulled out of rubble in a war that Labor supports. Multiple schools are being hit, targeted and destroyed in a war that Labor supports. A hospital was blown apart by Israeli missiles in a war that Labor support with their new friends in One Nation and the coalition.

Is there no line in the sand that Labor are willing to draw to say they won't take this step with Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu? It seems there is no line in the sand. They come here and say that this bombing and killing in Iran is for the Iranian people, as though their friend Donald Trump cares the slightest about the interests of the Iranian people. Trump—Labor, the coalition and One Nation's partner in AUKUS—doesn't care about peace and human rights in the United States, let alone in Iran. And you come here and you peddle this nonsense that somehow this is about some positive regime change, just like how the US's endless forever war in Iraq was meant to be about positive regime change or how the US's endless war in Afghanistan was meant to be about positive regime change—so-called for the people of Afghanistan or the people of Iraq.

Labor's support for this war is ignorant of history. The US are engaging in this war, not because they support Women, Life, Freedom. The Greens have been on the record for years supporting Women, Life, Freedom, working with the Iranian people who are showing brave resistance to a brutal regime. We know that foreign bombing, foreign attacks, blowing up schools and blowing up hospitals isn't about the Iranian people. The Iranian people have been killed by the brutal regime in Iran, and now they are being killed by bombs and missiles from Israel and the United States, and Labor backs that war in.

Then you have the nerve to stand up and say that you want it to de-escalate. You oppose the escalation of violence in the regime—the missiles and bombs that are now falling around the region as Iran responds to the attack. The Greens oppose that bombing and killing too. We hate seeing the missiles and the bombs landing in Dubai and around the region. Of course that's appalling. But it was an inevitable response to the latest US illegal war that Labor has backed in. It wasn't an accident. The chaos and the killing that is now spreading to the region was always going to be a response to this illegal war by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and you pretend that you care. You back in the original crime, and then you pretend you care about the response.

People see through Labor. They see you joining with the coalition and joining with One Nation in your rush to support Donald Trump and his latest illegal war. They see the foreign minister hiding from basic accountability about whether or not this is consistent with international law. They see Prime Minister Albanese refusing to do a press conference and talk about the scores and scores of Iranian kids who have been killed in just the first 24 hours of the war that he's supporting. They see you hiding from this. They see you hiding from it when you didn't even want a debate in the Senate this morning about it. Apparently, you were too busy. You had other things to do. You didn't want to talk about the kids that are being killed, about the hospitals that are being blown up or about the chaos that you are supporting in the region.

Think about what happened the last time the United States did a war of choice in this region. They went in under another lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that was a lie, just like this war is based on a lie. They went in, and we had statements from the US leadership at the time as chaos enveloped Iraq, as systems were destroyed and as hunger and killings spread. We had the United States saying: 'Oh well, freedom is untidy, isn't it?' The people of Iraq had to suffer through two decades of bombings and killings and chaos to satisfy the US war machine and the US illegal war on Iraq. Now you want that on Iran, and you tell us you care about the Iranian people.

I can tell you that the mums who are pulling their kids out of the rubble don't see freedom. They're not talking about regime change. They're grieving about the loss of their kids, their daughters. They see through you. They see through your endless support for war. They see through your toadying to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, and they see their country potentially being thrown into chaos. Think about it. If Iran falls into chaos, like Iraq fell into chaos and like Syria fell into chaos, think about what that means for the world and the instability that spreads across all the neighbouring countries that are already so fragile. Yet you back it in. You don't have a plan B. There is no plan B. You bomb and you kill, and you support Donald Trump's bombing and killing, and you are reckless about the consequences for the Iranian people or the region as a whole.

We hear Donald Trump saying, 'Now it's up to the Iranian people, after the bombing and killing, to somehow, through some unspecified path, overthrow the brutal dictatorship.' We support the Iranian people's calls for freedom. We support those brave Iranian men, women and students who have been out there calling for freedom, but their freedom is further from being achieved than ever, because the regime will use the foreign attack and its monopoly of state sanctioned violence like it has before. Only now, the killings will be from the regime, Israel and the United States all at the same time.

The Greens stand for peace here. We oppose those troops embedded in the United States military, which Labor doesn't want to talk about, being part of this bombing. We oppose Pine Gap being used in the bombing. We oppose North West Cape being used in the bombing. We oppose our toadying relationship with the United States. We support an independent defence and foreign policy for Australia so we don't keep getting involved in the United States's forever wars and so that we don't rain death and destruction down on the next country in the Middle East that Labor decides it wants to target with Donald Trump.

I say this: we are the only party in this parliament who stands on the side of international law, who stands genuinely on the side of the Iranian people, who stands genuinely on the side of peace. We now see you for what you are: the three war parties, One Nation, the coalition and Labor, who have never seen a US war they don't want to back in. Millions of Australians disagree with you. They want a government of principle, they want a government of peace, they want the best for the Iranian people and they say no to Trump's and Netanyahu's war, and we stand with them.

I move an amendment to Labor's amendment:

Omit all words after "That the Senate", substitute: "(a) notes:

(i) the Albanese Labor Government was the first in the world to support Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's illegal attacks on Iran, backed in by One Nation and the Liberal party;

(ii) already, the Iranian people are the victims of Trump and Netanyahu's war, with hundreds killed in Israeli and US bombings of primary schools and hospitals;

(iii) these attacks have seen the very people oppressed by the Iranian regime face more violence, more hardship, more bloodshed and more fear; and

(b) calls on the Albanese Government to:

(i) immediately withdraw all support to Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's war with Iran and work with like-minded countries to promote peace in the region and for the people of Iran;

(ii) stop all intelligence and resources from Pine Gap, North West Cape and other US military assets in Australia assisting this illegal war and recalling all Australian troops seconded in the US military;

(iii) as an act of immediate solidarity, provide permanent protection to people who sought asylum by sea in Australia and are denied safety, hundreds of whom are from Iran; and

(iv) acknowledge that the world cannot bomb its way to peace and that US-led foreign wars in the Middle East have never helped the people of the countries they have attacked and have always seen devastating bloodshed."

I would like to thank the Australian Senate for allowing the diverse views that exist in this chamber, that the Australian people have sent to parliament, to have the debate this morning, to not be silenced at what is such an extraordinary time globally. I rise also to acknowledge the steadfast efforts of the United States and the State of Israel in preventing the Islamic Republic of Iran from developing a nuclear weapons capability. Their cooperation over recent years has been central to limiting a threat that long cast a shadow over the Middle East and global security. I note the foreign minister's immediate response yesterday was exactly the same as her response post the October 2023 massacre in Israel. It was to call for a de-escalation. The fact is Australia has consistently supported international efforts to ensure Iran never acquires the capacity to build or deploy nuclear arms. We reaffirm that position today without hesitation.

The Iranian regime under the late Ayatollah Khamenei has presided over decades of repression, violence and destabilisation in the region. His rule was marked by unimaginable cruelty to his own people and hostility towards nations in the region and beyond. We hope his death marks a turning point.

The reach of the Islamic republic's influence was not confined to the Middle East. Its intelligence networks and proxies extended far beyond the Middle East, including here at home in Australia. Individuals linked to the regime have supported extremist activity, targeted Jewish communities and fuelled antisemitic incidents on our own soil. Let's stop deluding ourselves. The actions were deliberate and planned attempts to infiltrate anti-Jewish groups, inflame communities and cause physical harm to Jews in Australia. And yet we witnessed the appalling scenes of prominent Australians marching behind posters of the Ayatollah at the now infamous harbour bridge march. It was a moment that caused deep distress to our Jewish community and, yes, to Iranian Australians, who fled the very brutality that those images represented. Iran's proxies have inflicted violence and instability across the region—in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait and, of course, Israel. Their actions targeted civilians, undermined governments and threatened the security of countless families who simply want to live in peace. And, yes, the overwhelming number of people killed under this regime since 1979 have been Muslims. The regime's victims include Kurds, Arabs, Yazidis, Sunni and Shia Muslims, political dissidents, protesters and ordinary citizens.

Today, above all, we express solidarity with the Iranian people, including many Australians who were born in Iran or have family still living under the regime's grip. They have endured decades of censorship, surveillance and fear. Iranian women in particular have faced systematic oppression, forced dress codes, violent crackdowns and imprisonment for the simple act of demanding basic rights, and that's to say nothing of the degradation and appalling treatment of the Iranian gay community—something I don't hear those on the progressive left mention enough in this chamber. But it is absolutely appalling what gay men in particular are subjected to under that regime. Yet those who claim to champion women and gay rights elsewhere fall silent when it comes to those cohorts in Iran. I call out the hypocrisy of the Greens and Labor left—absolute hypocrites to talk about the rights of women and the gay community and not do anything substantial to help them in this particular time. Their courage, particularly that of the women, deserved far more from the international community and from Australia than it received.

Australia stands with the Iranian people in their pursuit of freedom, dignity and democratic self-determination. What happens next is very uncertain, but we can only hope that the end of this brutal regime will presage a better life for the Iranian people and, indeed, for the region.

The pathos and moral chiding of the Foreign minister that we saw earlier were instructive. The Foreign minister has the great privilege of representing our country at times like this. Labor won the election, and being Foreign minister of a country like ours is a tough and challenging role. To come in here and school us as if we've been naughty children in wanting to debate an historic, extraordinary event, despite our different views in this chamber, says a lot about that Foreign minister and how she views her role.

The opposition today, under the shadow Attorney-General and our leader, has moved a motion to have the debate and to commend our allies and the Iranian people, and that is an appropriate response for an opposition in an Australian democracy to take at a time like this. I am very concerned that the Foreign minister felt she could treat us like schoolchildren in that moment.

As we've debated around the chamber, I want to comment briefly on Senator Shoebridge's outrageous remarks, which were really just an anti-Trump spray instead of actually saying anything substantive about the plight of the Iranian people and our hopes for their self-determination and about how the rights of women and the gay community will be better as a result of the changes to that regime. I commend the motion to the Senate and hope the Senate supports it.

One Nation does support Senator Cash's motion. I was just gobsmacked to hear the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, get up and say she was absolutely appalled by this stunt. This amendment—I will put on record what is in here—'congratulates the United States of America and the State of Israel for their sustained efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon' and welcomes the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, a brutal dictator who oppressed the Iranian people for decades. It goes on to condemn the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC, 'for its sponsorship of terrorism globally, including its role in orchestrating antisemitic attacks targeting Jewish Australians on Australian soil, acts which represent a direct attack on our social cohesion and national security'; deplore 'the recent attacks by Iran on civilian infrastructure in Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, including the suspension of operations at Dubai's major airports due to regional hostilities'; and express 'strong support for the Iranian people in their ongoing struggle against the IRGC'. I don't call it a stunt to raise this, in light of what happened over the weekend.

Also, I hear the Greens' and Senator Shoebridge's comments that they're not for war. There's not one senator in this place that would support war, but it is very important that we defend countries for their democracy and for the freedom of their people. It's quite amazing; they want their allies, but if war ever touched Australian shores—if any case of war were to happen in our country—wouldn't they be screaming and crying out for people around the world to support us? On the one hand we don't want war, but what would happen if it ever were to happen in Australia?

I want to say that to call it a stunt—

Acting Deputy President Sharma, I wish to lodge a complaint here. Senator Thorpe is quietly saying, 'You're lying. You're lying,' repeatedly as Senator Hanson talks. It's more than anyone can bear, although Senator Hanson has done very well. Can you ask her to stop?

Senator Roberts, your point of order is interjections; is that correct?

Yes.

Thank you. I ask senators to listen respectfully to the speaker, and in silence. Senator Hanson.

Thank you very much. I think what's happened here is that Senator Wong and the Labor Party have been caught with their pants down. They've been usurped by this motion of the Liberal Party, which is bringing it to the attention of the Senate. We've had an attack on Iran, and to say that it's about the people over there—this is a country that for 47 years has been under the attack of a radical Islamic dictatorship, where people were controlled. Again, I'll go back to the Greens worrying about the women and the children murdered. I never heard one word out of them when the attack on Israel happened, where 1,200 people were murdered, slaughtered and taken as hostages. There was not one word about compassion. Let's just disregard that.

When I turned on my television, I saw the Iranian people, not only in Iran but throughout Australia, flying the flag of jubilation and dancing in the streets, happy. That tells you how they feel about this attack. They're not the ones who are objecting to this. They know there has to be hurt and pain if they want to get out of 47 years of control. Their lives have been controlled. You talk about women. What's happened over there? If you were a woman and you took off your hijab or you didn't cover up, you actually got a flogging, you got fined $15,000 or you got imprisoned, and some lost their lives. That's what they've been fighting for. The protests and the lives lost in this past four to five weeks have been deplorable.

I congratulate Senator Trump and the United States. They have now given the people back their freedom and liberty. I congratulate Netanyahu, who is part of this.

Of course you would!

He has stopped this, giving democracy back to the people of Iran.

The other big factor here is the nuclear weapons. If Iran got nuclear weapons, there would be an outcry by the whole world. There is no way that could be allowed to happen. So I do support this motion. I will not be supporting the Shoebridge amendment at all and what it calls for.

And Trump isn't a senator. You called him Senator Trump. What planet are you on?

I will just say congratulations to the Liberal Party in bringing this forward. I think it's very important. I want the people of Australia to know what is in this motion and why the Labor Party couldn't support it. Why couldn't you support it? You can't tell me that each and every one of you agrees with not supporting this. This is where it's just follow the leader. There's no independent freethinking from the Labor Party whatsoever. You just follow the leader. You've done it time and time again. The Voice was another one. You just follow the leader. Where's your representation of the Australian people? Where's your representation of the Iranian people out there who are joyous about what's happened in their country. You've done nothing. Those Iranian people are standing in your country. It's unbelievable.

What have you ever done for the Iranian women in detention in Australia?

Order! I ask that senators listen to other senators in silence and respectfully. Every senator will have an opportunity to speak.

This is your whole attitude. This is the Greens' attitude, right? The Greens are the most un-Australian people here in this Senate. They are the most un-Australian people, who do not fight for this country, our flag or our patriotism—nothing.

Sit down.

This is what I hear all the time, and that's another one. I'll keep going. So immature you are! You have no idea what's going on. So immature! I wish you would actually start fighting for the Australian people. They're here listening to you. They want some representation here from this parliament.

Senator Hanson, please direct your remarks through the chair.

Anyway, I think I've said everything. Congratulations, Senator Cash.

Before Senator Waters starts, could I ask that other senators listen respectfully to each other's contributions.

This weekend, US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a new illegal bombing campaign against Iran, unilateral bombing in breach of international law—

She just called me a bitch.

Senator Thorpe, do you have a point of order?

I do. I just got called a bitch by the racist.

I remind senators to use respectful language at all times in the chamber, including when they are not speaking. Senator Thorpe, did you have a further point of order?

No, I'm good now, thanks.

Senator Waters, resume.

Thanks very much, Acting Deputy President. This weekend, US President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu launched a new illegal bombing campaign against Iran, unilateral bombing in breach of international law—bombing of schools, which has killed already over 100 schoolgirls. And do you know who the first in the world to support Trump and Netanyahu's illegal attacks was? It was this Labor government. The Australian government's support for Trump and Netanyahu's latest illegal war is a clear breach of international law and the prohibition on wars of aggression.

This war will not bring safety to brave Iranian people who are fighting for liberation from a brutal regime. It is always civilians—women and children—who suffer most in war. What does killing more than 100 schoolchildren or the fresh strikes on a hospital reported this morning have to do with peace? Our hearts ache for those girls and those families. This war will see homes and cities razed to the ground and countless innocent lives lost. The Iranian people deserve to be free from persecution and domination, particularly Iranian girls and women, who've faced decades of oppression and who have bravely fought back as the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. But the Iranian people deserve to be free from persecution and domination both from the current regime and from foreign powers. The US and Israel are not acting out of concern for human rights in Iran. They cannot be trusted to do what's in the best interests of Iran or anyone's human rights anywhere. History shows, and the world knows, that US military attacks and Donald Trump's kidnappings and assassinations do not produce peace and do not produce justice.

While US bombs and missiles rain down on Iran, there is every likelihood that they're being targeted with the direct or indirect assistance of joint US-Australian military facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape. The Greens condemn these illegal, abhorrent and unilateral attacks. Australians do not want to be dragged into yet another US/Israeli war. Australians deserve an independent foreign policy where we are not just Trump's lapdog, giving billions for nuclear submarines that we'll likely never receive—an independent foreign policy, not support for another illegal war. US led foreign wars in the Middle East have never helped the people of the countries that they attacked, and they have always seen devastating bloodshed.

This Labor government has completely discarded its principles. How much has changed since 2003, when then Labor leader Simon Crean declared the Iraq war to be illegal, unnecessary and unjust, or when he told a Brisbane rally against the Iraq war, 'Let's send the strongest message possible today, the message that says no to unilateral attacks by the US', or since 2014 when Bill Shorten told parliament:

More than a decade ago, Simon Crean stood at this dispatch box as Labor leader to support our troops, but oppose a war. History has vindicated his judgement.

Well, I think history will look very poorly on this Labor government and its continued support for Trump and Netanyahu's war mongering. The Labor government must immediately rule out further Australian support for Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war. Labor must confirm to the Australian people that no intelligence from Pine Gap or other US bases in Australia was used in these strikes and it must rule out allowing these bases to be used in this illegal war going forward. It is unacceptable to refuse to answer questions from the media or public about Australia's role, and our fourth estate should press them to give a response.

The Greens have consistently and clearly condemned the Iranian regime's violent response to recent protests and its long history of oppression, and we have strongly backed the Woman Life Freedom movement. We know that the people of Iran who have been victims of the regime will be the same very people right now being killed, injured and driven into further poverty and fear by US bombing. The Greens will always advocate for peace and for upholding international law and we will always oppose war. War is never the answer. You cannot bomb your way to peace.

I find it dangerous and outrageous that both major parties are praising what is a blatant violation of international law. The recent violence committed by the Iranian regime against civilians and protesters must be absolutely condemned. This in no way opens the door for the US and Israel to break international law and pave the way for nations across the world to disregard the international order. This order has come into place for a reason following the Second World War. It is intended to hold nations wanting to gain even bigger power in check and to protect the human rights of everyone across the globe.

This action taken against Iran and the action the US took against the Venezuelan leader have set dangerous precedents and may mean leaders of other nations might follow suit and take what they think should be theirs. Who can guarantee Russia or China will not follow suit? It also sets up the region for what we saw before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, where US intervention caused protracted conflict and civilians died in the thousands.

What this conversation is also completely missing is that, in the course of the strikes on Iran, many innocent lives were lost. A school was hit and over 100 children died, and patients at a major hospital in Tehran had to be evacuated. These are civilians, and time and time again major powers play political games that disregard the most basic human right—the right to life.

The UN has not condemned these attacks for nothing. It is seeking to uphold international law and international human rights. I would like to know, from both the government and the coalition, have you now publicly unsubscribed from our international obligations?

I rise to support the motion moved by Senator Cash because I think it is important that, as a country, we express absolute support for the right thing to be done for a people that have been oppressed in the most vile and evil of ways. While horrible, massive consequences flow from some of the actions that have been taken, they are necessary to protect peace and good order for a people who have had those taken from them for so long. To hear some of the other contributors to this debate talk about the need to condemn that vile regime run by the ayatollahs, but then, in the same breath, suggest that we do nothing about it is not what we, as freedom-loving, tolerant, democratic nations of the West, should do. This sort of activity requires response, not just words uttered in a Senate chamber a long way away. To hear these freedom fighters—as they are, most days of the week—basically say that we should just sit here, wring our hands, have dialogue, hope for the best and hope things work out over there is not what we're used to hearing from this crowd. But that's what they're saying now: 'Let's condemn them, and then let's hope that the rule of law and the rules based order prevails,' which is something that they don't often stand up for. I find it rather incongruous, given all of the contributions they normally make in this place on similar matters.

I had the good fortune last Friday of meeting a representative of the Iranian community, in Hobart, as a matter of fact—a local practising dentist, who'd had the blessing of being able to leave that country as a child, as things were turning into the environment that now is, in Iran, and to go abroad and study and, ultimately, to now be settled in Australia and be raising two children in beautiful Hobart. It was a great opportunity for me to hear exactly what the people who are left behind in Iran have been experiencing for some time.

We talk a lot about the oppression and violence inflicted upon women across the world. But it seems that, when it comes to Iran and what they have been doing to women and other minorities—the LGBTI community, Kurds and other racial and ethnic minorities—it doesn't matter; it's as though we should actually just let this continue on because that's what is right. I just can't understand it.

As was conveyed to me in that meeting, it's hard to find an Iranian who does not want the world to take decisive action to deal with the matters that that community, that country, those innocent people, have been facing. This is not an attack on the Iranian people. There's this language framing it up as a war on Iran and its people. That's not what this is. This is about freeing a people from one of the most vile, evil and oppressive regimes that has existed in modern history. That's what this is about. It's intended to save people from a regime that has inflicted immense suffering for such a long period of time.

At that meeting on Friday I was presented with a list of 82 names of individuals in Iran reportedly facing execution under the regime, some of them as young as 13 years of age. One has to question what on earth a 13-year-old might be doing lined up for execution under a regime of this nature. It's impossible to defend such activity, and I'll be interested to hear if anyone in this place ever thought it was acceptable for a 13-year-old to be lined up for the death penalty.

I had given thought to reading that list of names here, but I was advised—given the way the IRGC operate, in their clandestine ways and ways that are not supportive of freedom and democracy—that it was probably best not to put these names on the record. Certainly, I know they have been published online, and, if anyone should ever wish to review the list, I'd be happy to provide it to them.

But these are not just names, of course. These are lives. They are people. They're children. They're siblings. They're people who are on this list, facing execution, just because they're fighting for something we take for granted every day of the week: the right for women to protest, their right to dress as they wish, their right to practise the religion they want to practise, their right to continue to observe cultural norms that might not line up with what the ayatollahs think is right in their country or legal. This violent crackdown on people who participate in these protests culminating in the worst of circumstances, in the death penalty, is something that we can't just stand by and allow to continue to be perpetuated. We do have to take a stand. That's why what has happened—as awful as it is to observe—is right for this country, because it is a reset for these people who have been so badly treated by an evil regime since 1979.

If we leave these things unattended, if we stand idly by, as those who oppose this motion would suggest, and hope for the best, those people—those 82 names that I have here before me—will face execution. Execution is irreversible. You can't just pretend these things aren't happening. As I said before, these are people who are doing what they believe is right, doing things that in this country would be permitted by law and, in fact, embraced under our tolerant, pluralistic approach to life. Why can't we assist them in doing what is right for them, for their freedoms, for their country?

I join with others in condemning those who've said that these attacks over the weekend to remove from Iran leadership which is just pure evil—I condemn those who have condemned those attacks, because they are misguided to suggest that taking this decisive action is not right, is not what is in the interests of the Iranian people and will not help free them from this oppression. It's time they took a good, long, hard look in the mirror and realised what they are allowing to happen by not supporting motions like this.

This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family:

My name is Janet Shay. I'm an Iranian-Australian.

Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed.

The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment.

This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world.

Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family & the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia.

I'll say that again: she is 'deeply concerned for us here in Australia'. She continues:

In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister.

However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence.

What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children.

On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok.

But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it's in our own country.

See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation.

So I'll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly.

There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim & a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want:

safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims.

The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith.

These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture's measure, they are the True Muslims.

The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people.

The word "Islamophobia" is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam.

A phobia is an irrational fear—

On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge.

The inflammatory language here of 'good Muslims' and 'true Muslims'—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I'd ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.

Or hate speech.

Or, as my colleague says, hate speech.

Senator Shoebridge, I don't quite see it as you do, but I'm going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts.

Janet Shay continues:

The word "Islamophobia" is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam.

A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn't irrational.

Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned.

But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called 'the problem'. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered.

She says:

Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation.

Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians.

And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly.

That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves.

It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it's outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside.

The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn't listen.

Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did.

Long live a free Australia.

Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate.

I rise to add my support to Senator Cash's motion. It will be a very important statement, if it is agreed to by this chamber, of solidarity and support with our allies and friends for the difficult but necessary military action that they decided to take over the weekend. We agree with much of the contribution that Senator Wong, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, made earlier in the debate. Much of what she says has bipartisan support. Like the government, we agree with the action that the United States and Israel have taken over the weekend. We agree that it's in Australia's national interest that the nuclear program of Iran be further degraded. We agree that it is in Australia's national interest that the ballistic missile program of Iran is further degraded. We agree with the government that no-one would mourn the Ayatollah Khamenei. In fact, we go further and say that it is a good thing that Ayatollah Khamenei is no longer in power and that many of his henchmen have been removed from office by the actions taken by Israel and the United States.

We say that not only because this is a regime that has menaced the Iranian people most terribly for almost 50 years—and, in recent months, has slaughtered an estimated tens of thousands of innocent civilian Iranians for the crime of protesting—but because Iran is the world's largest state sponsor of terror and has terrorised people across the Middle East and the world and because Iran has targeted us here at home in Australia, according to our own intelligence agencies, who have assessed that at least two of the attacks on the Australian Jewish community over the last two years were sponsored by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Iranian regime and that maybe many others were also ultimately guided, inspired and supported by Iran. For those reasons, we support what the government has said and what the government has done over the last 48 hours in relation to this issue.

However, one thing which I must disagree with the Foreign minister on is the government's failure to initiate their own motion in the Senate chamber this morning. It is utterly routine that, when there are major events in the world about which Australia has a view and an interest and in which Australian values are at stake, the government comes prepared at the beginning of a sitting week to make a statement on behalf of the parliament and the Australian people. The Foreign minister was unprepared to do so. Only she can explain exactly why the government was unprepared to do so, but I personally found the excuses in the Foreign minister's remarks this morning to be utterly unpersuasive.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Foreign minister and the government were indeed very busy over the weekend. There are important questions for the Australian government to decide, like facilitating the repatriation of Australian citizens in the Middle East, particularly in the gulf states, where they have been indiscriminately targeted by Iran lashing out. We know of course that the National Security Committee of cabinet was meeting yesterday. We know about that because it was being broadcast virtually live on Insiders. Presumably, this is the end of the government's position that it can't comment on the timing of National Security Committee of cabinet meetings.

However, we know that wasn't the only thing that the Foreign minister was doing yesterday. The reason why we know it's not the only thing the Foreign minister was doing yesterday is that it was reported, helpfully, by Paul Sakkal in the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age in an article entitled 'Taylor opens door to One Nation deal—but Wong will test him on Hanson first'. Mr Sakkal writes:

Foreign Minister Penny Wong will pressure Angus Taylor's Liberal Party to take a stand against Pauline Hanson's controversial remarks about Muslims, as the opposition leader opens the door to a preference deal with One Nation in an upcoming byelection.

The article goes on to quote the Foreign minister, and it says:

"Australians expect their elected representatives to set the standard for our country and show basic respect for all Australians," Wong told this masthead on Sunday ahead of a debate on the Senate motion on Monday.

The Foreign minister, apparently in the midst of coordinating repatriation operations and coordinating with regional allies, took the time out from her day to speak to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age about a motion to condemn a Sky News interview by a senator two weeks ago. That was the priority that the Foreign minister had on Sunday. The article goes on and says:

The Labor motion will affirm that Australia has "been built by the hard work, sacrifice and aspiration of people of every race and faith", call on senators to avoid divisive commentary, and censure Hanson for "comments seeking to vilify Muslim Australians".

Just in case there was any doubt about the motivation of the government in putting forward this motion and about whether it is sincerely motivated in addressing the conduct of Senator Hanson, which many of my colleagues have condemned—I put on the record today my endorsement of that condemnation, and I particularly want to call out the principled stance by Senator Matt Canavan. It's not fair, as Senator Hanson did, to say that there are no good Muslims in Australia. There are many good Muslims in Australia, including those that serve our country in uniform honourably and patriotically.

But, if we're still in any doubt about what the government's true motivation was in moving this motion, it has been revealed, courtesy of a quote from Senator Whiteaker, a first-term Labor senator from Western Australia, who the article says 'made clear Labor's intent to wedge the opposition and test its willingness to publicly rebuke One Nation, which has overtaken the coalition or drawn level in many polls'. She said:

We know the Liberals are racing to outflank Pauline Hanson on the far right but how low will they go?

I think it's very clear what the government's priority is today. They intend to move a motion as a political wedge to try and divide the coalition. That is what they are focused on That's what their priority was yesterday—devising a wedge motion.

Our priority is to come in here today to talk about a grave matter of international concern. Senator Ayres, who I know is speaking next, was interjecting across the chamber earlier, accusing the coalition of being engaged in student politics. There is nothing more student politics than devising wedge motions when we've got a major international crisis and devoting the time of your Foreign minister to this instead of focusing on grave matters of international security and the fate of Australian citizens stuck in the Middle East, in the gulf, wanting to know how they're going to come home and who is going to help them get here when commercial flights are not flying. Yet the government is focused on wedge motions about One Nation and a Sky News interview from two weeks ago. It will reflect on the government that that was their priority today. It will reflect on the government and the Foreign minister that they weren't ready today with a motion.

It could have been a moment of bipartisan support because, on the substantive issues, the disagreement between the government and the opposition is actually not great on this issue. It could have been a moment of affirmation. It could have been an opportunity to send a message internationally about where we stand and, critically, to express our solidarity and support with the Iranian diaspora in Australia. If you're in any doubt about where we should stand on this issue, just look at the joyous scenes of relief from Iranian Australians seen on our televisions last night and seen in our streets and in our communities. They are very clear that the end of this regime, if that does indeed come as a result of this military action, would be a very welcome thing. We have the opportunity, by supporting Senator Cash's motion today, to show where the Senate stands with the Australian people, the Iranian diaspora and, of course, our Jewish community, who have been viciously targeted by this regime. I call on the Senate to support the motion.

I have to say, as somebody who is not afraid of partisan conflict from time to time—I engage in it happily myself—that I really despair at what has happened this morning. I genuinely despair at what has happened this morning. I saw a series of exchanges which were, given the personalities involved and given the accelerationist approach that is taken by the Greens political party and One Nation in this place around politics and conflict, inevitable. Once again, the Liberal Party, which used to be an alternative party of government, fell for that with the approach that they have taken in here this morning.

My complaint about this—I'll come to the substance of this in a moment—is not just procedural. It goes to the conduct and the motives of people in this place, the way that they conduct themselves outside of this place and the very real impact that has for political debate here in Australia. What we should be doing right now is dealing with the Closing the Gap statement that should have been made by the minister in this place when we commenced. But the interests and rights and progress and lack of progress in some areas, in terms of Aboriginal people, are pushed aside again—pushed aside again by the Greens political party, pushed aside again by the Liberal Party and pushed aside by One Nation and the National Party—in the interests of a divisive, nasty effort to elevate conflict in this place.

It could have been done completely differently. There is an alternative approach for people who are serious about the national interest. That would have been the traditional approach here. When there is a war on, when there is conflict overseas, when Australia's interests are engaged in these questions, there should have been an alternative way. The Closing the Gap statement and debate should have been at the same time, and it should be held for the same amount of time. There should have been engagement between the party that claims to be an alternative party of government and the government about the terms of a debate, when it was going to be held, whether agreement could be secured, and, in the absence of agreement, what the disagreement was about and how that would be dealt with by the Senate. That is how responsible parties of government engage over these questions, and that allows people to have their alternative views—absolutely. But what the Senate chose to do here utterly flies in the face of the national interest. The conduct of Senator Roberts in here before shows exactly why the alternative approach—that is, doing things in a decent way, doing them the Australian way—should have been taken rather than this deliberately undergraduate, deliberately hyperpartisan and deliberately conflict based approach that has been taken.

The Liberal Party made a choice today, and it's the same choice that they have made over and over again since they lost government in 2022. There is no issue that goes to our social cohesion, no issue that goes to conflict and no issue that goes to war and national security that the Liberal Party leadership has not been prepared to advance a highly partisan position on. That has had its consequences. Australians are walking away from them. With complete disregard to that, the Liberals have adopted a position here to do it again over this issue, which, no doubt, will have the same result. Contrary to what Senator Paterson just said, there aren't people in the Knesset, in Port Moresby, in Washington or anywhere else waiting to see what the resolution of the Australian Senate is. It matters here in the way that people conduct themselves.

The Liberal Party of Australia have chosen Mr Taylor as their leader, so we can expect not just more of the same but more of more of the same—more extremism. I know Senator Paterson is anxious to avoid discussions about the perilous position that they have not just found themselves in but made for themselves—whether or not they will continue to aid and abet the progress of the party that seeks to destroy them and replace the centre-right in Australian politics. We heard what Senator Roberts said. I'm old enough, now, to remember people saying very much the same thing about Australian Catholics. I remember the division and hurt that caused and the schisms in country towns all over Australia because of precisely that attitude in saying that all people of a particular faith have particular characteristics. It's an abomination to say that. It is un-Australian to say that. It runs contrary to all of our values that should be shared around this place.

But, in the context of a war—let's call it what it is, a war—Senator Roberts, Senator Cash, Senator McKenzie and the Greens political party see this as an opportunity to create more conflict in here and propagate that conflict outside. There's plenty of room for agreement, discussion and the development of an approach to this that would have met the objectives of what the Senate order was going to be today—questions around Aboriginal health, incarceration, the criminal justice system, education, land rights and all of those questions. Wouldn't a good outcome for Australians have been a sober, orderly, decent debate where we acknowledge our differences? Instead, what we've seen is more sloganeering from the Greens political party, more extremism from the Liberal Party and the national interest—and, don't forget, the interests of Aboriginal Australians—just being pushed aside.

The outcome of this conflict is uncertain. It is true that there are Iranians in the streets. That is true. It is true that there may be progress. There may be, but the outcome is uncertain. Those people, in real danger and in real struggle, are utterly let down by the conduct of senators who've decided to vote for this debate to happen in the way and manner that it is.

I saw the exchange here, and I saw people leaving the gallery—people with kids, just disgusted with this: the Greens, Senator Thorpe, Senator Roberts, the Liberal Party and National Party conflict behaviours—utterly ashamed of the way people have conducted themselves in this place. We ought to do the right thing in this place, not engage in hyperpartisanship. And we'll see the decision the Liberal Party makes, every day of the week, to bring that conflict in here, and we'll see it in Farrer in just a few weeks, or a few months, whenever that by-election is called. We'll see whether they continue to aid and abet the rise of a racist, extremist, accelerationist outfit that wants to promote conflict and promote violence and whether they support them and continue to go down the tube as a result. On that, I move that the motion be put.

I'm just waiting—I thought I heard a conversation between government and the opposition?

I understand that Senator Sharma is going to take three minutes, and then we'll—

Thank you, Minister. Senator Sharma.

Thank you, Senator Ayres, and those opposite for the forbearance.

Military action should never be undertaken lightly, and I understand the concerns and reservations people have in this chamber and elsewhere about the military action currently underway. But I believe that in this situation such military action is both necessary and justified. It is not as if diplomacy has not been tried and failed on many occasions. The United States was engaged in direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran as recently as last Thursday. There have been multiple multilateral and unilateral efforts over a decade and more seeking to address concerns about Iran's behaviour, its pursuit of nuclear enrichment and its violation of UN Security Council resolutions. This is a regime that, since taking power in 1979, has done its utmost to foment instability in its neighbours, to export terrorism around the world and to repress its own people and deny them hope.

Just last month we saw the regime kill most likely tens of thousands of protesters who took to the streets demanding their basic freedoms, demanding the right to a livelihood, demanding the ability to live with basic dignity and hope. I don't see how you can, on one hand, condemn this regime for treating these protesters with such disregard for their life but on the other hand condemn the mechanism and means to finally hold the regime to account. You need only see the people coming out onto the streets in Iran, at danger and risk to themselves, to celebrate the military operation that is underway against their country, that is targeting regime targets, targeting military facilities. It's targeting IRG facilities. They are coming out to celebrate this because, for the first time in generations, they have some hope for a better future. We should not be standing in the way of that; we should be supporting it. Does that mean the results of this operation are preordained or clear? No. Does it mean the future is uncertain? Yes. But at least this gives the Iranian people a chance and a hope.

I want to briefly say something about the consular response. Many Australians now are concerned, distressed, troubled because they're unable to get access to flights to leave the Middle East. I know DFAT is working hard. I know consular officials in the region are working hard. But I think the government should have done a better job in preparing the public for this. The risks of this conflict have been all too foreseeable over the past few weeks. Last week the Prime Minister was given an opportunity to air those risks to the public. He spent the whole week talking instead about the potential of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to succeed the throne. That was a misplaced priority. (Time expired)

Senator Faruqi, three minutes.

Over the weekend we saw the start of another illegal, dangerous and senseless imperial war, launched by the same forces who have ruthlessly massacred Palestinians for more than two years now. It is beyond shameful that our supposed leaders, Prime Minister Albanese and Foreign Minister Wong, not only have failed to condemn this illegal aggression from Israel and the US but were among the first to enthusiastically back this bombing. You are all imperial warmongers. The foreign minister refuses to comment on the legality of the US and Israel's actions because she knows the answer: these actions are illegal, plain and simple. You don't get to pick and choose if Russia's brutal attack on Ukraine was illegal; so are the United States's attacks on Iran, as are their attacks on the myriad other countries they have attacked over the last few months.

Those who support this war will claim that they are in support of the Iranian people and their liberation from a brutal dictatorship. But do you seriously want us to believe that the US cares about the human rights of anyone after what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan? The very people that claim to be liberating the people of Iran are the same exact people that have cheered on a genocide in Gaza. These very people who claim to support women's rights have nothing to say about the tens of thousands of women and children murdered by Israel in Gaza, let alone those murdered by US-Israeli bombs in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Qatar. They also have nothing to say about the girls' elementary school that was targeted in Iran just yesterday, with the death toll currently over 150 and continuing to climb. The Greens have been consistent in our condemnation of the Iranian regime, the IRGC, and their violent oppression of Iranian people. But no-one has bombed their way to peace.

We are at a critical juncture in history. The rules based order has been blown to smithereens by the West's complicity in Israel's genocide on Gaza. But we must continue to seek justice, to seek liberation from oppression and to seek an end to state violence and to do so through diplomatic means. When we abandon diplomacy—when we ignore international law, when we say that one set of rules applies for some and not others—we can guarantee a path to death and destruction.

The question before the chair is that the amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge to Senator Wong's amendment be agreed to.

The question is that Senator Wong's amendment be agreed to.

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

I'm wondering if you could put subsection (a) separately, as we will be voting differently on the rest of the motion?

The question is that part (a) of Senator Cash's motion be agreed to.

The question is that paragraphs (b) through to (g) of the motion as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That, following the presentation of the Closing the Gap statement and related documents, any motion to take note of the documents may be considered as government business for not more than two hours.

Question agreed to.

I table the annual report on Closing the Gap together with accompanying ministerial statements and documents. I move:

That the Senate take note of the documents.

I stand today to affirm the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Representatives on 12 February, where he made it clear that we must continue the work of Closing the Gap with honesty, courage and partnership. Everywhere I go, I see the strength of First Nations people. It's in the way communities come together to celebrate culture, protect country and create opportunities for the next generation. I see communities standing strong in moments that challenge us, like after the shocking alleged terror attack in Boorloo, Perth. Our people show up for each other and stand together with resilience, love and unity.

I make particular mention of my colleagues Senator Dorinda Cox and you, President, and also Patrick Gorman MP for being very present with the Noongar families in Perth. As the Prime Minister said, the danger of that alleged attack was real and so were the racism and hatred behind it, motivated by a white supremacy ideology. Violent racism and hatred are faced far too often by First Nations Australians. We must continue to raise our voices against all forms of racism and hate.

As a government, our task is to ensure no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. That means confronting the challenges while also recognising the strength, innovation and leadership in communities. This year's Commonwealth Closing the Gap annual report and implementation plan reflects progress. It reflects the lived experiences and aspirations of our families, elders and communities. It reflects our shared commitment to lasting change. We are determined to keep building on what is working. I want to acknowledge the Special Envoy for Remote Communities, Marion Scrymgour, who walks alongside me as we deliver for First Nations people. I also want to acknowledge my First Nations caucus colleagues—Senator Jana Stewart in particular—for their support and commitment to improving the lives of First Nations people.

One year ago, I committed to focusing on what communities tell me matters most: improving health outcomes, reducing overcrowding, improving food security, keeping First Nations women and children safe and, crucially, supporting economic empowerment and employment. Employment and economic empowerment are central to self-determination. That's why my focus has been steadfast on jobs, jobs, jobs. Having a job is a critical foundation, creating pathways that support dignity, security and generational change. That's why we are doubling our successful Remote Jobs and Economic Development program, RJED, from 3,000 jobs to 6,000 new jobs. This is about the dignity of work with proper pay and conditions for people like Marcus, who I met at Wanilla Forrest in Port Lincoln who weeks ago, who said, 'It means a lot for community for us to be out there and doing the things we do,' and Alex, who I also met in Port Lincoln, who told me his family is so stoked to see him working.

I know it sounds really simple, but sometimes we just have to go back to the simplicity of decency in people's lives, to feel good about what they are doing so they wake up each morning proud of getting to work—people who travel an hour and a half to get to their jobs and then travel back home in the Port Lincoln area. This is the real-life impact of our work as politicians. It strengthens individuals and families, lifts local economies and creates long-term pathways.

I'm so proud of our Indigenous Rangers Program, which we continue to expand. We are on track to meet our commitment to double the number of rangers across Australia from 1,900 to 3,800 by 2030. These are crucial roles that protect and care for land and sea country, like the work being done on the Great Barrier Reef by Gavin Singleton and the Yirrganydji Land and Sea Rangers, where I know Senator Green is very much involved. They operate between Cairns and Port Douglas. They're carrying out restoration work on the reef and looking at different ways to save coral. We also have our junior rangers program, which we've expanded to more than 60 new locations right around Australia so students like Chayse-John Shepherd from the South Coast of New South Wales can learn about caring for country and connect with and stand tall in culture. It's these stories that I get the privilege of hearing firsthand.

As the Prime Minister said, our approach to Closing the Gap is driven by economic empowerment. Later this year the new First Nations economic partnership will deliver an economic policy to drive economic empowerment right across Australia. We know Australians are doing it tough, especially in remote communities, where essential goods cost much more than in cities. A hundred and thirteen stores have already signed up to our low-cost essential subsidy scheme on 30 essential items. That's 113 stores in four jurisdictions—Queensland, Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. And now it's going to be available to all 225 remote stores right around Australia, providing more cost-of-living relief to families in our remote regions. A few weeks ago I visited the Outback Stores Adelaide warehouse, when the 4,000th pallet of goods was dispatched to remote communities in the APY Lands and Northern Territory. The demand from communities has been enormous, and now we can meet more of it. We're expanding the Store Efficiency and Resilience Package to 75 additional remote stores to support upgrades that will help keep stock fresh during the wet season and extreme weather events, which we're actually seeing right now across Northern Australia. And we're getting feed back from those stores on that resilience package. They now feel far better prepared because they are stocked up as a result of the resilience package we provided over the last few years. We've seen how important it is during the recent floods in Central Australia. Communities have been better prepared to cope with being out of any goods thanks to our investments. In places like Lajamanu, for example, they've been able to install more dry and cold storage so that it can hold an additional 13 weeks of stock to get through the wet season. Our funding has gone to really simple and effective policies to assist our communities.

Across the country we've expanded access to culturally safe health care, increased the number of First Nations specialists in training and upgraded essential healthcare infrastructure so services are fit for purpose and comparable to those in urban areas. We will continue our investment in 10 birthing-on-country units across Australia, led by First Nations women, to deliver culturally safe care that keeps our mothers and babies strong. Programs like Birthing in Our Community in Brisbane and Waminda's Birthing On Country in Nowra are reducing preterm births and improving antenatal visits and breastfeeding rates. We know that our health is more than physical; it includes strong minds and spirits. Where support is needed, it must be immediate and culturally safe. That's why we're investing $13.9 million in 13YARN, to ensure more First Nations people can access community led help when they need it.

The Albanese government understands the importance of having a roof over your head and access to safe and affordable housing. We know that homeownership remains a challenge for many people. The Indigenous Business Australia homeownership program saw 583 concessional home loans approved, supporting more First Nations families, particularly single-income households, to achieve homeownership and financial independence. In many parts of Australia it's not just about financing a home; too few homes are available, which can often mean severe overcrowding. That's why, between 1 July 2024 and 30 November 2025, we built 300 houses in 34 remote Northern Territory communities and two Alice Springs town camps. This was part of our historic agreement with the NT government, all four land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT. Over the next 12 months, we will continue to support First Nations people to secure appropriate housing. Round 3 of the Housing Australia Future Fund will include dedicated funding to support more than 21,000 new social and affordable homes, with a First Nations tenancy target of 10 per cent and delivered through the First Nations community controlled sector.

On 10 February, I was proud to stand beside the Minister for Social Services to launch 'Our Way—Strong Ways—Our Voices'—

Senator Wong?

Can I just ask if we could seek leave for another minute for the minister, and I'll endeavour to make sure my remarks are perhaps a little short of the 10 minutes.

Leave is granted for one minute.

delivering on our commitment for a standalone plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children. To support the plan, the Albanese government has made an immediate investment of $218.3 million to implement 'Our Ways' with First Nations organisations at the centre.

I refer this statement to the Senate and I also urge senators to have a look at the Prime Minister's in-depth statement to the House on behalf of our government and, indeed, on behalf of the Parliament of Australia. I certainly reach out to state and territory Indigenous affairs ministers to also provide their updates. This does require a combined approach of all states and territories and the Commonwealth, along with our opposition shadow ministers. We have all signed up to this deal—the Australian parliament has—and I acknowledge the work we've done but also that there is still much more to do.

Sadly, the Closing the gap report has once again become an annual reminder of what this government is not doing and what it has not done for Indigenous Australians. This year's report is no different. In fact, the Productivity Commission's data shows that only four of the 19 targets in the national agreement are actually to be met. I say that again—four. That is not progress, despite the speech we just heard. Quite frankly, it is a disgraceful national failing, and, disturbingly—despite the speech, again—it is actually worse than last year, when at least five targets were on track.

Let that sink in, everybody. The Albanese government have gone backwards when it comes to closing the gap. After four years of this government, after billions of dollars in spending and after an enormous and divisive national debate about a voice to parliament, we now have—this is the reality for Australians—fewer Closing the Gap targets on track than when Labor came to power. I certainly wouldn't sit here and ask for congratulations if I were the minister. The number of children being removed from their families and placed in out-of-home care is getting worse under the Albanese government. Suicide rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are getting worse under the Albanese government. The proportion of Indigenous children who are developmentally on track is getting worse under the Albanese government. That is the Albanese government's record when it comes to Closing the Gap.

In fact, if I cast my mind back to October 2023, Australians gave the Albanese government a very, very clear message about the way they wanted these issues approached. They said no to the Voice referendum by an absolute majority. In the wake of that result, what has this government done? Quite frankly, they have pretended that it all never happened. Instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting on with the work of closing the gap in health, in housing, in education, in employment and in safety, the Albanese government consumed the better part of its first term and enormous political capital and public goodwill on a referendum that Australians ultimately resoundingly rejected. Then what did it do? As I said in the beginning of my speech, we have gone backwards. Last year, it was five targets; this year, it is four targets. That is an appalling record. They have left behind Indigenous Australians. That is the leadership, sadly, that we have come to expect from the Albanese government: give a great speech, don't go anywhere near the failures and pretend it is all alright. Well, it's not alright, and the Closing the Gap annual statement clearly shows that.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, my colleague and someone who, as we all know, has dedicated her public life to the genuine wellbeing of Indigenous Australians, has said for many years that these issues should be approached not solely on the basis of race but on the basis of need, and Senator Nampijinpa Price is right. The Australian people agreed with Senator Nampijinpa Price in 2023, and the data in the latest Productivity Commission report again proves Senator Nampijinpa Price right today. Senator Nampijinpa Price, with the full backing of the coalition, has persistently and courageously called for a complete and independent audit of government spending on Indigenous Australians and the programs that are supposedly supporting them.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator McCarthy was heard in silence. I will ask that Senator Cash is also heard in silence.

As I said, Senator Nampijinpa Price has consistently and rightly called for an audit of the programs that are supposedly supporting—we know they're not; the statistics show that—Indigenous Australians. Without such an audit, it is impossible to know what is working, what is failing and where the money is being wasted. Without it, we will keep funding the same old programs year after year, watching the same statistics plateau or worsen and delivering the same regretful speeches to this chamber. What programs deliver results? Which programs are absorbing funding without producing outcomes? Where is the money going? I would have thought, Senator Nampijinpa Price, that these are not unreasonable questions for all Australians to be asking. These are certainly the questions that Australians deserve to have answered. Yet the Albanese government has refused to support, time and time again, such an audit, preferring to announce new initiatives and tout new funding rather than holding itself accountable for what has come before and the abject failure it has been when it comes to changing the lives of Indigenous Australians for the better.

The Northern Territory data in the report is particularly alarming. Of the 15 targets with sufficient data in the Territory, only seven are improving. The Northern Territory, where some of Australia's most disadvantaged communities live, where the gap is the widest and the need is the greatest, is the jurisdiction where the Albanese government has failed most comprehensively. We know that, since the removal of the cashless debit card, conditions in many of these communities have deteriorated markedly. Violence, crime and child neglect, all directly linked to the scourge of alcohol and drugs, are flooding back into communities that had gained some measure of needed protection. The coalition has consistently called for the reinstatement of the cashless debit card. These are not punitive measures; they are protective ones. They give children in these communities the chance to receive the care and the support that every Australian child deserves. Rates of domestic violence and child sexual abuse, in too many communities, remain catastrophically high. The coalition has called for a royal commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities. The evidence for such a royal commission is overwhelming, and the government's refusal—in particular, based on the damning statistics that I have read out—to actually support it is, quite frankly, inexcusable.

We have also called for the Native Title Act and the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to be used to unlock economic development in Indigenous communities. This is an opportunity to unlock multigenerational wealth through mining, pastoral activity and other land uses that drive prosperity.

The coalition has consistently called for a focus on attendance and completion at school. The government will say, 'Well, hey, hold on, the attendance rates are there, because there's an enrolment figure,' but, as Senator Kerrynne Liddle has pointed out time and time again, the mere fact that someone is enrolled does not mean that they attend or, worse, that they actually complete school. Completing school is one of the best ways to improve outcomes for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The failures documented in the Closing the gap report are not simply failures of intent. Ministers and governments across the political spectrum have genuinely wanted to make progress on these issues, but good intentions do not feed a child, they do not house a family and they do not keep a young person out of detention. Outcomes do that. Results do that, and on this the Albanese government has yet again failed miserably. The Albanese government must answer for a fundamental truth: it spent its political energy, its public platform and its moral authority on a referendum that divided this country and ultimately failed, and, after it did so, four of 19 Closing the Gap targets continue to worsen.

All Australians want better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. All of us want to see the gap in life expectancy closed. We all want children born healthy and given every chance to thrive. We all want communities that are safe, where parents can raise their children free from violence, addiction and despair. But Australians also know, instinctively and correctly, that we cannot keep spending billions of dollars on the same approaches expecting different results, and that is why an independent audit matters, that is why the reinstatement of income management tools matters and that is why a royal commission into child sexual abuse in Indigenous communities matters. We need new thinking, genuine accountability and a laser focus on what works. We need to listen not just to peak bodies and institutional voices in Canberra but to the communities themselves—the parents, grandmothers and community leaders who live these realities each and every day.

We'll come back to this chamber next year. We'll receive another report. The question we must all answer—but, in particular, the Albanese government, which is failing Indigenous Australians—is whether they, and all of us collectively, have done more to deliver, yet again, another regretful speech. The coalition is committed to finding a better way. We believe in closing the gap. We believe that means action, accountability and honesty, not symbolism, not spin and not another four years of the status quo. We owe all Australians and, in particular, the most disadvantaged Indigenous Australians far better than this.

I'd like to start by acknowledging that this is Ngunnawal and Ngambri country. It always was and always will be. I honour their elders past and present and their future leaders.

I rise to speak on the ministerial statement on Closing the Gap, but, before I turn to that report, I want to acknowledge the hurt being felt across First Nations communities affected by the attempted bombing of the Invasion Day rally in Boorloo/Perth and the ongoing escalation of racist violence and hate speech towards First Nations people. The delay in recognising and reporting the Boorloo attack as a terror incident is indicative of the ongoing failure of governments at all levels to take violence against First Nations people seriously. How can we hope to close the gap while such obvious racism persists across our nation? The Human Rights Commission's National Anti-Racism Framework is gathering dust across government desks. The Prime Minister should show leadership and fund its full implementation as a matter of urgency.

This year, just like last year, the Closing the gap report shows only four of 19 targets are on track. The gap is not, in fact, closing. The 2026 report is sobering reading, but, sadly it's not surprising reading. What should be shocking has become routine. That cannot continue. Labor must show more ambition and courage if they're going to get serious about closing the gap and getting real outcomes on First Nations health, housing, education, culture, safety and justice. Every day that passes without meaningful structural change is a conscious decision by this government not to improve the lives of First Nations people.

The Productivity Commission's review of the Closing the Gap agreement found that all governments are falling well short of their commitments. They have collectively failed to understand the nature and the scale of action needed to close the gap. Collective failures are why First Nations people are twice as likely to go without adequate housing. Housing is a crisis across Australia, but it's one that's felt even more acutely by First Nations communities. One in eight Indigenous households are in housing stress, facing unaffordable rents, severe overcrowding and unsafe housing. Collective failures are why more First Nations people are incarcerated and dying by suicide than in the last report. In New South Wales alone, 2025 had the highest recorded number of deaths in custody in 40 years, and yet the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody are still not implemented.

The Commonwealth government should be using every lever available to it to end this disproportionate incarceration and the preventable deaths of First Nations people. It should intervene on issues like raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility and end the overpolicing and draconian laws that put First Nations kids behind bars at alarming rates. In the other place, the Closing the Gap statement was made on the 18th anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. For First Peoples, that anniversary is a time for remembrance of the trauma they endured and the power of survival. For this parliament, that anniversary should be a time of reflection on that legacy of injustice and how we must all do better.

Yet collective failures mean more First Nations kids are in out-of-home care now than when the Closing the Gap agreement was signed. That number is even higher if you include children on permanent care orders outside of their families. One in seven Aboriginal children will have an out-of-home care placement by the time they are 13. This is unacceptable. The injustice is not just in the disproportionate numbers of children in out-of-home care but in how those kids are treated. Too many are exploited or neglected in care—or abused. Too few have comprehensive exit plans that set them up for success beyond care. We need to invest in community led services and kinship care, support for families to stay together and recovery for children leaving care.

Domestic, family and sexual violence against First Nations women and children remain shockingly high. First Nations women are still more likely to be killed by a current or former partner, more likely to be hospitalised by that violence and less likely to be able to access support to leave violent relationships and are too often ignored or blamed when they report violence. 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', which is the standalone, community led plan to end violence, is an important step. It recognises that community led, culturally safe solutions are the most effective, but it should not have taken so long for the government to listen to First Nations women in the first place. Advocates have been calling for a standalone plan for years. Now the government must ensure that Aboriginal community controlled organisations have the funding needed to make that plan work.

Two of the only Closing the Gap targets that are on track relate to land and sea management, and yet we are still a long way from actually recognising First Nations communities' rights to manage their country. After Rio Tinto shamefully blew up 46,000-year-old caves at Juukan Gorge, this parliament set out on a pathway to do better in the Away forward report. It called for comprehensive new national cultural heritage laws co-designed with First Nations people. Despite this clear pathway, Australia has yet to ratify the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, new cultural heritage laws are yet to be delivered and new environmental laws were reformed without clear standards for engaging with First Nations communities.

Australia is unceded Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land, and traditional owners must be able to decide what happens on country. They must be able to withhold consent to the destruction of their cultural heritage and to determine how their land is managed. If this government is truly committed to managing land, sea and cultural heritage in partnership with First Nations people, it must fully implement the Juukan Gorge recommendations and ensure that new cultural heritage laws and consultation standards are consistent with the principles of self-determination and with free, prior and informed consent.

Closing the Gap is an important commitment to addressing inequality, but it is ultimately a deficit model that fails to address the underlying history of dispossession and the systemic discrimination that goes to the heart of why there is a gap. If we have any hope of closing the gap by 2031, we need to get real about the impacts of systemic racism, intergenerational trauma and chronic underinvestment in Aboriginal led responses. Truth-telling and treaties with First Nations people offer a path to do that.

First Nations people deserve much bolder action on truth and treaty from this government, and yet the government has walked back its early commitment to truth-telling and it's stripped funding from the makarrata commission. The Yoorrook Justice Commission's truth-telling work established a treaty pathway in Victoria, and that provides a model that the Commonwealth could follow. The Walk for Truth campaign will conclude in Canberra in May, and I urge the government to be ready to take action by then.

Closing the gap is about accountability, but no-one's being held accountable for this ongoing failure. This year's report shows once again that not enough is being done. First Nations communities are still not being prioritised, and this government needs to take responsibility for turning that around. Communities have the solutions. Labor needs to show the political will to listen to First Nations people; implement structural reform towards truth, treaty and justice; and make real and lasting progress to actually close the gap.

I also start by acknowledging the traditional owners of this land; pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging; and pay tribute to First Nations colleagues in this chamber and across the parliament. I particularly want to pay tribute to Labor's First Nations caucus: Senator McCarthy, who provides such strong leadership as minister; Senator Stewart; Senator Cox; Special Envoy Scrymgour; the member for Robertson, Dr Reid, and the member for Leichhardt. This caucus is central to our government's work to continue to deliver for all Australians.

At the outset I want to address the alleged terrorist attack targeting First Nations Australians in Perth. I know First Nations people around Australia are grappling with disbelief, anger and fear, and I repeat what the Prime Minister said, which is that, as a government, as a nation, we see you and we stand with you. There is no place for racism or hatred in our nation. You see, the alleged terrorist might have thought he was perpetrating an attack only on Indigenous Australians, but it was an attack on all Australians, because we have a right to live in peace, to gather in peace and to express our views without fear of violence.

The release of the Commonwealth's Closing the gap report each year is an important milestone. It reminds us of what we strive for in this place: a more inclusive Australia, a more equal Australia and a stronger Australia—one that is united in the task of eradicating the intolerable disadvantage that First Nations Australians continue to face. This year, it's 18 years since Prime Minister Rudd delivered the national apology and committed to closing the gap. It was a day I was proud to be in the parliament for and it's a day of which all Australians can be proud. It was such an important step on our long walk towards reconciliation, a humble acknowledgement of past wrongs and a commitment to a future where Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples share in the same opportunities and outcomes as all Australians—as the former prime minister Kevin Rudd said, to embrace a new partnership between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. And the core of that partnership is closing the gap. It is closing the gap in life expectancy, educational achievement and employment opportunities between Indigenous and non-indigenous Australians.

In Minister McCarthy's excellent contribution today, she outlined the government's work to deliver on our Closing the Gap commitments and the fact that we are doing so by working in partnership with First Nations Australians, represented by the coalition of peaks, to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around Australia. Our focus last year as a government was delivering economic progress for First Nations communities—in jobs, training, cost-of-living pressures, increasing food security in remote communities and improving housing, health and education outcomes.

In 2026, the government's priority is to build on what is working by investing in key areas that drive better outcomes in health, education, training and economic empowerment and by investing in those areas where progress has stalled or is going backwards, where the challenges are complex and born of generations failed and policies that, while sometimes well meaning, have too often entrenched disadvantage. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians are 2½ times more likely to die by suicide than non-indigenous Australians. The government is acting, including, most urgently, by delivering a boost to 13YARN, a crisis counselling service designed, led and delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

Whilst we are resolutely focused on the challenges we have to meet to close the gap we should recognise the hard-won progress that has been made, and acknowledge and thank the generations of First Nations leaders whose tireless work has helped deliver this. We have four targets on track and six improving. That is progress that speaks to the aspirations of Indigenous Australians for a better life for future generations. Since we came to government about 1,500 jobs have been created across the country as part of the successful Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, and now that is being doubled. Since July 2022, more than 850 new houses have been built in remote communities, helping to address overcrowding. We're expanding the cost-of-living support to remote communities through the low-cost central subsidy scheme, and Minister McCarthy spoke about the additional access in remote stores. We are also reforming the health and hospital system to better meet the needs of First Nations people as part of the historic hospital funding agreement reached between the Commonwealth, states and territories, and we are delivering the first stand-alone plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children.

First Nations people have always made important contributions to Australian society, and that includes their contribution to our place in the world. As foreign minister, I have sought to elevate First Nations international engagement and to ensure that Indigenous Australians are included in advancing our interests in the world. As the Prime Minister has said, First Nations people were this land's first diplomats and traders. They built enduring economic and cultural ties across our region and those ties across the region are an asset as we continue to build trust and Australia's reputation. This is why I appointed Justin Mohamed as Australia's first Ambassador for First Nations People. Utilising First Nations Australians' unique cultural ties with Pacific Island nations creates opportunities to grow our relationships in ways other competitors are simply not able to replicate.

On 8 February 2024, Prime Minister James Marape said to our parliament:

Ours is a relationship that has shared ethnicity, that is built on shared ethnicity between the Torres Strait Islanders and my people up north from you, between the Indigenous Australian people and the Melanesian people, who have lived in this space of planet Earth for more than thousands of years.

That is why the work of the First Nations ambassador is so important in the Pacific. It is a region where traditional leadership structures play an important role in shaping public opinion and government policies. There has been engagement by Ambassador Mohammed with leaders in Papua New Guinea, Hawaii, New Zealand, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Tuvalu and the Republic of Marshall Islands. This is about strengthening our connection with the region.

The commitment to closing the gap is shared across the government. The Prime Minister said in his speech last month that the Closing the Gap targets are a measure of our national progress. Every time we open our minds to the wisdom and strength of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, every time we break down barriers of racism or of disadvantage, every time we broaden the circle of Australian opportunity and deepen the meaning of the fair go, we are all stronger for it. Our nation is better and more united for it. Let us renew our commitment to First Nations Australians. Let us renew our commitment to closing the gap.

We're at the halfway point of the decade-long Closing the Gap agreement, and, as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I stand to express my party's concern about what has sadly become an annual ritual consisting of solemn expressions of dismay and concern about the gap and of cherry-picking and self-congratulations on minor wins, yet little progress. This year the Prime Minister described closing the gap as a national test, a generational task and a moral imperative. He talked about listening to communities, investing in codesign and entrusting the coalition of peaks—noble rhetoric from our Prime Minister, a bunch of nice words.

Yet the latest report released by the Productivity Commission makes for another sobering but predictable read. Only four of the 19 targets are on track to be met by the time the agreement ends in 2031. Indeed, based on the date, this Productivity Commission report suggests that we have been marking time, even sliding backwards, even since last year, when five of the 19 primary targets were on track. Closing the Gap has been a bipartisan policy for almost two decades, and, yes, both sides of politics have failed to deliver on it whilst in government.

The bringing in of the Productivity Commission by former coalition minister Ken Wyatt was a welcome move because at least it brought some rigour and accountability to what, in essence, is an aspirational policy. But this year incarceration rates are up, suicide rates are getting worse and even the expectation for healthy baby birth weights has slipped, according to the ABC's Indigenous affairs team. Yes, let's celebrate because we're making progress on Indigenous land and sea rights, and we're getting some more rangers, but I would suggest incarceration rates, suicide rates and birth weights are of much more significant impact to the lived experience of Indigenous Australians.

The Prime Minister used his Closing the Gap speech to warn about the rise of white supremacy in Australia, citing the disturbing incident in Perth at an Indigenous rights protest where a man allegedly threw a homemade improvised bomb device. The Minister for Foreign Affairs referred to this event in her contribution. The man has been charged; the matter is being fully investigated by the security authorities, and that's as it should be. This is our democracy and our institutions doing exactly what they're meant to do. But with respect, Prime Minister, the alleged action of a lone lunatic racist, at a protest about Australia Day, is a long way from the violence and abuse of women and children, widespread substance abuse and premature deaths that are happening in so many Indigenous communities right now.

Indigenous affairs in Australia has long been a battle between two different ideologies—one that says Indigenous citizens are lifted up through a recognition of their rights and one that views Indigenous disadvantage as something that can be fixed with practical approaches of houses, jobs, education, homeownership and economic opportunities. The Australian's Indigenous affairs correspondent, Paige Taylor, recently wrote:

When Australians said no to a constitutionally enshrined Indigenous voice on October 14, 2023, politicians from the left and right understood this as a rejection of the rights-based approach to Indigenous affairs.

According to Ms Taylor, Labor committed to 'practical reconciliation' in which ministers spoke about the importance of closing the gap and avoided conversations about treaty, truth-telling and anything else that could be interpreted as special rights. I absolutely agree with that, but the reality is not enough is being done. Practically nothing is being done. Aboriginal women are experiencing extreme violence in their communities, and that requires intervention.

Labor will spend $218 million on a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander plan to end domestic and sexual violence. That sounds like a lot of money, but it's a 20-year plan. Let me put that in context: that is a third of what's going to be spent on a study into high-speed rail between Sydney and Newcastle in the next two years. They're going to spend a third of what they're spending on the high-speed rail plan to end domestic and sexual violence against Aboriginal women in the next 20 years.

It's often forgotten that my party, the National Party, represents all of the electorates with high proportions of Indigenous Australians. We've had exemplary Indigenous affairs ministers and shadow ministers who've made major contributions to the portfolio. But we know an audit of the spending has to be done as a matter of urgency. We have spent $50 billion to $60 billion on Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander affairs, and our suicide rates are going up; birth weights are going down; incarceration rates are going up. We are not closing the gap despite all of that money and all of the goodwill and kind words.

I've been a strong supporter of this policy since 2019, when I was the minister sent to Tennant Creek, after the horrific rape of a two-year-old, to sort something out and to make a change. When I got on the ground and spoke to those delivering services to that community, they did not want extra roads. They did not want treaty. What they wanted was service provision in the gaps. We had Territory government services, Commonwealth government services and non-government services all going into the same places, and there were significant gaps that these babies were falling through.

The one recommendation of the Barkly Regional Deal that never got done was the one that was the cheapest, which was to audit the service provision and fill the gaps. It's an indictment, and I've no doubt that the current minister, Malarndirri McCarthy, whom we've heard from today, is strongly motivated by similar sentiments to improve the lives of Indigenous people. However, this portfolio, probably more than any other, requires more than a listening ear. It actually requires a minister who's prepared to intervene, when required, when things aren't workings, when money is being wasted, where vested interests have a stronghold and where nepotism is rife.

While Closing the Gap has been bipartisan policy for a long time, maybe it's time we all admitted failure and made some fundamental changes to this policy. Let's be practical. Let's be strong. But let's not pretend things are improving when they're not. Most of all, let's be honest: we're widening the gap; we're not closing it.

I would suggest that everyone in this place is committed to reconciliation and to all Australians having access to services and opportunities if we're actually going to be a prosperous, safe and cohesive nation going forward, but the definition of insanity, according to a guy a lot more clever than me, Albert Einstein, is to keep doing the same thing while expecting a different result. If the test of a good society is how the most vulnerable in your society are treated, then I think it's time we changed what we are doing. Instead, we stand up year after year, no matter who's in government, and say we're committed to closing the gap while we see the targets go in the wrong direction, waste $50 billion to $60 billion of taxpayers' money and see the heartache out in communities as women and children, in particular, suffer as they do. I think it is an indictment on all of us.

Closing the gap—yes, we all want to see that happen. It's been going on for decades, and nothing happens. It's the same old rhetoric we hear all the time. Australians have been saying to me for ever and a day, 'Where does the money go? Why aren't things changing. If anything, our society is getting worse, because there's more division than there ever has been in the past.' We saw this division widen even further under this Labor government when it brought in the Voice. That was to have a voice to parliament which was just for Aboriginal people, regardless of the fact that all Australians can, at an election, vote for members of parliament to represent them in this place. That didn't get up. Over 60 per cent of Australians nationally said, 'No. We don't want that. That's divisive.' Then we had treaty. That's being brought into the state parliaments. Where's that taking us? It's taking us to more division.

It doesn't matter what you've done over the period of time since 1996, when, in my first maiden speech to this place, I advocated about the fact that I was born here. This is my land as much as anyone else's and any migrants who have come to this country. We should enjoy what this country has to offer us equally. But that hasn't been the case. I pointed out ATSIC. ATSIC was the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, which was running on about $2 billion a year, and it was a waste. It didn't do anything for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It was an industry, and I've been saying that for many years.

We've structured an industry in this country that has created division based on race. Think about it. That's what it's based on. Aren't we all Australians, regardless of our culture, race or background? But we don't see it that way. The laws that have been structured in this place over the period of time, even under the constitution—when section 51(xxvi) was changed in the referendum in 1967, it was basically to bring the Aboriginal people into the census in order to count them in the census, but what it did was create more division. Whereas the government could make specific laws for any race of people, for Aboriginal and any race of people—again, division. So it's in our constitution, which gives the government rights to make specific laws for any race.

All we have seen over the period of time is division that's happening, violence, aggression, crimes, more people in prison, sexual abuse, domestic violence—the list goes on and on and on. When is it ever going stop? Senator McKenzie made a point about the money that's thrown at this. It's estimated about $30 billion a year, possibly more because you've got the states and local government as well. This is all taxpayer dollars. The figures that we have are that about 980,000 people claim to be Aboriginal, yet, if you go to the native title, there are about 430,000 to 450,000 who claim to have a connection to the lands since 1788 for native title claim, yet here we have a census of 980,000 people claiming to be Aboriginal in this country. And the next census is going to happen this year, meaning it's going to rise—I'm sure it will rise over 1 million people, because, between the 2021 census at that time and the one prior to that, people claiming Aboriginality rose over 25 per cent. Yet the population increase was only eight per cent, so something doesn't add up. It's like tick the box. You tick the box? You're going to get government assistance. A lot of these people are not Aboriginal. They haven't even got any Aboriginality. So it's based on 'let's tick the box', and then these government departments, if you go out there to put your name down, aren't game to question you, because you will be called a racist, but you can go and claim Aboriginality. Let's split the pie even more, and that's what's happening.

People are supposed to—I went up to Doomadgee. I've been up there and to Bourke and these places. I've been to the Aboriginal communities. I've spoken to them. Councils want assistance. The one at Bamaga that I went to suggested building their own houses. It's costing the taxpayers about $1 million a house. They said, 'We can actually make the building blocks and build our own house for about $200,000, maybe even less.' Brought it to the government. They weren't interested. That would have given them a business sense, given them employment and built more houses for the people, and cheaper to the taxpayer—not interested. How many times I have raised in this place here about the corruption? Where does this money go? No answers—not interested. Probably one of the worst Aboriginal affairs ministers in this place that we see under this government. Nothing. Nothing's happening. You wonder why—the same old rhetoric in the place, time and time and time again, and the Australian people have had a gutful of it. This division must stop. Once you stop the division—get rid of 'who's Aboriginal', 'who's Indigenous', 'who's Australian'. The fact is we are all Australians and should be treated equally and the same based on individual needs basis.

When I have Australians out there, families, live in their cars, can't get a roof over their head—that's where their needs are. When I have children who cannot get their uniforms or shoes or whatever given to them because they're not Aboriginal and their families have to try and find the money—that's not Australian. When we see ads on our TVs saying that the Smith Family have a million children in this country living in poverty, that is an absolute disgrace. It breaks my heart to hear about these young children being raped because no-one wants to interfere or say anything because it's cultural. Don't interfere into it—

Alright, that's enough! I have a point of order.

Then you have—

What are you saying, Senator Hanson—

Please be seated, Senator Hanson.

I have a point of order! What are you saying? What are you saying, Hanson—that my people are raping babies?

Senator Thorpe, can you please make a point of order?

Is that what you're trying to tell your audience? What an absolute disgrace. The President should be in here to stop racism.

Senator Thorpe, do you have a point of order?

She needs to go. We need another censure motion to get her out. She is racist—

Senator Thorpe, please take your seat. Senator Roberts?

When is it okay to have a conversation between two senators?

Senator Roberts, do you have a point of order?

Yes, I do. Point of order—Senator Thorpe is engaging in a slanderous conversation with Senator Hanson.

That's not a point of order. Senator Hanson, please resume your speech.

I will repeat what I said. Children as young as two are being raped out there. It's fact. It's known. If the truth hurts—it bloody hurts me. It's disgraceful for this to happen. You also have domestic violence happening against these women. They are not being fought for. Because of their cultural background, no-one wants to stand up or say anything about it. We're letting these people down; we really are. I have them come to my office. There are native title claims over this land. Sixty per cent of our nation is under native title. What is actually happening with that? I had these Indigenous people come into my office years ago, and they said: 'Pauline, all we want is part of the land. Give us some of the land back, not through the land councils. We want it personally so we can actually go and build homes, run businesses and get loans. We want to further ourselves.' But no. We keep them tied down, keep them under this control so that you use them for your own benefits. That's what's so wrong and stinks in this bloody place. Nothing's being done about it.

They're crying out. These people just want freedom and to get on with their lives. A lot of these people have said they don't agree with the Voice and with splitting this nation. There shouldn't be three flags in this chamber. There's one flag; it's called the Australian flag. There are not three. This is more division that's happening in this country. We've had enough of welcome to country. We've had enough of that. The Australian people don't want a welcome to country or an acknowledgement of country. It was never a cultural thing that they did. It was brought in by Ernie Dingo. It was brought in by him. It's not cultural whatsoever. It keeps going on and on because of the payment that happens for any land or anything. To stop Australians from even travelling and going to places in our own country is disgraceful. The division has happened, and Australians want change. They want accountability. They want to know where their taxpayer dollars are going. Australians don't deny helping those who are truly in need, but we've allowed it to get out of hand, constantly, all the time. We are not making sure their taxpayer dollars are counted.

There is racism in this country; you'd better believe there's racism in this country. We have to be seen to be treating all Australians equally under one law. There are these poor children who constantly get pulled up for the crimes they're committing because they're taught the hatred, they're taught to have that opinion. All we're setting them up for is a life of crime—in prisons all the time. People don't go out there and get locked up because of their cultural background; they get locked up because they commit a crime against society. That's why they end up in our prison system. People have to take responsibility for their own actions and not just get off because of their cultural background. When we treat people equally in our country, that's when the gap will start to close.

I've only got a minute to do this speech, but it's very disappointing to see some so-called senators who represent the absolute filth of this country—the racists out there. We know racism contributes to incarceration rates, contributes to ill health and contributes to so much hurt and division in this country because of the racist words that come out of Pauline Hanson's mouth—

Order! Senator Thorpe, withdraw.

What for?

You know that the standing orders say that you cannot reflect on the views of another senator. So I'm asking you to withdraw. Please withdraw.

I'm saying what comes out of her mouth—

Senator Thorpe!

I say that—we all say that about each other.

Senator Thorpe, in this chamber—

Why can't you deal with the racism in this chamber, President?

Senator Thorpe, you're not in a debate—

What are you doing about the racism in this chamber, President?

Senator Thorpe, unless you withdraw, I will withdraw the call from you.

Of course you would. The Closing the Gap speech—you would do that, wouldn't you?

Senator Thorpe, I've asked you to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Thank you very much, Senator Thorpe. The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McCarthy be agreed to.

Hang on! There are still more speeches to be done. Hanson here took up the rest of her time. Do your job! You're not calling a vote!

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat! I am informed that we will come back to this debate. But you will recall that this morning we allowed two hours for it, and Senator McCarthy started the debate by moving the motion. We are at two-minute statements.

From birth to age 3, a child's brain develops at an extraordinary pace. In those early years, more than a million neural connections form every second. The bonds formed between baby, mother and father in this period form the foundations for emotional security, learning capacity and life-long wellbeing. I spoke about early childhood development in my first speech in this place because it matters. Policy in this space must reflect both the science and the lived reality of Australian families. The current government's approach to child care is focused on universal, centre based care, and billions of dollars are directed toward it. While that model may work for some families, it doesn't work for all.

Families are diverse. Their work patterns, their cultural values, their faith traditions and their support networks differ. Some rely on grandparents. Others prefer family day care or in-home arrangements. Some parents wish to spend more time at home in the early years. That decision ought to be celebrated, not scorned. A system built around one care model cannot adequately reflect diversity. This is the fundamental philosophical difference between the Albanese government and the coalition. We believe that parental choice should drive childcare policy. Governments should empower families with real options, not force them into a 'one size fits all' approach favoured by Canberra.

I'm honoured and humbled to have been appointed the shadow minister for choice in child care and early learning, alongside my responsibilities in child protection and the prevention of family violence. I look forward to working constructively with families and stakeholders to build a flexible and responsive childcare system. It will always be the opposition's priority to put families back in the driver's seat when it comes to the future of their children, because stronger families are the foundation of a stronger Australia.

I rise to pay my respects to Antonio Calabria, a man well known to many of us in this building, who welcomed us every single day at the family-run cafe Aussies here at Parliament House. Tony greeted visitors and parliamentarians with a gentle smile and kind words. He was more than just a welcoming face at Aussies; he was its heart. Born in Calabria, he journeyed to Australia from Italy in 1955 with his mother and siblings to join his father, arriving with little more than hope for a better life. Like so many migrants, he built a life through hard work and sacrifice, creating a home for his family and a welcoming community for all of us who pass through those doors at Aussies.

Family was central to his life. In our many conversations, he spoke with pride about his children and grandchildren. Beyond family, Tony loved his sport—Juventus and the Canberra Raiders, of course. He never missed a chance to watch his grandchildren play soccer—or should I say 'football'?

In a letter read at Tony's funeral on Monday last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote:

He kept our democracy humming with his coffee. And thanks to his sheer drive and dedication, he truly cemented Aussies as a cherished institution within an institution.

Those words capture the spirit of a great man whose hospitality strengthened the fabric of this parliament and the great story that every migrant brings to this country. To Tony's wife, Anna; his daughters, Teresa, Rosanna and Lisa; and his son, Dom, who we all know: I want to extend my deepest condolences to you and your family. Tony's legacy lives on in the memories we carry and in the community that he built. Riposa in pace, Antonio.

Ramadan Mubarak and Ramadan Kareem to all my Muslim sisters and brothers around the world. For us, the holy month of fasting is about focusing on our hearts, our minds, our bodies and our souls. The first words of the Koran revealed to Prophet Mohammed—sallallahu alaihi wasallam—during Ramadan are these: 'Iqra bismi rabbika lazi khalaq.' This signifies the importance of life being guided by learning, seeking knowledge and devotion. Ramadan is about individual devotion and prayer to Allah, and it is about collective responsibility. We don't just fast from food and water; we also fast from complacency. We are asked to remember hunger and to remember vulnerability. It is a reminder to fulfil our obligations to each other, to our neighbours, to our fellow humans and to the planet.

This year, our obligations, our prayers and our duas feel more urgent than ever before. I am more worried than I have ever been about the state of the world, about another illegal war perpetrated by the US on Iran, about injustice, about the violence and suffering unfolding in so many places, and about communities crushed under the weight of genocide, climate catastrophe, poverty and discrimination. Ramadan is a time when our hearts feel closer to both pain and hope. Hope is not abstract. Hope is built. Hope is organised. Hope is action. Hope is the responsibility to act when we see injustice, oppression and unfairness. Hope is resistance against oppression and despair. Our faith is not passive; it is very powerful, so let us not lose sight of this power. This Ramadan, let's hug each other a bit tighter as we fast, pray and act with courage, wisdom and hope for a better world.

Across Australia, families are standing in supermarket aisles, crunching numbers, putting items back on the shelves, swapping brands, cutting meals and asking themselves a question that they never used to: how has it got this expensive to feed my family? And they're right. It feels expensive because it is expensive. New inflation figures show that inflation is running at 3.8 per cent, which is higher than forecast, and stubbornly refusing to come down. The government says it's a global problem, but this is another Labor lie, because inflation in Australia is now worse than in every other major advanced economy—higher than in the United States, higher than in the United Kingdom, and higher than in Canada, Germany, France, Italy and Japan. While other countries are getting inflation under control, Australians are being let down—and not only let down but lied to.

Every week at the check-out, people are watching their grocery bills climb while they take less food home, and research shows that people under financial pressure gravitate to cheaper and less nutritious food. This government's reckless and out-of-control spending is not only robbing Australians financially; it's robbing them of the choice to eat better food. This is a crisis, and it's a crisis of Labor's making. Since Labor came to office, Australia has suffered the biggest drop in household disposable income anywhere in the world, and real wages have fallen to 2011 levels. It is a fact that you cannot spend your way out of inflation, but that is exactly what this government is trying to do, and Australian families are paying the price every single week at the check-out. The excuses keep coming from Labor under this government, but there is little real action for Australians, who deserve better.

As you know, Acting Deputy President Polley, before I came to this place I represented, proudly, manufacturing workers. My dad was a manufacturing worker, and I have his union ticket in my office upstairs. I have stood with manufacturing workers on picket lines, I've represented them against employers and I have made sure, in this place, to talk about how important it is that we invest in our manufacturing sector.

But it might surprise you to know, Acting Deputy President, that, recently, the Liberals and Nationals have discovered manufacturing and manufacturing workers, and, all of a sudden, they're talking about how they are now the natural parties of manufacturing workers. Well, manufacturing workers know one thing: the Liberal and National parties have never had their back. You only have to look at the parties' record in this place—in the most recent years, in opposition. We don't even have to go back to their disastrous time in government to see how badly they have treated manufacturing workers. In this place, they've voted against the National Reconstruction Fund; they've called manufacturers 'rent seekers'; they've called Australian manufacturing a 'graveyard'; they've called fee-free TAFE a 'waste of money'. The Liberals and Nationals and One Nation voted against same job, same pay for manufacturing workers. And they've voted, time and time again, with One Nation against manufacturing workers and the investment that our government is making in this sector.

Of course, everybody knows that it was Liberal Treasurer Joe Hockey who dared Holden to pack up and leave Australia. So they did, shutting the door on the jobs that came along with building cars in Australia. They have not forgotten. Manufacturing workers deserve a government that values their skills and their trades. They deserve a government that invests in the Australian critical minerals and renewables sector, so that we can deliver good, secure manufacturing jobs, now and into the future. The Albanese— (Time expired)

One Nation has long maintained that the immigration invasion is about politics, not economics. South Australian Premier Malinauskas waded into that debate last month, when he said:

My message to One Nation voters is: 'Who's going to feed you and bathe you and wipe your bum when you're 90?' … Because it ain't going to be your kids, because if I get my way, they're going to be working on submarines, with high-paying jobs, so they can afford to own their home …

And he said that, if we're taking real people out of the housing construction industry to work on the submarines, we're going to need people to do that work too—to work in aged care. What a socialist nirvana South Australia will be, with migrants, according to the Labor premier, acting as a servant class to their white masters and their children, who will have economic abundance and not have to wipe their own bums!

Elitism and socialism go hand in hand. The Russians, during communism, called this elitist cabal the 'nomenklatura'. In communist China, they're called 'princelings' for their wealth and imperial manner. In Australia, we just call them the Labor Party. What an insult to the many migrants with real qualifications who have come to Australia to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and who, in so doing, have lifted up all who are here.

A quick look at employment numbers gives the lie to the Premier's grand vision of recreating the Raj in Adelaide. Total employment on the submarine program will be 4,500 during construction of the shipyard and then 4,500 to build the submarines. The 10,000 jobs are sequential, not all at the same time. The size of the South Australian labour market is 975,000 people. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 people, some of whom will move over to the subs. All we need to fill the remaining places is for state and federal Labor to start planning now for the subs workforce through targeted vocational and university placements for Australian workers. The Premier's big pitch to the electorate is elitist and dishonest.

Last Friday, I joined the Leader of the Opposition, Angus Taylor; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Senator Hume; and my colleague Senator Sharma for a meeting with the Assyrian community in south-western Sydney. The Assyrian community in Australia is a vibrant and resilient community that enriches the multicultural tapestry of our country. They have come here to pursue a better life for themselves and their families, working hard and embracing Australia. But, critically, they have come here to live a safe life, free from the persecution that they'd fled, and, in recent years, that persecution has come, most significantly, at the hands of the so-called Islamic State. We heard harrowing accounts from men, women and children of torture, violence, discrimination, persecution, kidnapping and forced faith conversion of Christians to extremist Islam—experiences that no person should have to endure, yet far too many have. I thank the community for their courage in sharing their stories with us, and I thank them for their contributions to Australia.

But what was clear was the widespread fear concerning the potential return of the ISIS brides to Australia caused by this government's disregard for that public concern and for transparency. The first task of any government is to keep Australians safe and to protect our way of life. This government needs to come clean with Australians: Are any of these ISIS-linked individuals coming back? When did the government know there were plans for their return? And what conversations did this government have to facilitate the same? We need answers, not the dodging of the past week that we have seen from the Prime Minister. We must take action and refuse to let people come here who abandon Australia to support extremist Islamic terror overseas.

Today I want to highlight some of the practical outcomes the Albanese Labor government is delivering across the electorate of O'Connor in the south-west of WA—outcomes that strengthen our regional economy, ease cost-of-living pressures, and back the communities that hold our towns together. And it starts with the backbone of agriculture in our regions. Across regional Western Australia our sheep industry is investing for the future. Through the first round of the $20 million Supply Chain Capacity Program, 40 producers and five processors are upgrading feedlots, expanding cold storage and strengthening on-farm finishing. This is about jobs. It is about building onshore processing capacity, and it is about ensuring that WA sheep graziers remain competitive and productive and are driving growth across regional Western Australia.

But regional strength isn't built only in the paddock; it's also built around the kitchen table. Across O'Connor, 668 households and small businesses have installed batteries under our Cheaper Home Batteries program, storing their solar power and reducing reliance on peak prices. Investing in solar batteries saves families money and gives them greater control over their energy costs. And stronger economies and lower bills matter most when we are investing in people who knit our communities together.

Through the 2025-26 Volunteer Grants program, local not-for-profits can access up to $5,000 to upgrade their equipment, cover their insurance and support volunteer-run activities, from food banks to play groups to men's sheds and every other group in between that keep regional towns connected. From the farm gate to the family budget to the local community hall, this is practical regional investment in action. We are backing local industry, lowering household costs and strengthening organisations that keep the electorate of O'Connor strong.

They say the first casualty in war is truth. Well, we've heard from Mr Albanese, our Prime Minister, as we have from the US president and from the Israelis, that their illegal strike on Iran was in self-defence to eliminate their nuclear program. Just in March last year the US security agency said there were no credible plans for Iran to build a nuclear weapon. Then, in June, Donald Trump said he'd obliterated the Iranian nuclear program, which he's repeated ever since. Yet now we're expected to believe that the justification for this unilateral strike that decapitated the leader of a sovereign nation was self-defence.

Do senators remember when this country and its government and this chamber stood up, in 2003, and said, 'We need to remove a brutal dictator who's going to use weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein'? That turned out to be a lie. And what a catastrophe it was. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people lost their lives. We saw civil war across the region. We saw millions of people flee across Europe, escaping persecution. We saw the rise of ISIS and terrorism in the Middle East, because of this US removal of a foreign head of state and invasion of a foreign country. When are we going to learn?

The Greens immediately call on all who support Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu's war with Iran to work with like-minded countries to promote peace in the region and for the people of Iran. We call on this government to stop all intelligence and resources from Pine Gap, North West Cape and other US military assets in Australia assisting this illegal war. And we call all Australian troops seconded in the US military. We want this chamber to acknowledge you cannot bomb your way to peace.

Several weeks ago the United States Department of Justice released millions of documents under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, a massive trove shedding light on the network of the late Jeffrey Epstein. Being named in these files doesn't automatically imply any wrongdoing. Many mentions appear to be social attempted introductions or incidental references. But the sheer scale of the Epstein connections to the global elites demands scrutiny. The Australian public deserves clarity. How many of our citizens had any interaction or association with Epstein or his associates? What did our government know, and when did the Australian agencies receive briefings from US authorities or any other foreign partners about any individuals here?

This is about transparency and accountability. If Australians were involved, even peripherally, we should know. That's why tomorrow I'll move the tabling of all relevant documents from the various departments, including briefings, reports, correspondence and any information shared by foreign governments regarding the involvement of any Australians with Epstein operation. The Australian people have a right to understand the full picture no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Let's watch and see what this Senate and this government do and whether the Senate passes or blocks it like it often does. What on earth could they be trying to hide?

Today I rise to acknowledge an outstanding young Tasmanian, Alyssia Kennedy, the 2026 Young Australian of the Year for Tasmania, who I had the pleasure of meeting just last month. Alyssia is the founder of Upturned Tasmania an the driving force behind the Life After School program, a practical, hands-on initiative equipping young people with the skills many of us wish we had been taught before leaving school. Her work is grounded in a simple, powerful insight. I share and endorse Alyssia's view that academic achievement alone is not enough. Young people also need to know how to budget, understand a payslip, navigate superannuation and tax and manage rent, insurance and the everyday cost of living. But her program goes further still, equipping young Tasmanians with practical, everyday skills that make independence possible, from cooking a basic meal to changing a tyre and managing the responsibilities of a household. In a state like Tasmania, where household incomes are lower on average and cost-of-living pressures weigh heavily, that practical confidence is not just a luxury; it is essential. What makes Alyssia's achievements more remarkable is that this work has been built largely through other own determination and, in a significant part, her own funding. She saw a gap, she stepped forward, and she built something that is changing lives. Across our regions, from north to west to south, young Tasmanians are gaining confidence because someone believed they deserved to feel prepared for adulthood. That confidence strengthens individuals', families' and ultimately our state's future. Alyssia Kennedy represents the very best of Tasmania—practical, community minded and quietly determined. Her recognition as Young Australian of the Year for Tasmania is richly deserved, and I look forward to seeing her work continue to grow and empower the next generation.

The conflict in Iran could impact Australians in a matter of days. That's because 27 per cent of the world's oil comes from that region in the Middle East. About 20 per cent of the world's total oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz. No one country controls this bit of water, but Iran can block it up, and ships are already getting Iranian radio transmissions saying that the strait is closed. A hike in the fuel prices doesn't just impact personal car users; it will drive up food costs and will massively disrupt our supply chains. Refined fuels—petrol, aviation fuel and diesel—are the backbone of our economy, and 80 per cent of liquid fuel is imported from overseas. Twenty years ago, Australia had eight oil refineries, which met most of our demand for fuel. But, one by one, they were seen by governments from both the major parties as economically unviable. So now we only have two oil refineries. How's that? There's one in Brisbane and one in Geelong.

Last year, the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Mark Hammond, warned the country was vulnerable in the event sea lanes were disrupted. Here we go. The International Energy Agency guidelines say that Australia is supposed to hold 90 days of fuel imports in reserve. Well, I'll tell you what: that's rubbish. It doesn't, and we haven't done so since 2011. If oil shipments stop completely, Australia would be likely to run out of fuel in about three weeks. That's on a good day. It's worse in Tassie: we have about three days down there, you guys. Australia's last two refineries are surviving because they are getting government support. The government is currently in talks to extend this, but let's face it: it has been a problem for a long time, and bailouts are no longer an option.

The government needs to be thinking long term about our fuel security. I was part of a Senate inquiry looking at Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability in 2015. That was over 10 years ago, and we've made absolutely no progress. As a matter of fact, you've gone backwards. We're now down to the last two refineries on shore. What we need is a national plan and possibly a national oil and gas company. The government should consider nationalising these refineries as part of our National Defence Strategy. You have no choice left.

This government's commitment to human rights, especially the rights of First Peoples, is a sham. A few weeks ago, in his Closing the Gap speech, the Prime Minister said that First Peoples have an equal place in this nation and that we should be free of discrimination. But the truth is this government tramples on our human rights every day. Time and again, this government has ignored the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UNDRIP. Even though the declaration outlines the absolute minimum standard of First Peoples' rights, this government refuses to implement it.

In 2022, I introduced a bill which would have enshrined the UNDRIP in domestic law and developed an action plan for its implementation. Despite being a signatory to the declaration, the Albanese government, with all its black senators, voted down the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Even blackfellas voted it down with Labor. Shame! In 2023, I introduced a bill for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to assess laws for their consistency with UNDRIP, and what did this government do, again? It voted down even the most basic level of scrutiny of our rights in this country. Shame!

In November this year, the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is coming back to check this government's progress on implementing the UNDRIP. When he visits, will the government say more empty words or will it actually do something about the colonial racism that keeps us systemically oppressed, incarcerated and having our children taken away? Enough empty words, Labor. You say you care about us. The UNDRIP sets minimum standards, so when will you finally implement— (Time expired)

I too rise today to pay tribute to a man who was quite simply an institution at Parliament House, Mr Tony Calabria, who has, as we know, recently and sadly passed away. Tony was, of course, for the coffee drinkers in this place and beyond, the founder of Aussies cafe right here in this building. It was in 1996 that he actually opened the doors of Aussies, and for 30 years he built it into something that became as much a part of Parliament House as the chambers themselves. He greeted senators, members, staff, journalists and visitors with the same warmth, the same generous spirit and, more often than not, the same perfect coffee. In a place defined by the comings and goings of politics, Tony was a constant—a steady, smiling presence who made this building feel a little bit more like home.

But, to truly understand Tony, you needed to know where his story actually began. It was one of those great migrant success stories. In 1955, a 15-year-old boy stepped off a boat from Italy onto Australian soil. That boy was Tony Calabria. He arrived with his family, with very little but with everything that would come to define him—courage, resilience, dignity and an enormous heart. His life is a testament to what our great country can offer and what migrants give back in return.

What Tony built over the 30 years at Aussies was remarkable—as I said, not just a business but an actual community It is our local coffee shop when we're here in Canberra. He knew your name. He was always up for a chat with me at 6.30 in the morning, when he was already at work but, of course, watching over his son, Dom. Tony is survived by his beloved wife, Anna, and his children, Teresa, Rosanna, Lisa and, of course, Domenic, or Dom as we know him. To his family I say this: Tony was not just loved within these walls; he was treasured. He leaves a legacy that no parliamentary record can fully capture but that every person who shared a moment at Aussies will carry with them always. Rest in peace, Tony. You will be profoundly missed. With the indulgence of the chamber—it has been circulated to the whips—I seek leave to table Tony's funeral booklet.

Leave granted.

by leave—I advise the Senate that, following Mr Taylor being elected by the Liberal Party room as Leader of the Opposition, an updated shadow ministry list was published 17 February 2026. I seek leave to have this document incorporated into Hansard. I also advise the Senate that Senator O'Sullivan has been appointed Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

SHADOW MINISTRY

Each box represents a portfolio. Shadow cabinet ministers are shown in bold typ e.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Under section 9 of the Australian Passports Act, emergency or single-issue travel documents can be issued only in circumstances specified by ministerial determination or on a minister's own initiative. Given reports that at least 30 such passports have been issued to facilitate the apparently imminent return to Australia of a group of ISIS brides and their children, can the minister indicate whether she or any other minister authorised those documents and, if so, when?

I make a number of points. The first is Australian citizens are entitled to apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, be issued an Australian passport. I also indicate that a passport can only be refused or cancelled on security grounds if a competent authority, which includes a security agency such as ASIO, requests it. No such request was made. I'm not in a position—as you know, Senator—to go to individual cases. As a general point, we are aware, as the Prime Minister has made clear and Minister Burke has made clear, that a number of women and children in Syria are seeking to return to Australia. We have known that for some time. We are not assisting the cohort to return to Australia.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

Minister, if you didn't authorise the issuing of these passports, who did and when? What role did you have as minister in ensuring passports or travel documents aren't issued to people that should not have them—or was there no role whatsoever?

Senator Duniam, that is a question in which you have had no regard to the answer I gave in the primary, so I'll repeat it. Any Australian can apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, be issued an Australian passport. A passport can only be refused or cancelled on security grounds if a competent authority—a security agency such as ASIO—requests it. No such request has been made. Again, I'm not going to individual cases, but, in relation to the women and children in Syria that I believe the Senator is referencing, we have known about their potential return for some time, as have previous governments. The government is not assisting this cohort to return to Australia.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Especially given that Minister Burke told ABC's Insiders program on 22 February that the government was 'actively making sure we're doing nothing', can you indicate whether the government has taken any specific practical steps at all to prevent these so-called ISIS brides and their children from re-entering Australia?

The coalition in government amended laws in relation to this area. A number of those were struck down, and the laws which are in place are the strongest laws that have been passed through parliament, with bipartisan support after consideration by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and after response to the High Court's various decisions. This is the legal framework that we are operating under. In relation to the capacity to exclude Australian citizens—and I again remind everybody we are discussing Australian citizens—I understand that Minister Burke has indicated publicly that one individual in this cohort has been issued a temporary exclusion order, which was made on advice from security agencies. For further details, I'd refer you to Home Affairs.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, over the weekend we saw Israel and the United States take military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran following a breakdown in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. We know that Iran's nuclear program has long been recognised as a threat to global peace and security. What has the Australian government's response been to these events?

Thank you to Senator Ciccone for his question, and I thank him for his advocacy on behalf of the Australian Iranian community, particularly in his state of Victoria.

Australia stands with the brave people of Iran, and we, along with the international community, have long called for the regime to uphold the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens. Instead, the regime initiated a brutal crackdown, killing thousands of its own citizens. Australians will also recall Iran directed at least two appalling attacks targeting Australia's Jewish community on our soil in 2024. In response, Australia took the unprecedented step of expelling Iran's ambassador and suspending operations at our embassy in Tehran and listing the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism. This government, the Albanese government, has taken stronger action on Iran than any previous Australian government has, with sanctions on more than 200 Iranian linked individuals, including more than 100 linked to the IRGC.

Australia and the international community have been clear that the Iranian regime cannot ever be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Australia supports the actions taken by the US and Israel to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. Now we do not want to see further escalation. We join the United States, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in condemning Iran's indiscriminate and reckless missile and drone attacks. Like others, we call on Iran to cease these attacks.

We also continue to urge all parties to uphold international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure, and ultimately to resume dialogue and diplomacy. We are clear the Iranian people must be allowed to determine their future.

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

Minister, thank you for your comments. I know the Iranian community back home really appreciate the work that you and the government have done to date. In response to the military strikes conducted by the US and Israel, the Islamic Iranian regime has launched reprisal attacks across the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, as we have seen on our TV screens. Airspace has been closed around the Middle East, and many Australians are stuck at regional hubs. What is the Australian government doing to support those Australians in the region?

Thank you for the question, Senator Ciccone, and I want to start by emphasising how distressing and challenging a time this is for Australians in the region and for their friends and families. I have been upfront that this is a difficult situation and there will be difficult days ahead.

The Albanese government will continue to do all we can to support Australians, providing up-to-date information while airspace remains closed, recognising there are limits on what we can do in this security environment. We have activated the crisis centre, and officials are working literally around the clock to support Australians. Today, I asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to ensure that our registration process is open to people in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar impacted by travel disruptions. Yesterday, we opened the registration portal for Australians in Iran or Israel. Australians requiring urgent consular assistance can contact the consular emergency centre.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

As you just outlined, Minister, this is clearly a challenging time for many Australians impacted, with many difficult days ahead. How many Australians are currently in the region, and what advice does the Albanese government have for those Australians impacted?

There are many affected by this conflict. Our rough estimate—and these are rough estimates only—is there are approximately 115,000 Australians across the broader Middle East region. When flights are operating, around 11,000 people take Emirates, Qatar or Etihad in and out of Australia every day. That gives you some sense of the scale of the disruption, given the attack on these travel hubs, so this will be a very challenging time for Australians and their families, particularly those who are in the region or those with travel plans.

Our priority is the safety and security of Australians. We urge people to register on DFAT's registration portal for Australians, permanent residents and immediate family members in Israel, Iran, the UAE and Qatar. I'll continue to engage with regional counterparts and those requiring urgent consular assistance can phone +61262613305 from outside Australia.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Over the weekend the murderous dictator of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed as a result of military strikes from Australia's Israeli and American allies. This is a significant victory for the Iranian people, who have spent decades living under his repression. Disappointingly, a number of mosques in Australia have held services to mourn the ayatollah's death, with the El Zahra mosque in Melbourne describing the murderous dictator as 'the pious scholar, the foremost martyr of the Islamic Revolution and the rightful deputy of the imam of the age'. Does the Prime Minister believe that holding services to commemorate the so-called martyrdom of the murderous ayatollah is good for social cohesion in Australia?

As I have said, and as the Prime Minister has said, we do not mourn the passing of Ayatollah Khamenei. He led a regime which is responsible not only for the sponsoring of terrorism and the backing of proxies which have engaged in horrific attacks in the region, but for a regime that also organised attacks on Australian soil against Jewish Australians. We do not mourn his passing. That is the position of the government.

Senator Cash, first supplementary?

In relation to the comments from the El Zahra mosque that 'the pious scholar, the foremost martyr of the Islamic Revolution and the rightful deputy of the imam of the age' has been killed, will the Prime Minister raise concerns with the religious groups who have held the services to commemorate the death of the murderous ayatollah?

In this place, this government always seeks to strengthen not diminish social cohesion. I wish the same could be said of other members of parliament and senators.

Senator Cash, second supplementary?

New South Wales Labor premier Chris Minns has, today, shown leadership and said about the services mourning the ayatollah: 'I think it's atrocious. I mean by many objective measure, the ayatollah was evil, and I don't think we should be mincing words about this.' Will the Prime Minister show the same leadership as New South Wales premier Chris Minns and unequivocally condemn the services mourning the ayatollah as a martyr?

I've already said we do not mourn the ayatollah. That is the position of the government.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. As many of us feared, we've already seen the Iranian people further suffer under the illegal strikes by the US and Israel. Will the government clearly condemn the Israeli bombing of a primary school in Iran that has killed over 100 children?

We mourn the loss of civilian life wherever it may be. You heard in my opening question our view about this conflict and our view that we continue to call for international humanitarian law, which goes to the protection of civilians to be observed. I know that the Greens political party get very—there's a lot of selective outrage. You're outraged when we do say something or when we don't say something, or you say it's not worth the words and the words aren't worth it, then you get outraged that we haven't said certain words, but our position is a principled position, and our position is a consistent position. We do always back the observance of international humanitarian law, which I think goes to your question.

I am going to remind senators, before I call Senator Waters again, that we have had 15 minutes of question time. There have been very difficult questions asked and answered, and they have been heard in silence, and you will continue to listen in silence. If you can't do that, I'm asking you to leave the chamber. This is time for respect and silence. Senator Waters, first supplementary?

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres, condemned the US and Israeli bombing of Iran, stating that it was against international law and will undermine international peace and security. Will your government acknowledge that the bombings were illegal, or will you continue to support Trump and Netanyahu in their illegal war of aggression?

I understand not everyone agrees with the government's position. That is people's right. But I think it is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

I would remind the Greens political party, who assert that they care about human rights, that it might be good to recognise the oppression of the Iranian people for 40 years. I know that you have a narrative about this, but this did not start with these strikes.

Honourable senators interjecting—

What about international law?

I'm waiting, Senator Whish-Wilson. I've just called the Senate to order and you've completely ignored me. Senator Waters?

On a point of order, the question is: will you condemn this war as illegal or continue to support it?

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

Senator Waters and Senator Cash are playing by the same playbook but from different ends of the political spectrum. Both of them want a simple, black-and-white—

Are you Switzerland?

No, we are adults. You want a black-and-white proposition so that you can—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! I have witnessed some very poor behaviour in the Senate today. It is not going to be allowed at question time. As I said earlier, if you can't sit and listen in silence, regardless of your view, please leave the Senate or take an opportunity at some other time to make a contribution, not during question time. Minister Wong, I think you have concluded. Senator Waters, you have one supplementary question left.

The government has refused to say if Australian bases or resources were used in the Israeli-US attacks on hospitals and schools. Will the government, at the very least, rule out any such usage—Australia's tacit participation—in Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war going forwards?

I refer you to what I and the Prime Minister have said, and that is that we did not participate in these strikes. I've made public comments about not having any intention to participate in such strikes, which does obviously put us in a different position to some of the countries engaged at the moment. I would also remind you that, at the moment, we have countries who were not part of the conflict—I know you want to focus on two countries, but there are countries in the region who are not part of the conflict who are being attacked by Iran. I think the whole chamber—

An honourable senator interjecting

It's okay, is it, because it's a base? What an extraordinary admission from the Greens. These are bases where—

An honourable senator interjecting

Order!

Wow. That just says everything you want to know about the Australian Greens.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Strengthening public health care to deliver real cost-of-living relief is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. How is the government delivering on our promise to strengthen Medicare and improve access to bulk-billing so that more Australians can access the care they need?

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for your advocacy for your own state and for public health. Thanks to the Albanese Labor government's historic investment in Medicare, the number of bulk-billing practices in this country gets bigger every week. The numbers from right across the country tell us exactly how effective the government's policy of strengthening bulk-billing really is. In just three months, we have seen the bulk-billing rate for all Australians rise to 81.4 per cent across the country. Aside from the pandemic, this is the largest quarterly jump in bulk-billing in 20 years. We have seen the largest quarterly increase in bulk-billing ever—6.9 per cent—for 16 to 64-year-olds, and we have seen the bulk-billing rate go up in every state and territory.

Western Australia—your home state, Senator Whiteaker—has gone from 117 practices to 214. That is 102 more fully bulk-billed practices. New South Wales has gone from 990 to more than 1,300—418 more fully bulk-billed practices. Senator Walsh, Victoria has gone from 624 to 967. That is 379 more fully bulk-billed practices. Queensland has gone from 375 to 618. That is 250 more practices that are fully bulk-billing. South Australia has gone from 88 to 190. That is 104 more fully bulk-billed practices. Tasmania has gone from 25 to 64, Senator Polley. In the ACT, there are eight more fully bulk-billed practices, and in the Northern Territory over 80 per cent of GP practices are now fully bulk-billing. The numbers do not lie.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

They are some pretty impressive numbers; thank you, Minister. When you're sick, the last thing you should worry about is how much a visit to the GP would cost. How has the Albanese Labor government made it easier for Australians to see a GP, and why has the government taken this approach?

That is a very good question, Senator Whiteaker, and it's a simple answer. We are doing it because it works. We are building on the investments that we made in our last term for children and concession card holders. We tripled the incentives for GPs to bulk-bill children and concession card holders. Thanks to these changes, nine out of 10 visits for these patients are bulk-billed.

I want to compare that to the record under the coalition, because the number under the coalition was very different. The bulk-billing rate for children and concession card holders under those opposite was just 75.6 per cent. Their six-year freeze of the Medicare rebate ripped billions out of Medicare. The AMA estimated that the coalition would have taken $8.3 billion out of Medicare by 2027-28. We were never going to stand by and allow the coalition to demolish Medicare by neglect, and that is why we are enshrining access to universe health care for all Australians.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

Minister, I think the Australian people agree with you, because last year they voted a government that would stand up for the principle of universal health care. How is the Albanese government delivering to ensure that, no matter where they live, Australians have access to health care, and what are the risks that that investment face?

The Albanese government's investments in bulk-billing are not just reflected in the raw numbers of new fully bulk-billed practices; 96 per cent of Australians are now within a 20-minute drive of a registered Medicare bulk-billing practice. We, on this side, are for universal health care. What about the record of those opposite? When they were in government, they cut hundreds of millions of dollars from health in the 2014 budget. It was nearly half a billion dollars. Senator Ruston said at the time:

Everybody would like to think that we could go on in life with universal health care, with universal education and with all these wonderful things that over the last 20 years Australians have come to accept as a given. Unfortunately, the credit card is maxed out.

That was their message—public health was not a priority for government. Our message is a very different message. Our message is that you deserve access to health care no matter how much you make or where you live.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. Minister, we know that Pine Gap is a critical part of US global war-making, including its attacks on Iranian schools and hospitals in the last 48 hours. So why won't your government clearly prohibit intelligence gathered at Pine Gap by the US military from being used in the bombing of Iran, and why won't you be honest with the Australian people about the reality of this?

I'm very happy to be honest with the Australian people about the reality, which is what I always seek to do. I would make this point: I'm asked about facilities and so forth; I have it made clear that I've been asked about that publicly and I have responded, and I refer you to that answer. A point I would make is that being honest about it might include a question on the attack on Dubai airport by Iran. Being honest about it might include an Iranian drone strike attack on the Royal Air Force base, the UK base, in Cyprus.

Given your interjection before, sir, you might say that's okay because it's a base. Well, these are not countries—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge.

Two things. Firstly, what the minister said is false.

Senator Shoebridge, stop.

Point of order! I have a point of order, if you'll hear it.

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. When you stand, and I've drawn this to your attention before, you indicate to me that you are seeking a point of order. You didn't do that. You started on: 'I have two points to make.' I have no idea what those points are. So I remind you once again, Senator Shoebridge, when you stand, indicate that you are seeking a point of order. You've made it clear to me now that you are seeking a point of order, so please put your point of order.

The first is that the minister is falsely asserting that I made an interjection. She knows it's false. And the second—

Senator Shoebridge, that is not a point of order.

if you will hear it. To mislead the chamber is unparliamentary.

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Those are debating points not points of point of order. Senator Shoebridge, I've ruled that they are not points of order. If you have another point of order, please make it, but they're not to be debating points, and you know to difference.

The minister is not even pretending, in the second part of her so-called answer, to respond to the question, and you know that, and we all heard her.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Ayres.

I ask Senator Shoebridge to withdraw that. That was contemptuous of you in your role as the chair. It was deeply sarcastic, deeply offensive. He ought to know better, and there's enough of the bloviating from him. He ought to withdraw it.

Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Allman-Payne?

Point of order: Senator Shoebridge just got pulled up for not indicating at the start of his statement that he had a point of order. At no point did you ask Senator Ayres to do the same.

Senator Ayres rose, which is the right of any senator in this place, to object to the language used in Senator Shoebridge's response to me, and he asked for it to be withdrawn. So he was seeking a withdrawal, not a point of order. I would also remind—Senator Shoebridge.

What on earth—point of order.

Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat.

Point of order.

Yes. What on earth am I being asked to withdraw? Please explain.

Senator Shoebridge, I did find your response to me, in the last sentence you made, offensive. I haven't asked you to withdraw, but I would ask you to reflect on how you respond to me. I have ruled your points of order out of line; they're not points of order. I'll ask Minister Wong to continue her response.

I don't know if you want me to deal with this, because you've ruled on the point of order already, President, but I've been accused by the senator of saying something that was incorrect. When I spoke about an attack on the bases, I thought I heard you say, 'It's a base.' Now, if that's—

An honourable senator interjecting

Then it must have been another one of the Greens, because it was one of you. It was not one of us and it was not one of them. My point is you have to be consistent, and the problem for the Australian Greens is they have one narrative. They simply want to weaponise a narrative and campaign around being against the United States but they're not prepared to stand up to an authoritarian brutal regime which has killed its own people in order to stay in power. You don't hear the Greens political party talking about Iran, even though their own members have spoken about this. Publicly, former Greens members—

How did toppling Saddam Hussein go?

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson.

have spoken about the fact the Greens have not wanted to talk about the situation in Iran. That's been shown today.

Senator Whish-Wilson, this is the second time in question time I specifically referred to you. As I said earlier, these are difficult questions and they are difficult answers. I have asked senators to be respectful of that and to listen in silence and, Senator Whish-Wilson, that includes you. If you wish to make a contribution, make it some other time. Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary?

Minister, I know you don't want to talk about Donald Trump. I know you don't want to talk about Benjamin Netanyahu. But the question the Australian public are asking is: What is the red line? What do the US and Israel have to do before Australia opposes Trump's and Netanyahu's war mongering? How many more hospitals have to be bombed? How many more schools have to be destroyed before Labor takes a stand for peace and international law?

What about the tens of thousands of people who have died?

Order! Senator Ciccone.

Order! Senator Ciccone.

Order! Senator Ciccone, I called you three times—three times—and you completely ignored me.

I think you have seen, certainly in relation to Prime Minister Netanyahu, that we have been very prepared to say things with which he does not agree when we thought that was necessary. That's the first point. The second point I would make is this: the Greens political party seems to rub out what this regime has engaged in for 40 years.

When the Senate comes to order, Senator Hanson-Young.

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, again, I called you more than once. You are out of order and disrespectful. You're not in a debate with me.

No, you'd lose.

Senator Hanson-Young, withdraw that.

I withdraw.

I rise on a point of order. For once, can you hold this minister to direct relevance. My question was about the United States and Israel, Donald Trump and Netanyahu, and she refuses to speak about any of them.

Just the same, I would seek—

Senator Ayres, I will ask: why you are on your feet?

I seek that he withdraw the 'for once', which is an assault on your operation as the chair here—that kind of sarcastic, over and over again.

Senator Ayres, thank you. I'm not going to ask the senator to withdraw. I have asked the senator to be mindful of the tone and of what he says. The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Shoebridge. Minister, please continue.

Through you, President, no amount of sarcasm and condescension can divert from the fact, Senator Shoebridge—clearly, he takes point of order but doesn't want to hear me. Would you like me to—

He never wants to hear anyone.

You never actually want to hear anyone, Senator Shoebridge; you want to listen to yourself. But what I would say is you seem to ignore the fact I opened my answer with a direct response. The problem is you continue to assert things which are not true because of your own narrative.

Senator Shoebridge, a second supplementary?

Minister, you refuse to pass judgement as to whether or not this war by the US and Israel is in breach of international law yet you have repeatedly and correctly called out the Russian attack in Ukraine as being in breach of international law. Why do you show no courage when the people breaching the international law are Donald Trump and Netanyahu? Why is it so regime-specific?

Senator, I have responded on this publicly at multiple press conferences and in multiple interviews. You know the position we have taken. We have said very clearly that the issue about compliance with international law is for Israel and the US to outline. We have said we did not participate in the strikes. We have also said we support action to ensure that Iran does not possess a nuclear capability. We have said that we stand with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression. And I would again say to the Australian Greens: I know you have a political narrative that you want to prosecute, but for once think of the people of Iran at some point in your discussion.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, when did the government first learn that a close personal friend, political fundraiser and campaigner on behalf of the home affairs minister, Dr Jamal Rifi, was involved in trying to facilitate the passports and travel of so-called ISIS brides and their children to Australia? And how, specifically, did the government become aware?

First, in relation to the gentleman concerned, I think Minister Burke has been clear publicly that he has no knowledge of Mr Rifi's actions and whereabouts other than what he has read in the media. Mr Rifi himself has said he has not spoken to Mr Burke about this issue since June of last year. I've got nothing to add to Minister Burke's answers.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary.

In light of media reports that male relatives recently handed passports to a group of 34 so-called ISIS brides and their children in a Syrian camp, that Dr Rifi self-described himself as the 'delivery boy' for these passports and that the passports were originally given to representatives of a law firm, were all the individuals who handed another person's passport in this case authorised to do so under the Australian Passports Act 2005, especially section 37?

What individuals do is really a matter for them. I can only speak to actions of the Australian government and Australian officials, and I have responded to questions on this issue on multiple occasions. Australians who apply for passports are entitled to receive those passports unless they are not eligible in the terms I outlined earlier.

Senator Paterson, second supplementary.

During the 2025 election campaign, Dr Rifi wrote an open letter in a newspaper saying that re-electing Tony Burke was 'the only hope for voters in Watson' that further ISIS brides and children would return to Australia. What assurances were given to Dr Rifi that allowed him to make this commitment on behalf of Minister Burke?

Well, (a) I'm not aware of assurances and (b) if you're asking about discussions in relation to that letter, that's a matter for Minister Burke.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. Does Labor accept that immigration levels have a significant impact on house prices and rental prices?

Senator, you might pay some attention to what's actually going on in the economy in terms of immigration and in terms of housing. The truth is that net overseas migration has declined more than 40 per cent from the post-COVID peak in 2022-23. That's what this government has delivered not by inflammatory, careless, reckless, deliberately offensive rhetoric in here but by the hard work of making sure that Australia's immigration settings and the way the government delivers them meet Australia's national interest.

We're building more homes for Australians: 55,000 social and affordable homes, 100,000 homes just for first home buyers—

How many are finished?

I'll take the interjection. He's a bit sparkier this week; he's getting there. It's good to see everybody's chin up a little bit over there! The truth, Senator Bragg, in terms of the delivery of the government's housing program is you were sharply critical at the beginning and pointed to the numbers on day 1, day 2 and day 3. Senator, the problem with your argument is the numbers keep going up as more and more and more homes are being built every day. Critically, for young Australians who struggle to get a purchase in the housing market, the five per cent home deposit that we've made available for them is changing the lives of young Australians trying to get into a house.

Senator Whitten, first supplementary?

A recent report by the FoundIt property research group suggests that returning to pre-pandemic levels of immigration would provide immediate relief for housing prices. This is with only modest cuts, not the massive cuts that are required. However, IPA data shows record net long-term arrivals of 480,520 for 2025. Why doesn't Labor take action on mass immigration to provide immediate relief to suffering Australians?

I can't say that I'm familiar with the FoundIt organisation, or whatever they are. Senator, what I can I tell you is that we are delivering the country's biggest ever comprehensive effort in home building in our history. We're doing things. One Nation say they want to get more Australians into homes. That's what they say. But One Nation abstained from voting on the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and voted no, with their friends in the Liberals, on the Help to Buy Bill 2023. So we are doing, and you are getting in the way. If you cared the slightest bit about the prospects of young Australians trying to get into a home, you would support the government's agenda, not vote with your coalition partners in the Liberal Party and the National Party to get in the way of that national achievement.

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

Young Australians, families and the elderly have all been punished by Labor's destructive mass immigration policy. They've been locked out of housing, watching prices spiral out of control under massive demand pressure. And what do we get from Labor? Five per cent housing deposits driving up demand. No doubt there are more taxes coming in the budget, to kill supply—and, of course, more mass immigration. Why does Labor refuse to address housing demand and to bring immigration under control?

It's an interesting term you use. I note that Senator Scarr correctly pointed out that that term is a deliberate effort by extremist politicians to create fear and apprehension in the community.

What has really happened here? Well, the government is properly managing the migration system in the interests of Australians. The government is building homes and is engaged with the task of building homes for Australians. We're operating in the national interest, in the interests of low- and middle-income Australians in particular, to give access to the housing market. One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals are doing their best to undermine that national effort. How more un-Australian could you be than trying to stop ordinary Australians getting into a home? There is such an enormous difference between what One Nation say and what they do when they vote with their coalition partners in the Liberal Party every time. (Time expired)

I think the chamber is aware that Senator Babet has given his question to Senator Roberts.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The Australian government has held four inquiries into our fuel reserves in the last seven years, all of which noted our fuel stockpile and refining capacity were insufficient to survive a supply shock. The concept of a reserve is simple: fill the reserve when the price is low and then access it when there's a shortage or high prices as we have now, guaranteeing fair prices and a functioning economy. We're going into a period of war with 25 days of diesel, 20 days of jet fuel and 26 days of petrol in the system. Minister, why has the Albanese government ignored all those reports and failed in its basic duty to protect our food and transport industries from international fuel shocks?

Let's just deal with the facts for a second and then get to the politics. We have fuel reserves—minimum stockholding obligations—of petrol, 150 per cent of our requirements; jet fuel, 134 per cent; and diesel, 116 per cent. The approach from the previous government—when Mr Morrison, Mr Turnbull and Mr Taylor were all in charge of this—was that Australia's national fuel reserves were to be held in Texas. I can tell you that Australia's fuel reserves are held here, in transport infrastructure and storage infrastructure around the country.

When Mr Taylor was in charge of our energy strategy—I think he was described by a former Liberal prime minister as Australia's best qualified idiot. What did the village of Nimmitabel do to deserve Mr Taylor as Nimmitabel's inimitable hereditary peer, as the country's sole remaining bunyip aristocrat. He was so lazy in his administration of the energy portfolio that he put our national stocks, he hoped, in Texas.

On a point of order, the minister is impugning the motives of a member of the other place. I would ask him to withdraw those comments.

I was listening carefully, Senator Henderson. He's not quite there yet, but I was going to remind him to be very mindful of his comments. Given that you've raised the point of order, I'll do that now. Minister Ayres, please be mindful of your comments.

It does strike me—in this time of conflict, when there is pressure on fuel security and supply chains around the world—that never before has it been more important that this government continue with the effort of securing our electricity system and extending, in particular, electric vehicles. That's one very important fuel security measure just by itself. (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Australia consumes 5,400 megalitres of oil products a day, and we have the capacity to refine only 1,300 megalitres. Australia is exposed and unable to supply its transport needs. Once we run out of diesel, the trucks will stop. Food will stop being delivered and that social cohesion you often drone on about will break down. Minister, will you take responsibility for fuel price inflation and potential fuel rationing owing to your government's failure to run a proper fuel reserve? Don't give us uniparty excuses.

I don't want to drone on, but I will just point out that when the new Leader of the Opposition was the minister for energy four out of Australia's six petroleum refineries closed—under the last government. So don't pretend to be concerned about fuel security and vote with these characters. That is exactly the opposite of what should happen here. Four out of six of our petroleum refinery facilities closed under Mr Taylor's maladministration. Mr Turnbull, Mr Morrison and Mr Abbott made a complete mess of our energy policy settings. We are now holding more stocks of aviation fuel, petrol and diesel on land and in ports here in Australia than at any time in the last 15 years. That's the— (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Overnight, Iran attacked three oil tankers. Media are reporting that tanker traffic has all but halted, with 150 to 200 oil and LNG tankers dropping anchor outside the Strait of Hormuz. Brisbane fuel prices are at $2.13 a litre in name-brand outlets. Minister, will your government now commit to a 90-day fuel reserve, a new fuel refinery, at least one gas-to-liquid plant, a domestic gas reservation for conversion to liquid fuels and no more uniparty excuses on behalf of your mates?

As I indicated, I can tell you what we are doing. We have more fuel security today than we've had for 15 years. We've committed to a national gas reservation scheme to shore up supply and place downward pressure on prices, particularly for Australian industry. We've published the Future Gas Strategy and introduced a mandatory gas code of conduct. We've strengthened and extended the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, and we renewed it when the opposition failed to. We've granted additional licences. We are taking every step that could reasonably be taken. I point out, Senator, that it's a little bit odd to pretend to care about fuel security and then campaign against electric vehicles as a singular obsession. It's an odd thing to do. Australian energy from Australian resources going straight into Australian cars—what could be more Australian than that? (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's been widely reported that an ISIS bride cohort of 34 people is currently seeking to travel to Australia. How many adults and how many children constitute this group? How many of the children are over the age of 14 and therefore could potentially be subjected to a temporary exclusion order? How many Australian passports in total have been issued to them?

It has not only been widely reported. You might recall, in fact, that an NGO took the government to court, seeking that we repatriate that cohort. The government opposed that court application, and we were successful in that opposition. It is not simply a set of media propositions; it has been very clear for some time that there are individuals who wish to return from Syria—as has been evinced by the court case, which was resisted by the government. The government has made it clear that we are not repatriating this cohort as occurred under Prime Minister Morrison. We know that there are people in Syria who are Australians wishing to return to Australia. We have answered questions very clearly, in estimates and in this place, about passports. I have said very clearly that Australian citizens are entitled to a passport unless—

Senator McKenzie?

Point of order on direct relevance. How many are over 14? How many passports have been issued to the cohort?

The minister is responding to your question. Senator Wong.

I'll say again that Australian citizens who apply for a passport—absent the security assessments that I dealt with when Senator Duniam asked me a question—are entitled to a passport. You may not have been in Senate estimates, where we were asked this question multiple times. It was made clear that, for privacy and security reasons, we're not in a position to go to individuals. What I can say as a general proposition is that Australian citizens—absent those provisions of the passport that I was asked about before—are entitled to a passport.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

On or around what date were individual reviews, including face-to-face interviews, most recently conducted by Australian intelligence or law enforcement agencies with the entire group of 34 people?

Senator, we are not repatriating this cohort, and we don't discuss the work of intelligence agencies.

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Prior to granting their passports, what specific questioning was undertaken, by whom and when to determine whether these individuals still support an Islamic caliphate and Islamic State atrocities such as massacres, sexual slavery, rape, human trafficking, forced conversions, child abductions, beheadings, stonings and torture? What formal assessment has the government sought and obtained regarding this group's views towards people of other religions, particularly Jewish Australians?

Security assessments are undertaken by security organisations, including ASIO. As Minister Burke has said publicly—I've repeated it today—no such request following an assessment for cancellation of a passport was made by a security agency.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. The Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering affordable and reliable electricity and gas for Australian industry. To do this, the government is upgrading and securing Australia's energy system. Minister, why it is important that the government delivers affordable and reliable energy?

Thank you to the senator for his question. We don't really need to speculate about the risks after what has happened over there over the course of the last few weeks. It's like a game of snakes and ladders without the ladders over there at the moment. After we've seen all that, the person most responsible, who's done more to damage Australia's energy security and electricity system, is the man who was described by a former Liberal prime minister as 'Australia's best qualified idiot'. That's what he said—'Australia's best qualified idiot'. There's been more damage to Australia's electricity and gas system from Mr Taylor than from any other person in our history. This man now wants to be the Prime Minister.

A point of order—Senator Ghosh asked about cheap energy. I think Australians are wondering when that's coming.

That is not a point of order, Senator Paterson.

I mean, maybe with the same sense of anticipation that the people over at your joint were thinking about whether they were going to get breakfast or not at your fantastic hosting of that really well-celebrated event when you said you were supporting the leader. This is the same Mr Taylor who, when 24 out of 28 Australian coal-fired power stations announced their closure, did precisely nothing—'Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus'—who changed the law just ahead of the 2022 election to hide electricity price hikes from ordinary Australians—'Fantastic. Great move. Well done Angus'—who promised to spend $1 billion to deliver an extra—

Order! Minister, the time for responding has expired. I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles, and I remind you to answer the question as given to you by Senator Ghosh. Senator Ghosh, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government's plan for industrial energy is focused on building new generation, storage and implementing the recommendations from the Gas Market Review, including a gas reservation. Why has the government chosen this approach, and what are alternative views in the community about industrial energy policy?

Unlike the rabble over there, we are focused squarely on the national interest on these questions, delivering cheaper electricity, delivering more generation, delivering more transmission, against the backdrop of what occurred the last moment—

An opposition senator interjecting—

I'll take the interjection on Tomago very happily, because the solution there is not Mr Taylor's solution. Mr Taylor's solution was to go to industry, when he was a consultant, and tell industry to go to China. That's what Mr Taylor said. In his presentation, when he was a consultant, what he told industry to do, what he told the aluminium sector to do, was to go to China. Those were his words. 'Go to China.'

The Albanese government is working with the aluminium sector, fighting day after day, working with the New South Wales government to deliver new electricity generation and new transmission, because what you left them with was a death sentence for those jobs.

Senator Ghosh, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is revitalising Australian manufacturing and delivering good blue-collar jobs in our outer-suburban and regional areas. How is the government delivering on this goal, and what parts of the community will benefit from a stronger Australian manufacturing sector?

Thank you for that question. This is the government with the biggest pro-manufacturing-industry package of any Australian government in our history. It is voted against all of the time by those opposite, who clearly demonstrate their lack of capacity to understand the challenges that are being faced by Australian industry. Mr Taylor did more damage to Australian industry than any energy minister in our history, and I see Mr Hastie now wandering around—I mean, he occasionally does turn up for work; I know Mr Dutton had his views about his work ethic. But standing out the front of facilities that have closed—oh, poor Sarah!

Senator Henderson?

Point of order. Once again the minister has impugned the motives of a member in the other place. I would ask that that comment be withdrawn.

Senator Henderson, I did not hear the comments, but I know that, if Senator Ayres did say something inappropriate, he would withdraw.

I happily withdraw. What we could do is clear all this up. Release the review. I mean, you're all about freedom of information over there. Release the review. Tell Australians what really went wrong with the worst Liberal economic team in our history. Senator Hume and Mr Taylor trashed the Liberal Party's economic—

Thank you, Senator Ayres. Minister Wong?

Before closing, if I may with your indulgence, I acknowledge the Julyardi Aboriginal Corporation from WA, who have sat patiently through this question time. Sorry about that. With that, I ask that further questions placed on the Notice Paper.

by leave—I move:

That a motion relating to the conduct of a senator may be moved immediately and determined without amendment and that the question be put after 30 minutes of debate, allowing for five minutes per speaker, and government business be called on by no later than 6.30 pm, commencing with consideration of the motion to take note of the Closing the Gap statement and related documents.

If I may explain just briefly, this relates to the motion in relation to Senator Hanson's comments. However, the government does wish to ensure that we complete the Closing the Gap debate. I note that senators from both sides are still on the list and have not yet spoken, so, in order to ensure we have a hard marker where we can return to that, I'm seeking to move a motion that that come back on at 6.30.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) affirms that Australia has been built by the hard work, sacrifice and aspiration of people of every race and faith;

(b) assures all Australians they are valued, welcome members of our society, regardless of their race or religion;

(c) rejects any attempt to vilify people on the basis of their religion;

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

(e) affirms that, if Parliament is to be a safe place for all who work and visit here, there can be no tolerance for hate speech in the course of parliamentarians' public debate;

(f) calls on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments, both inside and outside the chamber, at all times; and

(g) censures Senator Hanson for her inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to vilify Muslim Australians, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people.

On behalf of the coalition, can I be very, very clear—

Order! Senator Hanson-Young, come to order. Minister.

My procedural error, President. I rise to move that the Senate censure Senator Pauline Hanson for her statement that distressed and offended not only Muslim Australians but Australians across our nation. In the past fortnight public debate in Australia has focused on these comments. Parents across the country have been asked by their children what they meant, whether their classmates believe these comments, whether their country believes them, whether they are safe. Last week a man was arrested, alleged to have been planning to attack the Muslim community and mosques as well as West Australian police and the parliament. These are the real-world consequences of reckless, divisive political stunts that fan the flames of bigotry.

In that public debate there has been much talk of Australian values and what Australia is, and I want to speak about the Australia in which I believe. I believe in an Australia built by people who came here with little more than hope; by convicts; by 10-pound Poms; by those fleeing wars and atrocities such as the holocaust; by people who worked in our factories, on our farms, who opened small businesses, staffed our hospitals, taught in our schools and served in the defence forces; by people who brought with them language, culture, faith, food, and, in doing so, enriched us all; and of course a country built by the people who were here first—First Nations Australians. This is what makes Australia great and we are stronger because of it. We are more prosperous because of it. We are more capable in the world, and we are more able to find common ground with so many of the world's peoples because of it. I believe in an Australia that is proud of having the oldest continuous culture on the planet; an Australia that is proud of our diversity; and an Australia that respects different races, religions and each other's right to live in peace.

I know Australians expect their elected representatives to set the standard for our country and to show respect, basic respect, for all Australians. Nearly a million Australians practice Islam. They are doctors, nurses, tradies, teachers, small-business owners, firefighters, police officers and veterans. They are Imams, community leaders and role models. They are parents and grandparents, brothers and sisters. They are the kids catching the bus home from school every day. And they are the first to condemn the radical extremists who commit terrorist acts in the name of religion. To claim that none of them are good is to say there are no good Australians amongst them. It is to tell a child that no matter how hard they study, how kindly they treat others, how much they love this country, they will never belong. It is to say we have no pride in great Australians like Usman Khawaja or Tina Rahimi or my friend Dr Anne Aly. It is to deny the bravery of Ahmed Al Ahmed. It is not only dangerous; it is not who we are.

Freedom of speech is a cherished part of our democracy but so too is the responsibility that comes with it, especially for people elected to this place. The words of parliamentarians echo into classrooms, workplaces, communities. They help shape how others see each other and how they see themselves. A nation divided against itself is a nation diminished. When we undermine social cohesion, we weaken the foundations of what makes us the best country on earth. And so many Australians are troubled by the response of those in this place, not only from One Nation itself but from coalition senators who contemplate working with them.

There was a time when leaders understood some lines should not be crossed. We now see a different approach, a race to outflank Senator Hanson to the right and a willingness to echo the language and legitimatise politicians who target people of faith. In doing so, they shift the boundaries of what is acceptable and they allow a noisy fringe to define Australian values. What are those values? They are fairness, they are respect, they are a recognition we stand as equal citizens of this great country. This censure motion is about drawing a line and sending a message to the people of faith in this country and to children in this country that your leaders believe that condemning an entire religion is not acceptable.

I am proud of the Australia we have built together. I'm proud to serve with the most diverse parliament in history and I want every Australian child—Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Sikh or of no faith at all—to know and to believe that they belong here, that they too are part of the Australian story. We do not strengthen Australia by narrowing the definition of who counts. So, in defence of the inclusive, confident nation that Australians are so proud of, I commend this motion to the Senate.

Can I make it very clear, on behalf of the coalition, that we firmly believe that every Australian of every race, of every religion and of every background belongs in this country. This is not something that any senator in this chamber should put into question. Australia is without a doubt one of the most successful multicultural nations in the world. People have come here—as we know from looking around the chamber—from every corner of the world, bringing different traditions and different beliefs, and together we have built a society that is stronger for it. We recognise the contribution that faith communities make to our great country and to our way of life, and that of course includes Muslim Australians. They are a part of the fabric of our community. Like all Australians, regardless of your religion, or even if you do not have a religion, you are entitled to be treated with respect and to live free from vilification on the basis of religion. We will therefore support paragraphs (a) through (f) of the motion.

I am disappointed that the motion is going to be put without amendment, as we were going to move an amendment that does condemn Senator Hanson's comments. I don't think Senator Hanson's comments were appropriate. Why? Because I personally have Muslim friends. My mum's best friend is a Muslim. So I have to say I think that there are good Muslims in Australia, and, as I said, Senator Hanson's comments were wrong. It's as simple as that.

However, in relation to a censure, a formal censure is one of the most serious rebukes available to this chamber, and it should be treated as such. In fact, it was Senator Chisholm who acknowledged on 27 October last year that censures are usually reserved for conduct relating to parliamentary and ministerial responsibility. But Senator Chisholm went a step further. He also cautioned that censures should not become the default response, particularly to social media and public commentary. I also refer back to former Senate leader George Brandis, who, in relation to senators, made a core point. The censure is one of the Senate's most serious institutional sanctions, and it should therefore be rare and sober, not used as a routine tactic to score political points.

As I said, we will support paragraphs (a) through (f) because every Australian, regardless of their race, of their religion or of their background belongs in this country, and it is not something that any senator in this chamber should ever put into question. As I said, it's disappointing the motion is going to be moved without amendment, as we would have moved an amendment to condemn the comments and to reject them. But we will not support paragraph (g), on the premise set out by Senator Chisholm and Senator Brandis.

Senator Pauline Hanson is a racist. She has always been a racist, and she will always be a racist.

Senator Faruqi, withdraw that comment.

President, the Federal Court of this country has found that Senator Hanson has engaged in racist behaviour.

Senator Faruqi, there is a standing order which says you do not reflect on a senator. You have reflected. This is not the Federal Court. It's the Australian Senate. I have asked you to withdraw, and I expect you to withdraw.

I withdraw. Thirty years ago, in this very parliament, Senator Hanson stood up and said Asian migrants 'have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate'. Almost 10 years ago, she said:

Islam is a disease. We need to vaccinate ourselves against that.

If that's not racism, I don't know what is. She is a grafter who does the bidding of billionaires.

One Nation exists to prey on the anxieties of Australians and redirect concerns about housing, cost of living and inflation towards an invented enemy: migrants and Muslims. I have said many times in this chamber that they are merchants of hate who find it easier to destroy communities than to build them. What she said about Muslims is disgusting, ignorant and politically calculated. It is designed to inflame, but it is not surprising. Hanson and One Nation's brand of racism has been inflicted on us for decades. They light the fire, but, rather than their dousing that flame, it is fanned by both the Liberals and Labor with their own brands of dog whistling, scapegoating and falsely blaming migrants and Muslims for everything under the sun, from traffic congestion and the housing crisis to the horrific Bondi attack.

The media has played a similarly toxic role in vilifying and demonising Muslims. This is what concerns me more. This is what has legitimised and normalised anti-Muslim hate in a way which is no longer fringe. It has become mainstream. The Liberals are so far right and so desperate, now, that they are looking at doing preference deals with One Nation, trying to resuscitate themselves using racism, as their former leader actually fears that it is their last days.

Labor also have their hands dirty. You have built a system that creates tiers of racism—that some communities are more deserving of protection than others. We have heard, loud and clear, that our lives are not treated as equal. If the remarks that Senator Hanson made had been directed at almost any other community in this country, we would have seen all hell break loose, and rightly so. But the Prime Minister can't and won't even call One Nation a racist and hateful party, which they are. What are you scared of? Their leader has been found by the Federal Court to have engaged in racist behaviour. This is a senator who has been found by the Federal Court to have a tendency to make racist, discriminatory, hateful, derogatory and Islamophobic statements. The truth is that the Labor government wants to hedge its bets. Performative motions like this allow you to attend our iftars and whisper in our ears that Labor supports the Muslim community, while, at the same time, you hesitate to offer unequivocal support. You treat us as second class, you harden your stance on immigration, and you refuse to repatriate Australian women and children stuck in camps in Syria, because you are also courting One Nation and its votes and you are trying to appease the Murdoch media.

But we can see right through this. This motion does not even mention Islamophobia. That's how much you care about anti-Muslim hate. What we are seeing here today is the predictable outcome of years of escalating hostility towards Muslims. One Nation thrives in this environment, cultivated by successive Labor and Liberal governments. We remember when Prime Minister Albanese stood beside the antisemitism envoy in a big press conference to announce her, while journalists were not even invited to the Islamophobia envoy launch. That contrast did not go unnoticed. We remember when Labor passed some of the most draconian antirefugee and antimigrant laws in this country's history. We remember when Labor scapegoated international students for the housing crisis that they didn't cause. We remember what went on. You have legitimised all of this, so we won't let you hide behind this cloak of a performative motion when you have been part and parcel of the rising Islamophobia and hate that is in this country now. Let us censure Senator Hanson for her vile words, but let us not pretend that this is enough. There is so much more you need to do, and that includes ending the dog whistling.

Thank you, Senator Faruqi. Senator Thorpe?

I will be moving an amendment to this motion. It says 'That the Senate calls on this government to commit to implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework in full as a matter of urgency, because tackling racism requires more than words of condemnation—it requires action'. Hanson's words about Muslim people were racist. That is plain to see, and I stand with my Muslim brothers and sisters as always. This constant racism and vilification has to stop. But this censure motion by Labor today is not about taking a real stand against racism. It is nothing but a cynical wedge and a cheap political stunt designed to undermine the coalition's chances in the Farrer by-election. Labor wants to highlight Hanson's racism to—

Senator Thorpe, please refer to the senator by her correct title.

Senator Hanson's racism to prevent the coalition and One Nation from doing a preference deal in that election, because a preference deal will mean that the coalition is more likely to retain the seat. It is cheap politics, and it is insulting to all of us who experience racism on a daily basis. This motion comes from a party that continuously allows racist language and actions in this place, even through the person in the chair. It doesn't take much to see how gammin Labor's commitment against racism is. If Labor were genuinely concerned about racism, they wouldn't be completely ignoring the National Anti-Racism Framework that they received 15 months ago. Since then, they have not even made a formal response, let alone begun any implementation. They still cannot tell us when it will be implemented, if ever. There is just silence.

The National Anti-Racism Framework was delivered by the Australian Human Rights Commission in November 2024 and provides a clear, evidence based road map to tackle racism and white-supremacist extremism at every level. It is a practical plan, not a feel-good statement. Yet, more than a year later, this government has done nothing. Not a single recommendation has been implemented or even acknowledged. No timeline has been offered. The moment we need action, after a tax on First Peoples and Muslim communities—the Lakemba Mosque threats, the attack on Camp Sovereignty, the Boorloo terrorist bombing and the planned attacks on mosques in WA last week—the government is ignoring the solution sitting on their own shelf. This is not just complete negligence; this is what systemic racism looks like. All this censure motion will do is give Hanson more air time to—

Senator Thorpe—

Senator Hanson more air time to spout her racism while attention gets steered away from Labor's inaction and back onto One Nation and the coalition. Labor are trying to frame themselves as the good guys here; they aren't. That's why I'm focusing on them today, because what we see from Senator Hanson is part of a problem that this Labor government is creating by failing to take any real action. This government sees racism only as a political opportunity, not as a real threat to real people. They just speak about it when they see something to gain, like they do today. But they take no real action to tackle it.

Today, Muslim people are again being used as political footballs—not respected, not protected. And Labor brand themselves as the champions of racialised communities, but the reality is that they do nothing, and today they are using us as part of their own political strategy. I'll acknowledge that my amendment is a wedge, too, but mine actually points to real, practical policy solutions. It's a sad state of affairs that this do-nothing government can be wedged simply by offering them solutions.

So yes, Labor, here is your wedge: a real, tangible, actionable road map to protect people and tackle racism. You can vote my amendment down—which I know you will, because this censure motion is only about cheap politics; it's not about real action. This vote will show clearly how much you really care about tackling racism in here. With that, and around this country—there are no good racists—

Senator Thorpe, the way this motion has been established and moved today, you need leave to put an amendment.

Could I seek leave to put my amendment?

Leave is not granted, so I'm going to go to—

Well, under the standing orders—what are the words? Help me out. Contingent to the standing orders, in my name, I move that so much of the standing orders be suspended until you hear what I've got to say.

You can move the suspension, but, because you don't have a contingent order in place, you would need an absolute majority of senators—not a simple majority, as we normally have in this place, but an absolute majority. Do you want to proceed?

I need to proceed, absolutely. Do you want me to read out the written version of the seeking of leave?

I believe you circulated it.

Sit down. It's not your turn.

Senator Thorpe, I am running the chamber. Senator Hanson?

If she needs an absolute majority, One Nation will not be supporting this.

Thank you, Senator Hanson. We'll put it to the vote now. Senator Thorpe has moved a motion. As I explained to the chamber, Senator Thorpe doesn't have a contingent motion in place, so it will need an absolute majority.

Question negatived.

I can't believe this. Senator Wong got up this morning and said the notice of motion put before this parliament to with Iran was actually a stunt and a waste of the Senate's time. This is a stunt, what you've done, raising a censure against me. This is reiterated because a first-term Labor senator from Western Australia made clear Labor's intent to wedge the opposition and test its willingness to publicly rebuke One Nation, which has overtaken the coalition or drawn level in many polls. Isn't it interesting? One of your own Labor senators admitted it was a wedge. So, this is a stunt, and the people out there are fed up with this.

Just about all you speakers here are talking about the polls, and all you're worried about is the preferences. Are you going to get preferences? Are you doing preference deals with One Nation? It's a stick in your craw. The fact is, in your gut, you can't stand the fact that One Nation is now at 27 per cent or 28 per cent. You can't stand it. What's happening? We've still got two years to go before the election, but you have to raise these stunts all the time. I agree with most of what Senator Wong said in her speech—I really do—except for one thing: you got it wrong with my comments. You couldn't even get it right. That's what you've portrayed in this place and even what Senator Ruston portrayed by saying in her amendment, 'The Senate condemns and rejects Senator Hanson's inflammatory and divisive comments regarding Muslim Australians.' What did I say? Do you know what I said?

Yes, I do.

It's been misreported by the media. You do not even know the full context of what was said. Therefore, you are wrong in what you're saying here.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

You know what? I can actually get up and make reference to radical Islam, but Labor couldn't even call it out with what happened at Bondi. You could even call out radical Islam that has happened in this country and with the terrorist attacks that have happened not only in Bondi but prior to that. You won't even admit that.

You're a one-trick pony, Pauline.

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, not only are you disorderly, you are also more disorderly because you're not even sitting in your correct seat. The debate has been heard in silence. If you don't like what's being said, take the opportunity to leave the chamber. But every senator deserves a right to be heard in silence. Please continue, Senator Hanson.

I reiterate also that the fact is that I had a Muslim candidate of mine who stood for Hornsby in the state election. I didn't have an issue with that, but where was the rebuke from people in this parliament when you had imams on our streets spilling hate out of their mouths and rejoicing over what happened in Israel in October 2023? Where's the rebuke of those people? I didn't hear it from anyone.

What you're doing today about my comments is an absolute stunt. You don't stand up to what is happening in our communities and in our suburbs, and you don't call it out. You're gutless. You're all so gutless because you rely on the votes from these people. You are so un-Australian. The people out there will actually judge One Nation and my comments. Let the people judge me. I'm not going to be judged by you at all.

Senator Hanson, please resume your seat.

Senator Hanson-Young, I've warned you and warned you. If you cannot listen with respect, leave the chamber. Whether you agree or disagree, every senator in this place has the right to be heard in silence.

What about violence in the workplace.

Senator Thorpe, resume your seat!

When are you going to deal with that, President?

Senator Thorpe, you are out of line. Resume your seat.

Resume your seat! Senator Thorpe, I don't want to have to name you, but I will. You have to sit in silence as well or leave the chamber. Senator Hanson.

Do you know what? Are you happy? There you are; I've given myself a slap. This is a joke. You're all a joke. This is ridiculous.

Senator Hanson, no. Senator Hanson, I am going to ask you to come back into the chamber and withdraw that remark.

Senator Thorpe, enough! I'll make the point again so that it's clear on the Hansard: I have asked Senator Hanson to come back in and withdraw. Senator Sheldon.

I have a great deal of pleasure in standing up here and speaking on this proposition. Regardless of some of the people who are sitting on this side of the chamber, at the back of the chamber, I actually do very strongly hold beliefs about the Muslim community and their right to their voice. I do take great offence to what was said by Senator Hanson.

I would say this to everybody here: start thinking about the effect that this language of division that is coming from both the left and the right has on this country. I have as much right to speak out and speak on behalf of hardworking Australians who happen to be Muslims as I do those who happen to be of any other faith. I don't expect to stand here and be lectured by those who won't give me the opportunity to say what I believe should be said.

I met with the Lebanese Muslim Association just last week. I've met with the community on numerous occasions, as have many of us in here. When we start talking about Muslims in our community, we have to talk about the Lebanese Muslim Association, which has been supporting and feeding communities in Australia for over 60 years. They've run programs like the Youth Transition Support initiative and the Youth Hub, which help young people gain recognised qualifications, build pathways into employment and access structured mentoring and community support. Between July and December last year alone, they supported more than 1,560 people through food bank services. In that same period, they assisted over 300 people with energy and water relief. Through their charity arm Feed the World, they also organised food packs and raised funds for emergency relief in crisis zones around the world. The president, Hafez Alameddine, spoke about the hurt and fear Senator Hanson's comments have caused across the Muslim community.

Let's also talk about Mariam Veiszadeh, a proud Muslim Afghan refugee who became one of Australia's most prominent social advocates. In 2014, she founded the Islamophobia Register Australia, a secure platform for Australians to report incidents of Islamophobia, hate and discrimination. Since then, it has released national research reports that shine a light on hate, document what victims are experiencing and connect those victims with legal advice and mental health support. After her work, she was faced with online abuse from Neo-Nazis, she received death threats that prompted police patrols outside her home and suspicious packages were delivered to her address. Despite that, she didn't take a backward step. I think we can all learn from her words. She said:

Speaking up, standing up, or calling out something is important. Because not only can it help change the course of your own pathway, but it can also pave a way for others that will follow you.

Then there's Imam Ismet Purdic, who, along with his wife, was followed, abused and forced off the road just two months ago in Melbourne. Three strangers hurled racist abuse, threw rubbish at their car, punched him and even threatened his wife. Yet his response wasn't anger or division—a lesson for everyone. He said:

My message for all of us in Australia is just to stay together to help each other to stay safe, and not to allow anyone, doesn't matter … his religion or beliefs, to break this peace, security and all [the] good values we believe in … We must, as Australians, fight against hate, Islamophobia, antisemitism … we must stay together.

And who can forget brave Ahmed Al Ahmed? In the middle of unimaginable chaos in Bondi, when everyone was running for their lives, he ran towards one of the terrorists and tackled the armed attacker, saving countless lives that day. Let's not forget that these are all stories of great Australian Muslims. When Senator Hanson asks, 'How can you tell me there are good Muslims?' it's not just an attack on one community; it's an attack on all Australians. It's clear that Senator Hanson has no solutions for challenges that this country faces. Australia is at its strongest—

Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator Ruston.

I want to join my colleagues in this chamber in condemning and rejecting the comments made by Senator Hanson, which were inflammatory and divisive, in regard to Muslim Australians. I think most Australians would reject these comments. I had hoped today to have a vote on the very matter of condemning these comments. I proposed an amendment—which was precluded because of the motion that set up this motion—to Senator Wong's motion, stating that the Senate condemns and rejects Senator Hanson's inflammatory and divisive comments regarding Muslim Australians.

However, I want to reinforce, even though I'm unable to move my amendment, that the hateful nature of these comments has no place in this country. Australia is culturally and religiously diverse. The contribution of every single citizen of this country is valued by this nation. It always has been. This nation has always drawn on the strength of this diversity that has made Australia so great. I'm sorry I couldn't move my amendment, but I condemn the comments.

Senator Cash indicated earlier that the coalition will vote differently on part (g) of this motion. I intend to put part (a) through to part (f) of Minister Wong's motion. The question is that parts (a) to (f) of the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The question is that part (g) of the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to racism and Islamophobia, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to racism and Islamophobia.

This Greens motion is not just a performative motion giving cover to Labor for the role that they have played in normalising racism and Islamophobia. The Greens motion actually names Islamophobia. It names anti-Muslim hate. It names racism. And it actually presents recommendations to tackle these issues.

Senator Faruqi, I'm going to stop you right there. You sought leave to move that motion. Leave was denied. You've now moved your contingent motion. So your comments need to focus on why it is so critical that the standing orders of the Senate must be set aside to allow this motion to be moved.

We've just had a motion passed which has censured a senator for her hateful comments against Muslims. So this is urgent. There is an escalation and normalisation of anti-Muslim hate on our streets and in the media. Tackling Islamophobia and racism has been urgent for years—

Senator Faruqi—

but its urgency is so much—

Senator Faruqi—

more important now than ever before.

Senator Faruqi, when I call you, I expect you to stop. Once again, I remind you: you've moved a contingent order. Your debate needs to focus on why it is so important that the business of the Senate be set aside to allow your motion to be moved. Please continue.

President, moving this motion is urgent, right now, because what we are seeing happening on the streets of this country—the vilification of Muslims in this country—demands urgent action, and none is being taken. The motion is about taking urgent action to end the scourge of racism and Islamophobia.

Just last week, an Islamophobic white supremacist was arrested and charged with planning a terrorist attack on mosques in Perth, having already stockpiled ammunition and weapons. How did we come to this place?

In recent weeks, we have seen more and more Muslim women assaulted, violent threats against mosques and Islamic schools, and pigs' heads left at a Muslim cemetery. Over the past month, Lakemba mosque has received three violent, threatening letters. We need to act urgently to stop this. And that is what our motion is about.

These threats and attacks don't just exist in a vacuum. The prevalence of Islamophobic views in this country has occurred as a result of normalisation and legitimisation of these views by politicians from both sides. Something needs to be done about that; otherwise, this hate that I and my community face will always be there. Surely you can see that this is urgent and not just a performative motion.

Of course there's the outright racism of Senator Hanson and One Nation. It was on full display in this chamber this morning, with deeply offensive and Islamophobic comments made by Senator Roberts, who tried to explain the difference between 'good Muslims' and 'true Muslims'. Firstly, who the hell are you, Senator Roberts, to tell me about my religion? Senator Roberts should stay in his lane.

Secondly, we're seeing how urgent and important addressing racism and Islamophobia is. A point of order was raised by my colleague Senator Shoebridge to withdraw those comments, but Labor senator Sterle, presiding at that time, did not deem it necessary to call for a withdrawal of Islamophobic rhetoric. This is not just rhetoric. This is real for people like me and like the Muslim community in this country. It is urgent to address that. But we see this sort of thing happening in this chamber again and again, when those perpetrating racism and perpetrating Islamophobia face few or no consequences and those calling it out are shut down and silenced every single time. So don't tell us about the right to be heard silently in this chamber when you don't deign to give us that right to speak out on racism when we need to.

So, yes, this is urgent. The double standards that are used to allow anti-Muslim hate to spread, to be legitimised and to be normalised have to be addressed urgently. The hate is mainstream. This hate is mainstreamed when the Prime Minister states that he has 'nothing but contempt' for women and children stuck in camps in Syria, who are Muslim Australian citizens. It is on display when governments of both stripes scapegoat migrants for the housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis, when the Liberals call for 'Australian values' testing of new migrants and when both major parties legitimise far-right rhetoric around mass migration and the supposed threat it poses to the Western world. This is what needs to be addressed. This is what will make a change. This is why it is so urgent. This is why we brought this motion on today.

We saw outside Town Hall in Sydney a couple of weeks ago the attacks by New South Wales police under a Minns Labor government on Muslims peacefully praying. How did we get there? We got there because anti-Muslim hate has been normalised, and that's something we need to urgently address. Anti-Muslim hate in this country is never treated with the same outrage, the same condemnation— (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

I move:

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

There were a number of questions from the coalition to the government in relation to the ISIS brides: what the government did know; what the government did not know; what the government has done; and what the government has not done. But there was one in particular that I want to begin on, particularly in light of the need for us to find ways to focus on things that unite Australians rather than divide Australians. One of the questions to Senator Wong related to the government's reaction or response to the death of the Supreme Leader of Iran. Senator Wong answered, 'We don't mourn the passing of Iran's Supreme Leader.' I agree with that in totality. This was a regime that killed—murdered—thousands of its own people. This is a regime that sent forces or individuals to Australia to attack and kill Australians here in Australia. The Iranian government, under the directive of this so-called Supreme Leader, ordered attacks on synagogues, restaurants and childcare centres not in the Middle East but in Sydney and Melbourne. For anybody to stand here and defend that is entirely unacceptable. I'm grateful that the government and the opposition stand together on that.

I'm also concerned about the number of mosques in Australia that have held services to mourn the ayatollah's death, and statements like—I'll quote from the question from Senator Cash—'the pious scholar, the foremost martyr of the Islamic revolution, and the rightful deputy of the Iman of the age'. I reject that in its totality because somebody who is 'pious and rightful' doesn't seek the death of innocents. They don't send directives to countries like Australia, where we have a democratic rule of law, and seek the destruction of houses of worship, of commercial businesses or of the places where we care for our children. That is entirely unacceptable. We reject it in its totality.

When it comes to our questions around what the government did and didn't do, and does and doesn't know, in relation to the ISIS brides, Senator Wong answered a question from Senator Paterson saying that she can only speak to the actions of the Australian government and Australian officials, and that she wasn't able to answer questions in relation to Dr Rifi. I believe that the government does know more than it is telling us, and that is the basis of our questions today. We want to know, and the Australian public deserves to know, what promises were made to Dr Rifi before he left—before he went to assist the so-called ISIS brides and their return to Australia. I think we deserve to know that as a matter of course. We deserve to know that in the context of what has occurred in this country over the last couple of years, but particularly in relation to how it culminated on 14 December with the murder of 15 innocents at Bondi Beach. I think we are entitled to ask these questions, and we are entitled to have honest and clear answers to those questions. We didn't get those today.

The coalition will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to facilitate the re-entry of individuals linked to terrorist hotspots or terrorist organisations or those who have committed terror related offences—and rightly so. If you leave this country in order to facilitate terrorism, then you should be asked serious questions about why you should be allowed to return to this country. And we should be entitled to say, 'No, you've made your decision, and you cannot come back.'

I think the international community largely has been very clear, as has the Australian government, that the Iranian regime can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. We have, with the international community, called for the Iranian regime to uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms for Iran's citizens. Instead, the regime instigated a brutal crackdown, killing thousands of its own citizens.

Therefore, we have indicated, as a government, that we support the United States and Israel in acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. Australia didn't participate in these strikes, but we are in contact with international partners, including in the region, and, most importantly, we want to see how it affects Australians. For Australians living or travelling abroad, we know the impact it's had. There have been much wider ramifications in the Middle East, including major airport hubs closed, transport offline and telecommunications disrupted. We're making sure consular support is there for those affected Australians to get home safely.

We also need to think about how we respond to the economic shock. We talk about our physical security both here and abroad, but the economic security is just as critical. People will be wondering: what are the implications of this Iranian conflict for our economy? Ukraine gives us a good template for that. We saw a huge oil price shock when the Russians invaded Ukraine, we saw shortages of fertiliser, and we saw shortages of food supplies, and that had a big implication for Australia's economy at the time. Rising gas prices pushed up inflation. We had global supply chain shocks, and our resilience was tested. But I think we came through that conflict stronger and more resilient. It's actually turned our attention to what we need to do to protect Australia, protect our living standards, build our sovereign capability and protect our supply chains.

Australia is a great trading nation, and we value a rules-based international trading system of free and fair trade. But we also need to be mindful that those trade links can be broken at times of conflict, which we're seeing become more and more prevalent. If we think about the trade that goes through the affected Strait of Hormuz, in the Middle East, 20 per cent of the world's oil passes through that strait. It undoubtedly will have an impact.

But what we can do is insulate ourselves, and this is what the Albanese Labor government has been doing. We are trying to rethink our industrial capacity and build more energy security by helping homes and businesses invest in clean forms of electricity that don't require exposure to gas and oil, and that will help protect ourselves from these international shocks. We don't control the international oil price or international gas prices; we're a price taker. But we can be resilient to the shocks and help underpin our industrial base. The Australian government will always be there to protect Australians' living standards through these shocks. We did it last time with energy bill relief, and we also provided three rounds of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. If you combine those tax cuts, the average value is about 2½ thousand dollars a year, forever and ongoing.

We're doing more work to strengthen Australian domestic gas supply to prioritise Australian gas for Australians. We're making that a priority. Again, we're building resilience to these international shocks. We've accelerated renewable energy investment to reduce exposure to volatile global fossil fuel markets. Our Future Made in Australia agenda forms part of that response to these global structural shocks, supporting domestic manufacturing to clean energy, critical minerals and advanced industry. These are not just great economic measures to boost our jobs and economy; they're actually protecting us from these very severe international shocks that we're witnessing right now. Rather than being permanently exposed to global price volatility, we're securing Australia's industrial base so we can be both physically and economically secure in these times of volatility.

There were three questions from the coalition: one on the topic of Iran and two in relation to the women and children who are currently in Syrian camps seeking to return. In relation to Iran, let us hope that the people of Iran reclaim their country as a result of this conflict. My thoughts and prayers are particularly with those ordinary citizens that are affected, not the instruments of the state. Also, as I have a long and abiding relationship with the people of the UAE, they are not far from my thoughts.

I might come to the Australians who are seeking to return. It presents a considerable ethical dilemma for this parliament and Australia—what to do with these women and children. On the one hand, we must respect the rule of law. There are many, particularly on my side of politics, who proclaim the rule of law at every opportunity. But that really means treating each individual case on its merits and not as a cohort. We must also be mindful of the children. I don't back away from the fact that they are in a conflict and they assisted a horrific ideology and supported it. But that does not excuse us, as Australians, for diminishing our own standards on how we address their return. I don't back away from the difficult ethics faced by the government and by the ministers who must exercise administrative discretions. But, as the minister, Senator Wong, indicated to the chamber, there are no legal instruments at the moment—I'm assuming this is based on the information that's been supplied to the government, and I'm obviously not privy to that—for an exercise of particular discretions, although one order has been given. Therefore, what do we do with these individuals?

I'm going to inject one concept that has not been spoken about, and that's mercy for the children. I think we need to reflect on how we address this problem. It's one thing for the government to say it has no legal authority and can only issue one order, but at some point, if this continues, we then need to change our legislative frameworks to address this problem of failed states and terrorist activity. Alternatively, if these people are going to be repatriated, we need to support them to reintegrate and to leave behind their commitment—if, indeed, they still have it—to terrorism and radical Islamism. I do not think it is weak or backing away from the protection of our own people to have some regard for these children, for they are the affected innocents from their parents' tragic attraction to a horrible ideology. I think it is incumbent upon us all in public life to sometimes leave behind the binary and confront, head on, a difficult and intractable dilemma.

If I can inject one thing into the debate, that is that each individual must account for their own sins. You cannot—or should not, under Australian law—be labelled as part of a group, except in particular circumstances, and children cannot be prosecuted.

ISIS and organisations like it are manifestations of evil in our world, and it is hard to capture in words the brutality of their violence and the grotesque ideology that underpins it. The victims of their violence come from all different creeds, but what they reflect in common is the savagery of these organisations. That's why Australia and our allies and friends around the world have worked and continue to work to destroy ISIS and organisations like it and to fight the scourge of terrorism where it rears its head.

I think Australians are rightly horrified by the idea that Australian citizens would travel overseas to join and fight with ISIS or to support those who have travelled to join and fight with ISIS. The women who've travelled with their husbands to join and fight with ISIS should be criticised—as they have been—and they should be punished according to law. But those words are important, because the rule of law is one of the assumptions upon which Australia's constitutional system is built. Former chief justice of Australia Murray Gleeson said this of the rule of law:

The importance of the rule of law lies partly in the power it denies to people and to governments, and in the discipline to which it subjects all authority. That denial, and that discipline, are conditions of the exercise of power, which in a democracy, comes from the community which all government serves.

That discipline and commitment to the rule of law are reflected in the Australian government's position. The Australian government has been clear it will not repatriate these individuals from Syria and that any Australian returning to Australia who has breached Australian law will be investigated and subject to the full force of that law and any punishments.

Importantly, we are committed as a priority to community safety. So, if any of this cohort find their way to return to Australia, Australia's security agencies are prepared and will be able to act to ensure community safety. I take Senator McLachlan's point that this must occur on an individual basis, and that is what the law requires. But our security agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time, and our security agencies have the skills and experience needed to keep our nation safe. Our law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies and national security agencies are following the same approach they have for over a decade, the same approach the former government enforced when male foreign fighters themselves came back to Australia, and the same approach will be taken to their spouses. The minister addressed this in her answer today in that Australian citizens are entitled to apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, be issued an Australian passport, but a passport can be refused or cancelled on security grounds if a competent authority, such as an agency like ASIO, requests it. That's the key point: Australia's community safety comes first, and that's the basis on which these cases will be treated.

As the Prime Minister has observed, we do also have to have compassion for the children involved. Taking children into a war zone like this is a form of child abuse. It's horrific. But the others who've chosen to travel to that area in the circumstances in which they travelled have made decisions in life and ought to face those consequences. I also quote Minister Butler in relation to this issue:

We are not going to provide taxpayer resources to help these women come back to Australia. They took the decision, along with their husbands, their partners at the time, to leave this country and to travel to Syria and Iraq and support one of the most awful death cults we've seen in decades.

That said, the Australian government will act according to law. We will act with determination and resolve to ensure that the Australian community remains safe, and, with the laws that are currently in place, the government are following through on that commitment.

We've already heard from the minister today that a temporary exclusion order can be issued if there are reasonable grounds to suspect it will assist in security or in preventing a terrorist attack, and one has been issued in relation to this. If there are individuals who are able to return, then they will be investigated. If they've broken the law, they'll be punished. If it's necessary to issue an order to ensure community safety, that will be done as well. The safety of Australians and the protection of Australia's national interest remain the overriding priority of this government in relation to this issue and all others.

I note that we are taking note today of all answers given to coalition questions, but I think it's important to note, in passing, that it is now 20 past four on the first day of sitting and we seem to have spent most of the day in this chamber talking about things which I doubt are of particular interest to Australians in the mainstream. We started the day by talking about motions in support of the action in Iran. We then spent an hour debating a statement on the Closing the Gap situation. This chamber then spent what seemed like an eternity debating a censure motion in relation to a sitting senator, who made comments outside the chamber, and then passed that motion. Now, we've been talking about motions in relation to—whatever the last one was, it wasn't relevant anyway. At least we're now talking about something that does have some bearing on the Australian people, and that's this government's inaction when it comes to the issue of the returning of the ISIS brides.

I have said for a long period of time that the first and only or most important job for any government is to keep their citizens safe, to keep Australians safe, and to protect our way of life. That's not something we're seeing out of this government. I'm minded to cast my mind across the Pacific to the United States and wonder what lessons are learnt from the actions of, I would say, the strongest world leader currently in power anywhere in the world and indeed one of the most accomplished of the last 50 years, perhaps. I think it's an indictment on politics generally that we now have a billionaire real estate mogul who's famous for selling steaks and wine and skyscrapers that has basically outshone every single career politician in the United States and every foreign policy expert over the last 30 years. I think it is an indictment on the political system. I think we've seen that reflected here today. It proves that career politicians really aren't just ineffective; they're actually pretty useless, honestly. They're pretty useless. That's what we have seen through the actions of this president.

We're seeing it again now, of course, with the response to the ISIS brides—a lot of dithering, a lot of chin-scratching and a lot of scratching of the noodle. 'What are we going to do? There's an esoteric problem here. What are we going to do with this?' It's actually pretty simple. The coalition has intimated and said that it will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to facilitate the re-entry of individuals linked to terrorist hotspots and terrorist organisations who've committed terror-related offences overseas. Australians are sick and tired of being put second. That is not the motto, although it's the motto of this government over here—Australia second or last, or whatever it might be.

While the government spent a week dodging questions about the ISIS brides and playing the blame game, it's time for direct and positive action to be taken in the parliament to strengthen our laws and protect our Australian way of life. Ultimately, that should be the first position of any government. I think the Albanese government needs to come clean with the Australian people. We need more information about what they know about whether any of these ISIS-linked individuals are coming back. Are they coming back? What specific security assessments have been done or will be undertaken?

Remember, these are not just people who went to see the ruins of Palmyra or to taste the local food; these are people who went to Syria for the purposes of supporting the caliphate, supporting ISIS, which I would say is the most egregious terrorist outfit that has graced God's green Earth over the last 50 years or so. Australians expect that our borders and our communities are going to be protected from such individuals. That is the red line for most Australians. They're not interested in esoteric arguments about what this person did or what that person did—whatever it was, the job of this government is to keep Australians safe, and that is a job at which this government is failing badly.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the government's responses to Greens questions today in relation to the latest bloody and illegal war in the Middle East.

Many Australians are aghast and shocked and extremely worried about the Albanese government's support for Donald Trump's latest war in the Middle East, the deadly blasts and bombs that have already cost the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians; schoolchildren with schools being bombed and hospitals struck; and the young, the vulnerable and the sick, carrying the burden of this bloody war only two days in. Military action is irresponsible and dangerous at best, when its consequences cannot be controlled in such a volatile region—one of the most volatile in the world. While our thoughts are with the innocent civilians and the people of Iran, we, too, are thinking about the innocent civilians and people throughout the Middle East in other countries around the region who, too, are now hiding from the shelling and the bombs. This is wrong. There's a reason that the United Nations secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, has called it wrong, has condemned it and has asked for it to stop.

Evil thrives and innocent people suffer when good people stay silent, when moral courage crumbles and when governments who should know better, who do know better, capitulate to the bullies and the tyrants. Donald Trump should not have the support of the Australian government for this illegal war. It is not our war. It is not in our name. And we should not be allowing it to occur without condemnation. Australians here and overseas are already impacted, and it's time the Australian government, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and One Nation stopped cowering to the bullies in the US.

I also rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Green senators. I associate myself with the comments made by Senator Hanson-Young. Our Foreign minister was asked to confirm whether or not the Australian government believes that the war that has been started in Iran is illegal, and our Foreign minister refused to answer that question, deflecting and deferring and saying it is up to the US and Israel to explain their actions. That should horrify every single Australian—that our own government doesn't have the willingness or the capacity to make a call on whether international law has been breached. Are you incompetent, or are you lying?

The United Nations has said it's unlawful. It didn't even go to Congress in the US. US Democrats and some Republicans are questioning its legality, and yet our prime minister and our Foreign minister are first out the gate to say: 'Good job. Well done. We support you.' Shame! It is possible to be against a hateful regime, to condemn its actions, to support the right of Iranians to freedom, which the Greens are on the record as supporting, and, at the same time, to be against an unjust and dangerous military intervention that is outside international law. When did we start picking and choosing when we follow the law and when we don't? That should be alarming to every Australian, because a government that picks and chooses when it follows the law might not just start doing that overseas. There's a real chance they will start doing it here at home. This Labor government has lost its way, and it should be ashamed of itself.

Question agreed to.

Just before we move on, I will remind senators that, if the chair—particularly to assist the clerks at the table—could be informed if time is going to be split between senators, it is helpful.

I wish to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for today, at the request of Senator McKenzie, and also general business motion of motion No. 360 for today, at the request of Senator McKenzie.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

At the request of Senator Canavan, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2026:

The reasons behind the latest unprecedented cost blowouts in the Government's budget and its impact on inflation and interest rates, with particular reference to:

(a) the impacts of government budget blowouts on increasing inflation rates;

(b) the influence of high government spending and elevated inflation rates on the standard of living of Australians, including on:

(i) the affordability of housing,

(ii) the effective delivery of government services, and

(iii) the quality of public infrastructure, including roads and public transport;

(c) the extent that high government spending is increasing government debt;

(d) the factors that led to the largest budget blowout on record;

(e) the pressure that increasing inflation rates is putting on state government budgets;

(f) the influence that deteriorating economic conditions is having on the wellbeing of Australians; and

(g) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber.

Leave granted.

I move the amendment:

After paragraph (b), insert:

(ba) the urgent need for tax reform to contribute to budget repair, to encourage growth and investment and to distribute the burden of taxation more fairly across the population, including consideration of:

(i) how to better balance the burden of taxation between labour income and income from assets;

(ii) the appropriate level of the capital gains tax discount;

(iii) reforming negative gearing in housing including consideration of ring-fencing or only allowing losses to be applied at the time of sale of property;

(iv) reform of the Fuel Tax Credit scheme to ensure that miners and fossil fuel companies do not receive a fossil fuel subsidy;

(v) improved resource taxation to ensure that all Australians benefit from Australia's mineral and resource wealth;

(bb) the potential for investment in home electrification to reduce the cost of energy and put downward pressure on inflation.

Question negatived.

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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2026:

The impact of Labor's rushed firearms legislation on lawful manufacturing and Australia's sovereign defence capability, with particular reference to:

(a) the proposed definition of 'firearms manufacture material', including material said to 'support or facilitate' manufacture or modification of firearms, parts or accessories;

(b) the risk that lawful subcontracted machining and production of firearm components will be retrospectively captured and criminalised, including through ordinary business handling of technical files;

(c) the practical effect of linking Commonwealth criminal liability to state and territory licensing regimes that are onerous and often unworkable for legitimate manufacturers and suppliers;

(d) the consequences for Defence supply chain resilience and sovereign capability if contractors and service providers withdraw from lawful work due to the threat of a five-year gaol term; and

(e) any other related matters.

Question negatived.

I move:

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

The future of jobs at Centennial Coal's Myuna Colliery and the security of coal supply to Origin Energy's Eraring Power Station, and the wider implications for affordable, reliable electricity and regional industry in the Hunter, with particular reference to:

(a) the employment and community impacts in Lake Macquarie and the Hunter of any closure, scaling back or prolonged uncertainty at Myuna Colliery;

(b) the need for a long-term coal supply agreement that keeps Myuna Colliery operating and provides job security for its workforce for the remaining operating life of Eraring Power Station;

(c) whether government policy settings, including net zero targets and associated interventions, are contributing to uncertainty in coal supply contracting, investment and ongoing operation of coal mines and coal-fired generation;

(d) whether government decisions affecting Eraring's operating life are being matched by practical arrangements that support mine viability, workforce certainty and dependable fuel supply;

(e) the flow-on impacts on regional manufacturing and industrial jobs that depend on secure, affordable baseload power, including Tomago Aluminium and associated local supply chains;

(f) options to support secure, affordable domestic fuel supply and reliable baseload generation that protects jobs and keeps power prices down for households and businesses; and

(g) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government is opposing this motion. Negotiations between Origin and Centennial Coal are ongoing. We are watching them closely. But, unlike any other party in this building, we make sure workers at coal-fired power stations and dependent mines receive legally required support from employers at closing facilities through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan, which now covers 106 workers and may cover a thousand workers by next year, and through investment in their communities to deliver new blue-collar jobs—investment that One Nation and their friends in the Nationals and Liberals oppose. Minister Ayres's office is organising the briefing for Senator Bell. If he has questions, he can ask them now. In its 30-year history, One Nation hasn't delivered so much as a roundabout—not in the Hunter nor anywhere else in the country.

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

Senators, if there are further divisions, it's my intention to do one-minute bells. We'll now move to general business. We'll move to general business 335 standing in the name of Senator McGrath.

At the request of Senator McGrath, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Cities, by no later than midday on Monday, 23 March 2026, a copy of the 2024 State of Australian Cities report.

by leave—I move:

At the start of the motion, insert:

(a) That the Senate notes that:

(i) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used when other processes have been exhausted, and

(ii) the 2024 State of Australian Cities report has not been requested through any other process available to Senators; and

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 335, standing in the name of Senator McGrath and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 335, standing in the name of Senator McGrath and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that on 26 November 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 288 (the order), requiring the Minister for Finance and Minister representing the Treasurer, and the Minister representing the Prime Minister, to table specified correspondence concerning cost-saving targets by 28 November 2025;

(b) notes that the response provided by the minister relies on a claim of Cabinet confidentiality and public interest immunity;

(c) notes that, as set out in Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, a claim of Cabinet confidentiality relates only to disclosure that would reveal the actual deliberations of Cabinet, and that a claim cannot be sustained merely because a document has a connection to Cabinet processes;

(d) notes that the Government has neither established that disclosure of the documents sought would reveal Cabinet deliberations nor specified the harm that would occur if they were released;

(e) rejects the claim of public interest immunity made in response to the order; and

(f) orders that the documents specified in the order be laid on the table by 9 am on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, or, if any documents are withheld, that the minister table a statement identifying:

(i) the specific document withheld, and

(ii) how disclosure of that document would reveal Cabinet deliberations and specify the harm that would occur if the document was released.

by leave—I move:

Omit paragraphs (c) to (f), substitute:

(c) the Minister for Finance has previously advised the Senate that "the idea that we are imposing a 5% cut on agencies is incorrect".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 336, standing in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 336 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 337 be withdrawn.

I move general business notice of motion No. 338:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance and for the Public Service, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 31 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages, calculations and modelling in relation to the Government's $6.8 billion of savings through reducing spending on external labour and other non-wage expenses like travel, hospitality and property, identified on page 215 of the 2025-26 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook.

I seek leave to move an amendment.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I move an amendment to general business notice of motion No. 338:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 338, standing in the name of Senator Barbara Pocock, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 338 standing in the name of Senator Barbara Pocock be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Prime Minister and/or his office, the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in relation to the invitation of Australia and the Prime Minister to join the Board of Peace, as established under United Nations Security Council resolution 2803.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 340 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 340, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Paterson, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 27 March 2026, all documents dated from 14 December 2025 (including emails, letters, text messages, instant messages, minutes, briefings and submissions) held by the Prime Minister, and/or the Prime Minister's office (PMO), relating to:

(a) the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025;

(b) ministerial submissions provided to the Prime Minister or the PMO setting out options to review or inquire into the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025;

(c) the appropriateness of review mechanisms following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025 proposed to, available to or undertaken by the Government;

(d) any communication with the Minister for Home Affairs and/or the minister's office relating to the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025;

(e) any communication with the Attorney-General and/or the Attorney General's office relating to the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025;

(f) any communication with the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, or any other Australian Federal Police official at the senior executive service (SES) level or above, relating to the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025;

(g) any communication with the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) or any other PM&C official at the SES level or above relating to the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack in Bondi on 14 December 2025; and

(h) any communication with the Secretary of the Attorney-General's Department (AGD), or any other AGD official at the SES level or above, relating to the establishment of a Commonwealth Royal Commission following the terrorist attack at Bondi on 14 December 2025.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 341, standing in the name of Senator Paterson and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

The question is that general business of motion No. 341, standing in the name of Senator Paterson and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Cash, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 342.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 259 agreed to by the Senate on 25 November 2025 and requesting that the Minister representing the Minister for Housing table any advice given to the minister or her office since 24 October 2025 relating to replacing the outgoing Chair of the Housing Australia Board, Ms Carol Austin, was only partially complied with,

(ii) the tabled documents do not provide the requested information and contain heavy redactions, and

(iii) the requested documents are imperative as they point to the appointment process of the chair of a government agency, making them well within the public interest; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026.

by leave—I move:

Paragraph (a)(i), omit "only partially".

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

(ii) the tabled documents do provide the request information and contain appropriate redactions where the information is out of scope.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 343, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question is that general business order of motion No. 343, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, any documents or correspondence that relate to Housing Australia's expenditure on consultants between June 2024 and February 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Chisholm, to general business notice of motion No. 344, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 344 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 198 agreed to by the Senate on 28 October 2025 and requesting that the Minister representing the Minister for Housing table the Housing Australia Board meeting minutes from September 2023 to October 2025, was only partially complied with,

(ii) the requested documents were significantly redacted and no basis for these redactions was provided, and

(iii) the release of the requested documents informs the effectiveness of a government agency to deliver an $80 billion housing agenda; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026.

by leave—I move:

Paragraph (b), omit "comply with the order", substitute "provide a letter outlining the basis for the redactions".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion no. 345 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 345 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, Housing Australia's risk register as at 1 January 2026.

by leave—I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", with appropriate redactions, noting that documents of this kind usually contain commercially sensitive information".

The question is the amendment to General Business Notice of Motion No. 346 standing in the name of Senator Bragg, moved by Senator Chisolm, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 346, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, any documents that relate to Housing Australia's expenditure on furniture since November 2023.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 347, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question now is that general business notice of motion No. 347, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

At the request of Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts and intended to be used by its officials for the appearance at additional estimates 2025-26.

by leave—I move:

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

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

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm to general business notice of motion No. 348 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:23]

(The President—Senator Lines)

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 348, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Collins, be agreed to.

I have stood so many times in this chamber to speak on Closing the Gap, and it's always the same. I could almost copy and paste my previous speeches because we have seen no real progress at all. Each year we go through the same sad ritual: targets are not on track, some of the most crucial are going backwards, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Indigenous Australians make vague statements about partnership and hope, and then they move on. We've known for years that incarceration rates are rising, child removals are rising, suicide rates remain devastating. We all know this. With no real progress, Closing the Gap has now just become a sad reporting exercise on the racist state violence that continues to occur against First Peoples.

The problem is not a lack of information; the problem is a lack of political will for change. The problem is a racist colonial government across this country that continues to harm us.

Closing the Gap is the latest in a long line of failures. In the 1980s, Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke stood at Barunga and promised a treaty. That promise was never delivered. Under Paul Keating, we saw a shift toward recognition of truth: the Redfern speech, the acknowledgement that dispossession and violence were not accidents of history but foundations of this nation. That period was imperfect, but it was at least grounded in the language of our rights. It was something that didn't last.

John Howard's era of practical reconciliation came next. Treaty was off the table. Power shifting was dismissed. The focus changed to a top-down approach. It was service delivery with a government-knows-best approach. This culminated in the horrific, racist NT intervention. Questions of sovereignty, justice and shifting power were completely scrapped. Does this sound familiar?

When Kevin Rudd formalised Closing the Gap in 2008, it carried elements of accountability, but it also inherited the top-down logic of Howard, and over time the framework has shrunk into a set of targets detached from the deeper structural causes of the harm perpetrated against First Peoples since invasion. By 2018, most targets were not on track and many were going backwards. In 2020, the new national agreement promised a reset. There would supposedly be genuine partnership with Aboriginal organisations, shared decision-making, community control and structural reform. Some hoped that would mark a return to something closer to the rights based approach that had once seemed possible. Instead, today we find ourselves back at the same dead end.

Today, Closing the Gap functions not as a vehicle for justice but as political cover for this Labor government. It is something they point to when asked what they are doing about the harm First Peoples face. It provides a language of progress without requiring any redistribution of power. And signatories to the agreement, governments across this country, are now actively betraying their supposed commitments.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the criminalisation, the jailing of our people, including our children. The Productivity Commission's latest data shows more than $7 billion spent annually on prisons—a record. Jailing children costs more than $1 billion a year and is rising. The national prison population is at an 80-year high under this Labor government. Across states and territories, new prisons are being built and expanded. The tightening of bail laws has seen remand numbers soaring. Aboriginal women are the fastest-growing prison population in the country and the most incarcerated in the world—under Labor. We've just recorded the most black deaths in custody in a year since records began in 1978—under Labor. This is the result of deliberate choices by governments that have supposedly committed to bringing down incarceration of First Peoples under the Closing the Gap framework. This is the system working as colonial governments around this country want it to.

We are told there is limited funding for housing, for community controlled legal services, for culturally safe mental health care, and for early intervention and prevention. Yet there is always funding—billions—for more prison beds. If Closing the Gap were truly about reducing incarceration, investment would flow into keeping families together, into bail support, into justice reinvestment, into programs that communities have been calling for over decades. Instead, governments are expanding prisons and calling it progress while a pittance is offered to supporting people.

This is a political choice, which brings me to the Prime Minister's recent comments. He has cautioned against talk of failure, suggesting that describing Closing the Gap as failing dismisses the aspirations and achievements of First Peoples. Let me be clear: criticising this framework is not criticising our people; it is criticising governments who are actively harming our people. It is criticising the Albanese government. They are failing. For the Prime Minister to imply otherwise is an attempt to shift responsibility away from himself and onto those who bear the consequences of policy.

Our communities are not tightening bail laws. We are not funding and arming police or allocating billions to prisons. We are not stealing children or shrugging when our people die in custody. The Prime Minister's reframing criticism of Closing the Gap as criticism of Aboriginal people is a deflection. It's about creating hesitation among allies and Labor voters, who can see that the framework is not delivering but feel unsure about whether they are permitted to say so. To those people, I give you permission: say it; call them out. They're gammin. Labor are fake allies. Stand with First Peoples by calling this approach what it is: an utter failure. If you are serious about justice, you must call out this Labor government's failure to act. History tells us that progress in this country has never come from silence. Nothing we have ever achieved has been gifted by government. Everything has been won through the resilience and power of our ancestors and elders—in spite of governments, not because of them.

Albanese committed to implementing the Uluru statement in full, but after the Voice failed he lost interest. Like so many before him, he has decided there is nothing for him to gain politically from pursuing justice for First Peoples. It is never about us; it's just about votes. The trajectory is clear: bandaid programs and short-term grants while prisons expand and deaths in custody rise. This is the same logic as Howard's 'practical reconciliation', not the rights based approach Labor claims. Where there is progress, it is because of our people, not governments. The federal Labor government will hand all responsibility to the states and territories. It is an absolute cop-out. They have the power to pull the states into line. They're choosing not to use it. That failure sits squarely with Albanese. We will not be silenced. Criticism of Closing the Gap is not criticism of our people; it is about holding this government to account and demanding they do their job. So do it.

I rise today to speak about Closing the Gap, and to speak honestly about where we have fallen short in lifting up First Nations communities across the country. As Minister McCarthy has acknowledged, there is still a way to go to close the gap for our mob. We all know we need more than hope and promises. The latest Closing the gap data makes this painfully clear: only four the 19 targets are on track to be met. Every single year, we see more First Nations people impacted by disadvantage. Too many of our kids and communities are not getting the Australian 'fair go'. We are not progressing. This should be a wake-up call to every single person in this chamber, and we must speak frankly about where and why we are falling short.

Let's start with youth justice. First Nations children are being incarcerated at staggering rates. They are 27 times more likely to be locked up than other Australian kids, and 10 times more likely to be taken into out-of-home care. These figures unveil a justice system that is deeply out of balance. In Queensland, for example, First Nations people make up 4.6 per cent of the population but 37 per cent of the adult prisoners in custody and, staggeringly, 69 per cent of young people in detention. I don't need to be the one to say the math ain't mathing.

Then let's look at health. It's abundantly clear that our communities all over Australia are hurting. The suicide rate for Aboriginal people is approximately 2½ times higher than it is for other Australians. As the Prime Minister remarked, suicide shatters families and it tears apart communities, and it is the most urgent of crises to fix for our mob. Another lingering issue is preventable illnesses that have disappeared elsewhere, like rheumatic heart disease, for example. Yet, shamefully, it still affects First Nations community, and especially First Nations kids. Preventable deaths and diseases should never be accepted as normal anywhere, particularly in First Nations communities. For too many First Nations families, this is still their reality. We are letting them down when we do not close these gaps, when we lag behind.

This gap is also apparent in education. Only a handful of education targets are on track. Early childhood development—lagging; school attendance—far too low. If these gaps are left unchecked, they lock families and communities into cycles of disadvantage that last for generations.

Economic opportunities for First Nations people tell a similar story. Work and income gaps remain huge. We are still seeing housing shortages and food insecurity rampant through our communities. Too many people who want to and lots of people who do work hard still don't get a fair go. How is that fair? As politicians, we can often get caught up in the numbers. But First Nations people are facing real problems, and we are real people. We see and feel this in our towns, in our families and in our communities. The lives of First Nations people will not improve unless this parliament, and parliaments in every state and territory jurisdiction, do something about it. The Productivity Commission tells us that so many of the commitments and measures in the Closing the Gap framework are failing not because of First Nations communities but because parliaments and governments around the country have failed them and failed on their part in the Closing the Gap commitments.

It is well past time for that to change. Closing the Gap was agreed to by all governments, not just the federal government. State, territory and local governments agreed to joint accountability under the national agreement. But, too often, this work—the heavy lifting—has fallen back on Aboriginal communities themselves. We can't let the burden be left with communities who are underresourced to fix problems that they did not create. Every state and territory signed this agreement. Every one of them should be a part of the solution. But every jurisdiction is worsening on at least one priority measure; none of them have met all of their targets. Again, they're lagging behind. Queensland and the Northern Territory also face deeply concerning incarceration rates. Minister McCarthy has described these figures as alarming, and I echo her sentiments.

We know something else here: when governments invest properly, when programs are designed well and when barriers are removed, we see results on the ground. We see lives changed—real results. Let's look at Labor's free TAFE, for example. Across Australia, there have now been more than 44,000 enrolments by First Nations peoples. That represents 6.1 per cent of all free TAFE enrolments nationwide. That is incredible. This means thousands of people are gaining skills, building careers and creating new opportunities for themselves and their families for generations. This has a flow-on effect, too. We know that education and training opens so many doors. It creates independence and strengthens communities. Here in Victoria, we are seeing that impact as well. Since January 2023, there have been 143,000 free TAFE enrolments across the state. Within that, 1,800 have been First Nations students.

Behind those numbers are people who are helping their fellow Australians when they are sick. These numbers are the same people who are teaching our little ones when their parents have to work. They are the ones building homes across the country or upgrading your local parks. Theirs are skills that our economy needs and careers that change lives. These outcomes give insight into something important. Investment works. Removing financial barriers works. Access to education works. We need to see more action from state and territory governments to ensure the best chance for First Nations people. We must go further. This work is absolutely not done. While progress like this matters, it must happen at scale across education, health, housing and employment—and the list goes on.

Closing the gap does not happen through words alone. Governments need to have sustained investment and genuine partnership with communities at every level, taking responsibility for the commitments that they've made to their fellow Australians. We are lagging, and it's time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. We owe it to our communities, and we cannot let them down.

I'm an Australian. I have Warlpiri blood and Celtic blood, but, ultimately, above everything else, I'm an Australian. I want to see a country that is united, not divided; a country where we end Indigenous disadvantage and the retrograde view that disadvantage is synonymous with indigeneity; and a country where we stop treating each other as blackfellas and whitefellas and start seeing each other simply as fellow Australians, upholding the spirit of the Voice referendum outcome.

I've never been one to hold back in speaking uncomfortable truths. Real progress comes from a reverence for the truth. It's lies, dishonesty and distortion that inhibit progress and fuel regression. So, in responding to the government's Closing the Gap statement and report, I will again speak uncomfortable truths because I seek progress. A mature nation embraces its history in the round, successes and failures alike. While Prime Minister Rudd's National Apology to the Stolen Generations didn't fix things, it was a significant moment in our nation. The sorry in 2008 wasn't only for the stolen generations; the national apology was also a national commitment to not forget the sins of the past and to not repeat them. That intergenerational commitment must always be maintained. However, almost 20 years have passed since the national apology, and I believe it's time for something beyond remembering the apology each year. I believe it's time for Indigenous forgiveness.

The act of forgiving is not to forget the tragic past; rather, it's a means for our nation to move beyond the tragic past and no longer be its prisoner. Indigenous activists would prefer that Australians atone forevermore for our forebears' mistakes. That suits their political agenda of reparations and segregation, driven as they are by retribution and resentment. But, if we instil in future generations of Australians a default setting of national guilt, then we undermine the national pride that underpins national endeavour. Accordingly, forgiveness is not only essential for the cause of reconciliation; forgiveness also helps to nurture the love of country that's necessary for a strong, prosperous and united nation.

On the matter of Indigenous disadvantage, uncomfortable truths must be spoken too. Indigenous activists peddle the poisonous idea that every person of Indigenous heritage is a victim of British colonisation. The activists' goals are threefold: first, to rewrite history in the most hostile, unforgiving and unbalanced manner imaginable to demonise British settlement in its entirety; second, to give false legitimacy to the notion of intergenerational victimhood; and, third, to use that intergenerational victimhood as a means for financial and land settlements, concealed in the sweet-sounding phrases of truth-telling and treaty making.

The most perverse parts of the activists' propaganda are the denial of reality and the negation of individual agency. All around this country, especially in our cities, you'll find Indigenous Australians and Australians with Indigenous heritage who are doing well and even thriving. Indeed, many are doing better than Australians without Indigenous heritage. In 21st century Australia, race doesn't define disadvantage. To suggest otherwise is to perpetuate a dangerous activist myth, a myth we must bust. None of this is to deny that many Indigenous Australians experience profound disadvantage, nor is it to deny the hardships and troubles that afflict many Indigenous communities. But if we're going to address Indigenous disadvantage, especially where it exists in remote and regional parts of Australia, we need to be upfront about traditional culture.

There are aspects of traditional Indigenous culture which we can be proud of, such as the way our ancestors cared for the land. There are aspects of traditional culture worth remembering and preserving, like jukurrpa, the Dreaming. But there are regressive aspects of traditional culture that still exist today. Today, there are Indigenous men who still see women as inferior. One of those men beat a pregnant woman in Alice Springs recently. There are Indigenous men who treat women as possessions and who believe that beating a woman is acceptable behaviour. These regressive aspects of traditional culture must be expunged from Indigenous communities today, but they won't be while those in positions of power continue to turn a blind eye to all manner of sins. Moreover, there are leaders sitting on Indigenous bodies today with a history of violent offending. The Albanese government and the Minister for Indigenous Australians know these individuals are not fit and proper to hold leadership positions, and yet the government blocks inquiries and refuses to use its powers to remove these individuals. Frankly, this is wilful blindness, and it's a disgrace.

When we speak of closing the gap, one reason the gap hasn't been closed is due to a political class that romanticises traditional culture. That romanticisation is putting a force field around the most objectionable and violent behaviours that are at the very heart of Indigenous disadvantage. Is it any wonder that, in the latest Closing the gap report, only four of the 19 targets are on track? You're going backwards, Labor.

Tragically, more children are in out-of-home care, suicide remains a significant problem and there is still too much Aboriginal-on-Aboriginal violence. Come to Alice Springs, you mob. Check it out. It's on show for you all the time. If those objectionable and violent behaviours are rooted out of communities, it will go a long way to reducing violence and crime. Addressing violence and crime is critical. When the violence and crime stop, we start getting safe and stable communities. When we get stable and safe communities, families stay in homes, children stay in school, adults stay in work and people stay healthy.

Closing the gap also requires speaking uncomfortable truths about the need to reject the racism of low expectations. An excessive fixation on the historic injustices committed against Indigenous Australians has not only instilled an undue sense of national guilt; it's made our nation paternalistic towards Indigenous Australians. It's why we stand here and you can do as many acknowledgements as you want but it doesn't change the situation and clearly hasn't changed your targets. It is all just simple virtue signalling.

The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act came into effect in 1976. There were good intentions behind it: to give traditional Indigenous owners of the Northern Territory not only greater ownership of their land but control over their land too. Land councils were established to hold lands in trust and to preside over the use of those lands through leases, licences and agreements. Today, some 50 per cent of the Northern Territory is owned by Indigenous Australians, and yet it's incredibly difficult for them to use this land for economic purposes. Indigenous Australians in the Territory are land rich but dirt poor. They can't create jobs from their own land. They have to rely on government. Government keeps them dependent. The land councils are not functioning as they were intended, and it's why over many years I've repeatedly called for the land rights act to be reviewed and modernised. It's why over many years I've called for inquiries into Indigenous spending.

My calls expect of a broader point about closing the gap. We must do away with the notions of victimhood and paternalism that sit at the centre of too many laws, too many government policies and too many bureaucratic processes. We must give Indigenous Australians the individual agency that all humans crave. As masters of their own fate and captains of their souls, many more Indigenous Australians in remote and regional of Australia will start new ventures, join new enterprises and unlock multigenerational wealth. Why do this government and the Greens deny this for Indigenous Australians? Why do you continue to allow Indigenous Australians, the most marginalised, to be dependent on your handouts, on taxpayer dollars? I know why. It is for their votes—to stay in power. Shame on you!

For Indigenous people in remote communities, in some of the places where English is not a first language to them, where they don't have the luxury of owning a property portfolio like some of my colleagues across from me, where they don't even own to their land privately, their success or their failure will be up to them, as it would be—as it should be—if they are given the opportunities to unlock these entrepreneurial ways of going forward.

If we want to close the gap, it's time to stop ring-fencing people based on race. It's time to let people stand on their own two feet. That is what I came here to do, to fight for, as part of the coalition. It's such a shame that Labor now want to handball the fact that their Closing the Gap is going backwards and say it's somehow the fault of states and territories. No, it's on you. It's all on you. Shame! (Time expired)

When we talk about Closing the Gap in this place, we often talk a lot about numbers, many of them extremely grim. We're clearly not seeing the progress that Australians would like to see. But today I want to talk about the people and stories behind those numbers. While many think the ACT is different, we're not immune from Indigenous disadvantage or the racism that is unfortunately still prevalent across this incredible continent that we call home. In fact, the ACT has the highest rate of Indigenous incarceration of any state or territory. Despite the royal commission, First Nations people in Canberra continue to die in custody, as they do in other states and territories across this country. This must stop.

We saw three deaths in six months, including two in a single week in February last year. There was huge pressure applied by community leaders, including Joe Hedger and Winnunga CEO, Julie Tongs. That eventually forced the ACT government to set up a board of inquiry into the deaths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in custody at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. There are clearly systemic issues at AMC that must be addressed, but those systemic issues extend far beyond AMC's walls. In November last year, a 17-year-old First Nations Canberran was pulled at gunpoint from a bus by ACT police. He'd done nothing wrong. It was a case of mistaken identity but also one of alleged racial profiling. It was obviously deeply unsettling for the boy and his family. A 17-year-old pulled from a bus at gunpoint having no idea what it was about—the most egregious thing was that, after they recognised that they had got the wrong person, they still searched him. Under what powers, I've got no idea.

This is the experience of too many First Nations people. Being subjected to racial profiling is an allegation that comes up time and again in the more than 500 pages of review by the Jumbunna institute, handed down last year. It was a review that described the lived experience of too many First Nations people in the ACT and around the country—an experience of widespread racism in ACT government electorates, schools, courtrooms, the prison and police actions. First Nations people in the ACT talk about being targeted, racially profiled and discriminated against by systems, structures and people across the board. The review makes 99 recommendations, and the ACT government has delivered an interim response and started work on delivering some of them.

This work is clearly urgent. At Bimberi, the ACT's youth justice centre, we've seen huge concerns raised. I really want to acknowledge the work of independent MLA for Kurrajong, Mr Thomas Emerson, in pushing the government to have a long-term youth justice road map and to implement the recommendations of multiple reviews.

We have to change the way we think about dealing with young people who find themselves in trouble with the law. We need to be investing in programs to help get them back on their feet, to divert them away from a life of interactions with the criminal justice system. This is an urgent undertaking, particularly in a jurisdiction that has such a terrible record when it comes to recidivism. We are not doing enough. We're not doing enough to take young people, and even older people, who have offended and actually work with them, give them the skills they need for when they are released. They could actually be a good neighbour. They could go back into communities and contribute.

It's good to see some small progress in responding to the most recent recommendations of ACT Custodial Inspector Rebecca Minty, including reinstating contact with visitors so young people can hug their loved ones again. Since COVID, the ACT government has stopped young people in juvenile detention from hugging their loved ones. What kind of sick system is this, where we don't even acknowledge people's humanity? A young person—sure, they've done the wrong thing. They're doing their time—but to stop someone from hugging a loved one when they come to visit them?

Again, we talk about closing the gap—all these numbers, all these metrics—but this is the lived experience. This is what's actually happening on the ground. At a roundtable into the government's rushed hate speech laws I held recently—laws that we've already seen cause unnecessary harm here in Canberra—Ngunnawal elder Aunty Violet Sheridan spoke powerfully about the decades of racism she and other First Nations people have been subjected to, from vile comments on Facebook to insults in the street and even the racially motivated vandalism of Indigenous memorials like that of Nathan Booth. Despite this, Aunty Violet and Richie both came to the roundtable with a message of love, shared hurt, shared humanity and the need to stand together—a very generous message. In that message, there was a plea for us to actually take up that offer, that request to find a better way of doing things, because, clearly, what we're doing isn't working. It's not working for First Nations people in this country.

I would like to acknowledge the ongoing efforts of Minister McCarthy to engage right across this parliament and her commitment to offering regular Closing the Gap briefings for any and all parliamentarians and providing those personally. That's not a regular occurrence, and I really would like to recognise that she goes out of her way to engage and to be available to talk about issues. I sincerely hope that her government will continue to back up her efforts and do more in this area.

I think that, as a country, we've seen a real vacation of this space after the referendum. There hasn't been a lot from government in terms of ambition. We've heard plenty about 'jobs, jobs, jobs' and some of the programs that we've seen over many decades, but, from talking to many Canberrans, there is a recognition that we can't just keep doing the same old thing over and over. I know the government is scarred by the referendum result, but let's not see that as a message not to do anything here. I think there is a lot of goodwill to actually crack on and start working together to build a better future for First Nations people and for all Australians.

I also rise to speak on the Closing the gap report tabled today. I want to echo the comments made by Senator David Pocock in thanking Minister McCarthy in particular for her stewardship and leadership, which has been unwavering, and the important, incredible work that she does for our mob across the country. It can be easy to talk about Closing the Gap as just a report, a bureaucratic checklist, a dashboard or even a speech, but Closing the Gap is lived. It's a house in Kalgoorlie with three families under one roof. It's a young boy in Hamilton Hill trying to concentrate at school after a night of chaos. It's a grandmother in Warburton holding onto language so her grandchildren know who they are and the culture they come from.

It's a national commitment negotiated in general partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to change the lived reality of our communities, and it's about whether our people live long enough to actually become elders. It's about whether our children start school ready to learn and finish it believing they actually belong there, and it's about whether our families are safe living in their own homes. It's also about whether our young people meet a teacher before they meet a magistrate. It's about whether our communities can determine their own futures, and this year's report tells an honest story. There are areas where progress is being made. Early childhood participation is strengthening, and there are improvements in land and sea rights recognition. Community controlled services are delivering results where they are trusted and properly resourced. But the report also shows that there are too many targets that remain off track. Life expectancy gaps persist, incarceration rates remain far too high, and too many children grow up in out-of-home care. Overcrowding continues to affect too many households.

We should also acknowledge the context of this. For too long, under the previous Liberal government, Closing the Gap languished. Targets were repeatedly missed, structural reform was limited, and the community controlled sector was not positioned as a genuine partner in design and delivery. The reset came with the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, negotiated in partnership with the Coalition of Peaks. That agreement recognised something fundamental: that you can't close the gap without changing the systems that created it. This government has committed to implementing that agreement in full. This implementation plan builds on that foundation by setting out how those commitments are delivered in practice, and they are across health, housing, education, safety and justice.

For a moment I want to focus on justice in particular, which absolutely demands our attention. More than three decades after the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, our people remain overrepresented at every point in that system. We cannot keep responding only at the point of crisis, and that is why our government committed $69 million over four years to establish a National Justice Reinvestment Program, supporting 30 community led initiatives across the country alongside funding for an independent National Justice Reinvestment Unit. Justice reinvestment does something simple, but it is also something oh-so powerful. It asks: what if we invested in keeping young people connected to school, supported their mental health and made them stable in housing instead of waiting until they actually enter the system? In Western Australia, my home state, initiatives in Derby, Carnarvon, Halls Creek, Balga, Perth and the Pilbara demonstrate what place based responses look like in practice. If we are serious about reducing incarceration rates, we must invest in prevention.

The same is also true for safety. The launch of 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices: National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Plan to End Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence' recognises culturally informed prevention and human responses, which are absolutely essential. When women and children are safe, educational engagement improves, health outcomes improve and justice system contact decreases. Safety underpins every other outcome.

Housing underpins stability. In remote Western Australia, overcrowding is a daily lived reality. It affects health, it affects study and it affects the family's stability. The Albanese Labor government has invested $600 million to transform First Nations housing and support health under outcome 1, educational attainment under outcome 5 and justice outcomes under outcome 10. Secure housing provides stability, and stability improves everything.

Education remains central to the long-term change. A child who is developmentally strong in their early years is more likely to stay engaged. A young person who finishes year 12 has more employment options. Economic participation strengthens families. The First Nations Economic Partnership strengthens Indigenous procurement, business growth and local employment pathways. Economic partnership strengthens our families' stability and our communities' resilience.

Cultural strength must also be recognised, and I recently met with the team at the Noongar Boodjar Language Cultural Aboriginal Corporation. Their work to keep Noongar language strong and alive demonstrates language revitalisation which is practical, lived and absolutely community led. Language carries our culture, it carries our connection to country and it carries the stories of our old people. When we protect language, we protect who we are. Strengthening language supports identity. Identity supports wellbeing. Wellbeing supports and strengthens communities.

All of this work is underpinned by our priority reforms: shared decision-making, strengthening the community controlled sector, transforming our government institutions, and improving access to data and accountability. Without these structural reforms, funding alone will not close the gap. As a West Australian senator, I see the importance of place based responses every single day. What works in Derby might not look the same as what works in Balga. What works in Carnarvon may differ from Halls Creek. The implementation plan recognises that community led designs supported by national investment deliver more sustainable outcomes. We are not pretending that every target is on track. The report is clear about the scale of the challenge. But unlike in the years when progress stalled, we now have structural reform embedded in the system, we have sustained funding aligned to our commitments and our outcomes, and we have genuine partnership guiding that implementation.

Closing the gap will not be achieved overnight. The inequities we are addressing are the result of generations of exclusion and policy failure. What matters is that we are moving forward with clarity, accountability and partnership. The 2025 report shows the distance we have travelled, and the 2026 implementation plan sets the course. As a First Nations woman in this place, I know that Closing the Gap is not theoretical; it is absolutely lived. It is about whether our young people see more doors open than close, it is about whether women can live free from violence and fear and it is about whether our elders can age with dignity, supported by culturally safe services. It is also about whether our children grow up confident in who they are, grounded in language and culture, and equipped to succeed in two worlds.

But, ultimately, it is about something much larger. It is about whether this nation is prepared to confront inequity and inequality. In the face of rising targeted racism and white supremacy across the country, this is not an unfortunate statistic but absolutely a shared responsibility. And it is about whether we are willing to do the long-term structural work, even when it is complex, to ensure fairness. It is about whether partnership with First Nations people becomes permanent, embedded and unquestionable, not an exemption but the standard. Closing the Gap is not a favour, not a charity; it is a responsibility, and this government remains committed to honouring the national agreement, embedding those priority reforms and delivering Closing the gap outcomes, not only in our words but also in our actions.

I want to make a few short remarks in this discussion we are having tonight on the Closing the gap statement and report. Sadly, the Closing the gap report is another reminder that this Albanese government is not delivering the tangible outcomes that are necessary for Indigenous Australians. As we heard, targets pertaining to the development of children have worsened. Targets pertaining to the number of children in out-of-home care have worsened. The target pertaining to family safety—namely, the safety of women—has not even had data available for its assessment since 2018-19. We cannot expect to see sustainable economic outcomes without investing in the health and functionality of the family unit.

This Albanese Labor government has continually attempted to address intergenerational disadvantage with meaningless policy announcements. Sadly, the data does not lie. It wasn't a referendum that Australia needed. It is not just another ministerial statement and it is not just another report telling the story of the gap that never closes. What Australia needs, what our Indigenous community needs, is this Albanese government standing up and delivering what is absolutely essential—that is, leadership and urgency.

Prime Minister and Minister, your motherhood statements and sentimental platitudes simply do not cut it. Our communities need real action. Maybe start by acknowledging the mistake of abolishing the cashless debit card and reinstate it. Initiate a thorough inquiry into funding and outcomes, and promote economic opportunities for Indigenous communities through improved land tenure. These reforms would deliver meaningful benefits and genuinely assist in closing the gap. I call on this Albanese Labor government to provide the tangible outcomes that our Indigenous communities desperately need.

In closing, I want to take this moment to reflect on the events of 26 January this year in Perth. Tolerance and respect are foundational pillars of this great nation of ours. I want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the alleged act of terror that occurred at Forrest Place in Perth on Australia Day, 26 January. The throwing of a home-made explosive device into the crowd that was gathered there peacefully to protest their views was a shocking and reprehensible act with potentially devastating consequences. The fact is that Western Australians, including Indigenous Western Australians, were lawfully and peacefully exercising their right to express their views. Many of those views are not my views, but they have the right to express those views, and they were expressing them peacefully. They should have been able to do that in a way that felt safe. But, sadly, on that day, as we learned, they were not.

I stand with my Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander brothers and sisters, especially the Noongar community in Perth. While this incident could've resulted in serious injury or loss of life—and thank God it didn't—the fear and trauma that was inflicted will, sadly, leave lasting scars. So I stand shoulder to shoulder with the Noongar community and all Western Australians. We are united in our commitment to your safety, your dignity and your right to live without fear.

Closing the Gap—it's another colonial venture. You cannot close the gap on colonial rule and an unacknowledged genocide. As Djarindjin Aboriginal Corporation describes it, Closing the Gap 'asks communities to align with government systems that were never designed with us in mind, and it measures progress using indicators we did not write'.

The government thinks that it can slogan away the legacy of colonialism, but cheap words don't solve injustice. Yet the government cannot even manage to abide by its own agenda. How absolutely shameful but all too predictable is it that still only four out of 19 national agreement targets are on track to be met, and four are moving backwards—and this, 17 years after the first Closing the gap report was published!

The Albanese government is not delivering justice for First Peoples. They attempted a failed referendum in their first term and then just shut up shop. Intent on making matters worse, it seems, the Albanese government just signed off on the appointment of David Connolly as the Administrator of the Northern Territory. This is a man who has consistently made public his contempt for First Nations people, a man who has made jokes about domestic violence survivors and has mocked Indigenous languages. This is a white man who has said he is indigenous to Australia. But what is the punishment for this racism? It is a promotion to govern the territory that has the highest proportion of First Nations peoples.

Then we have the Allan Labor government in Victoria locking up black kids for life. In New South Wales, Premier Chris Minns has overseen a devastating record high number of First Nations deaths in custody almost 30 years on from the royal commission. In every corner of the country you will see that First Nations injustice is now core to Labor's policy platform.

How much does the government really care about closing the gap when it doesn't even know how much progress it has made since 2021 on the goal of increasing the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people aged 25 to 34 who have completed a tertiary education? At estimates last month, the department couldn't tell me whether they knew if the government's current initiatives would even achieve the goal of 70 per cent. How much do you really care when all you give out is empty words and half-baked programs with no regard to their effectiveness?

When a bomb was thrown into an Invasion Day protest, the police did not even call it a terrorist attack until nine days later. If a bomb had been thrown into almost any other crowd, the country would have been in uproar, and rightly so, but, when First Nations people are targeted for exercising their right to mourn, to protest and to speak truth about this country's violence, there is silence and there is denial.

But what has Closing the Gap actually achieved? Still, we have continuation of the Stolen Generation. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience violence three times more than non-Indigenous women. First Nations people remain some of the most incarcerated in the world. Incarceration rates are higher now than they were before Closing the Gap began. If the Albanese government wants to see First Nations justice, it needs to close the gap on its own racist systems, policies and practices.

I rise here and, first of all, acknowledge we're here on Ngunnawal and Ngambri land. My home and my beautiful office in Sydney are on beautiful Gadigal land, and I acknowledge all those First Nations peoples across this country who have fought for their land, to protect their land, to protect their kids and to protect their culture. We're here to see yet another report on Closing the Gap. I've got to tell you this: as I travel around this extraordinary country, I meet First Nations people struggling to protect their land, fighting for it to stop being by poisoned by radiation, strip mined for minerals and covered in military assets. I see them fighting to keep their kids at home, to not have them stolen by government departments, who this report says are stealing First Nations kids at a greater rate than ever. I don't hear them talking about a Closing the gap report.

When I read the Prime Minister's forward of this and I read through the Closing the gap report and I see a glossy picture of the Prime Minister smiling and grinning and slapping himself on the back for making a positive difference and congratulating Labor for its partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I think about the communities I met in Alice Springs who said, 'Why is the federal government paying for 60 per cent of every spit hood that's put on First Nations kids in the Northern Territory?' I think about the mums and grandparents I've heard grieving for the fact that their kids and their grandkids are still being stolen. I think about the extraordinary young First Nations women I met in Sydney just last week who were desperately trying to find community driven solutions for what they said—when I asked a room full of young First Nations women about government, I asked them: 'What do you think when you think about federal government? What do you think when you think about government?' Do you know what they said? They just said, 'Racist.' It was the first thing they said. I asked them about how they felt about parliament, and they said that they just weren't connected to parliament and that what they saw from governments—they saw police and they saw their families being targeted. That's the lived experience. It's not some glossy, smiley prime minister they think about when they think about government. They think about cops knocking on their door. They think about the fact that, if you walk down the streets of my home town of Sydney and you're a young First Nations person, you're likely to get stopped and searched and targeted and profiled.

This report shows that the Labor government is just refusing to take on the states and territories. I want to give credit to the First Nations minister who says that, of course, the federal government should use its fiscal power and should say to states and territories who are putting more kids in jail and driving up First Nations incarcerations, 'No Commonwealth money is going to come without strings attached, and you can't spend Commonwealth money putting more kids in jail, and Commonwealth money can't be spent on spit hoods or torturing First Nations kids.' Let's have that in the next report, not a smiley, slap on the back from the Prime Minister when he dared go out to go out and talk with communities. If he went out and heard the reality, if he spoke to those young women I spoke to in Sydney just last week, he'd know that the glossy brochures aren't cutting it. Let's close the gap. Let's close the gap by stopping stealing First Nations kids. Let's close the gap by not criminalising First Nations young people. Let's close the gap by not profiling First Nations people as they walk down the street by racist cops across this country, because that's the lived reality. And let's close the gap by giving back land, giving back resources and giving back wealth—by self-determination. Let's close the gap not with brochures but with action.

The time for this debate has expired.

Question agreed to.

We are in continuation on the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 and amendment 1 on sheet 3472 moved by Senator Shoebridge. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division is required. The division will need to be taken at a later date, as it is now after 6.30 pm.

I just ask you for guidance—given we haven't been able to have the division, what's the effect of that? Do we bounce out of committee and proceed to the next item? Is that what happens?

I believe so, Senator Shoebridge. We're just getting confirmation on that.

Cool. While we're getting that, I might just make a brief contribution. We saw this morning how the groupthink in here on war is so powerful. It's the groupthink between Labor, the coalition and One Nation, the three war parties, that now join together and are hunting for their next US war to agree on. That's the kind of groupthink that Labor and the coalition want to see on this new committee. We actually heard the coalition say out loud that they didn't want anyone on this committee who wasn't already signed up to AUKUS, to Donald Trump's next war, to the multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, or to the three-quarters of a trillion dollars in defence expenditure, largely on US weapons systems, which has been agreed to between the traditional two war parties, Labor and the coalition, now joined by the new war party, One Nation.

We heard them say it very clearly. That kind of groupthink—pro-war, pro-Trump, US forever-war groupthink—is exactly what saw Prime Minister Albanese, with Defence Minister Marles and Foreign Minister Wong, leap into supporting the latest US forever-war in Iran—a US-Israeli forever-war in Iran. That's the groupthink that they now want to happen in secret on a defence committee. They pretend that's somehow going to give the Australian public comfort that our strategy, our procurement and our defence policy will somehow be in the national interest. It's extraordinary. In fact, one of the more remarkable contributions came from Labor. They actually said, 'You know what the really powerful thing about this committee is going to be? The reason this committee is going to be so strong, and so protect the public interest and stop waste and corruption and mismanagement in Defence'—what's going to be so powerful about this as an oversight committee, according to Labor, is that it will all happen in secret and no-one will see. They actually said it! They said it—that the most powerful thing about this oversight committee that's going to hold Defence to account is that it will all happen in secret.

And your little groupthink will all happen in secret. Maybe you can all bring your little Donald Trump dolls, and you can all agree how you love your Donald Trump dolls, or your Benjamin Netanyahu dolls, or your little missiles, or whatever you want to bring in, and you can share, over your little groupthink toys, about how you really want to see Australia support the next US war. And there's never been a forever war from the United States that you haven't agreed. It probably is best that that happens in secret, because it would be ill-making for the public to see it. It would be sickening for the public to see the groupthink that is driving Australia down this dangerous and reckless path with defence.

We've seen the groupthink in action today, as you all charged in to find a way of supporting this illegal war on Iran. It's just a little insight for the public about the groupthink that's going to happen on this defence committee, where there won't be a war you won't want to join; there won't be a weapons manufacturer you don't want to fund; there won't be a post-politics career in defence that you don't want to seize with both hands; there won't be a cocktail party from a former Labor defence minister or a former Liberal defence minister who's now working in the defence industry that you won't want to go to and be schmoozed at. Maybe you can have your little cocktail events, with Christopher Pyne and co, or Kim Beazley and co, funded by Lockheed Martin or whatever global bottom-feeder from the arms industry that Christopher Pyne has found. You can find those groups and have your cocktail events. Maybe you can have your cocktail events in secret—have your little Lockheed Martin canapes in secret, or your Raytheon nibbles in secret, or your Israeli defence industry's soup in secret. You can share your meals, share your post-politics career and share your love of forever wars, and you can all do it in secret on this committee.

That's what it's about. It's about the groupthink, the love—the unthinking nature in which you've latched on to the United States, and your total inability to imagine a different way for Australia to engage in the world. It's your total inability to imagine a way in which Australia might actually distance itself from the United States and have its own independent defence policy, and actually treat its region and its geography and our neighbours as friends and our future, rather than as threats that you want to arm yourself against. It's your complete lack of imagination that's driving you to support this committee. And it's a lack of imagination that is so dangerous to this country and to our national defence and to our national interests. And it drags us into US forever wars. The reason you need this to happen in secret is because, if it happened in public, it would disgust the public.

As the bill cannot proceed until the votes can be taken, I shall now report to the Senate.

Progress reported.

Further consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

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 read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

THE LAW AND JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (NEW SOUTH WALES LOCAL COURT) BILL

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

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill will make consequential amendments to Commonwealth legislation arising from the passage of the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025 of New South Wales.

On commencement, the New South Wales Act will replace the office of New South Wales magistrate with the office of judge of the Local Court of New South Wales.

Commonwealth law confers jurisdiction and powers on state and territory courts and judicial officers, reflecting the important role of these courts in the federal justice system.

Some federal jurisdiction and powers are conferred explicitly on magistrates, while others are excluded from magistrates and instead conferred on judges.

The amendments this Bill will make are necessary to ensure that, on commencement of the New South Wales Act, jurisdiction and powers conferred on state magistrates by Commonwealth law can continue to be validly exercised by judges of the New South Wales Local Court.

Conversely, the amendments will ensure that judges of the New South Wales Local Court will not be able to exercise federal jurisdiction and powers beyond the intended scope of their office.

The amendments will do this by providing that judges of the New South Wales Local Court are considered magistrates under Commonwealth law.

The Bill will commence at the same time as the New South Wales Act commences. The New South Wales Act will commence by Proclamation. This concurrent commencement will ensure that there is no disruption to the intended operation of Commonwealth legislation.

The Bill will have positive implications for residents of New South Wales, along with Commonwealth and New South Wales entitles involved in matters arising under Commonwealth law which rely on the New South Wales Local Court.

Given the central role that the New South Wales Local Court plays in the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth law, the Bill is of critical importance to stakeholders involved in law enforcement and prosecution.

Conclusion

This Bill will ensure that the New South Wales Local Court can continue to perform its important role in the federal justice system, dealing with a range of matters under Commonwealth law including both civil and criminal proceedings.

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

I rise to speak on the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026. This is an important yet uncontroversial piece of legislation that reflects recent reforms to the New South Wales legal system, specifically those introduced to the Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025 in New South Wales. On commencement, the New South Wales act will replace the Office of the New South Wales Magistrate with the Office of the Judge of the Local Court of New South Wales.

Commonwealth law confers jurisdiction and powers on state and territory courts and judicial officers, reflecting the important role these courts play in the federal justice system. Some federal jurisdiction and powers are conferred explicitly on magistrates, while others are excluded from magistrates and are instead conferred on judges. This bill makes the consequential amendments to Commonwealth legislation necessary to ensure the transition occurs without disruption. The bill achieves this through a clear and practical mechanism. It provides that judges of the New South Wales local courts are to be considered magistrates under Commonwealth law. This will ensure that jurisdiction and powers previously conferred on magistrates by Commonwealth legislation can continue to be validly exercised by the new judges of the New South Wales Local Court. At the same time, it ensures that those judges cannot exercise federal jurisdiction and powers beyond the intended scope of their office, maintaining the jurisdictional clarity that both the Commonwealth and New South Wales legal framework require. The bill will commence concurrently with the New South Wales act, which itself commences on proclamation. This concurrent commencement is deliberate and important. It ensures there's no gap in the operation of the Commonwealth legislation and no disruption to the New South Wales Local Court's ability to perform its functions.

The practical significance of this bill should not be understated. The New South Wales Local Court plays a central role in the prosecution of offences against Commonwealth law, dealing with a wide range of matters including most civil and criminal proceedings. The bill will have a positive implication for residents of New South Wales as well as for the Commonwealth and New South Wales entities involved in matters arising under Commonwealth law. Given the court's critical role in law enforcement and prosecution, ensuring this transition is seamless is of real importance to those who rely on it.

The coalition, as I said, supports this bill. It is uncontroversial. It's a minor and technical yet necessary measure to ensure the consistent application of Commonwealth law following a significant change to the New South Wales court system. The opposition is supportive of any commonsense measures that allow judicial officers to perform their important roles efficiently without confusion or disruption. The bill delivers that. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The Greens do not oppose this bill. But, for the life of us, we cannot work out how it isn't contained in schedule 12 of the miscellaneous provisions act bill. It highlights just how small the Labor Party agenda is when they have to devote as much time as they can in the Senate to a bill that basically deals with the consequential amendments of the New South Wales government changing the name of Local Court magistrates to Local Court judges. That's what's happened.

It is the busiest court in the country. I've appeared in the Local Court. Sometimes you feel like you are in this sardine factory, as they are churning through thousands of cases a day in the New South Wales Local Court. Hats off to those magistrates/judges who deal with the reality of justice, civil and criminal, in this country. We often put District Court judges, Supreme Court judges, Federal Court judges and High Court judges on a pedestal as though that's where justice happens but, actually, no; justice overwhelmingly happens in local courts across the country.

In New South Wales, the Local Court system is the backbone of the criminal justice system and the backbone of the civil justice system, at least for claims within its statutory reach. Those magistrates are sometimes dealing with the reality of a broken society, where, instead of society providing support for people in desperate need, society punishes them for poverty, punishes them for the lack of opportunity, punishes them because of who they are, quite often. I've seen those magistrates—some of them are my friends—seeking to deliver as much justice as they can in that space. It can be really brutal and hard because many of them realise that the coalface of the justice system isn't about justice. It might be about law, but it's so often not about justice—people going to jail because of their poverty, people going to jail because of just terrible circumstances. Of course, some people go into jail because they do bad things. I'm not pretending that doesn't happen as well.

Obviously, we want the Local Court to be able to continue to function when the presiding officer changes from being a magistrate and 'Your Worship' to a judge and 'Your Honour'. Obviously, if there are certain federal laws that confer powers on magistrates and they change their name from magistrate to judge, then we need to make sure that gets tidied up. But to suggest that this is substantive law reform is a nonsense. It should be schedule 7 of a consequential miscellaneous amendments bill, but, because there is such a small legislative agenda from the Labor government, such a small reform agenda from the Labor government, they've desperately tried to have this as a stocking filler. This is the cheap chocolates you buy at Christmas for the uncle you don't like. That's what this is. It's a stocking filler. It's not a real, substantive legislative reform, and we should see it for what it is.

The Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (New South Wales Local Court) Bill 2026 will make a range of important amendments to the Commonwealth legislation in response to the New South Wales Local Court and Bail Legislation Amendment Act 2025. On commencement of schedule 1 of the New South Wales act by proclamation, the office of the New South Wales magistrate will be replaced by the office of the judge of the New South Wales Local Court. The bill will make amendments to Commonwealth legislation and set up transitional provisions to ensure that the jurisdiction and powers conferred on state magistrates by Commonwealth law can continue to be exercised by judges of the New South Wales Local Court. Conversely, the amendments will also ensure that judges of the New South Wales Local Court will not be able to exercise federal jurisdiction and powers beyond the intended scope of their office.

I will keep my comments brief and conclude by saying that the bill will ensure that the New South Wales Local Court can continue to perform its important role in the federal justice system, as noted by colleagues opposite. It is an important court dealing with a range of matters under Commonwealth law, including both civil and criminal proceedings.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I will call the minister to move the third reading.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. Let's be very clear about what the Senate is now debating. These bills are not a technical reform, they are not administrative tidying up, and they are certainly not about independence. They are about one thing and one thing only: the Albanese government, as it so often does, walking away from its responsibility for the safety of the Australian public. At the very moment, Australians expect their government to be stronger, clearer and more accountable. Labor has brought forward legislation designed to blur responsibility, shift blame and, worse still, insulate ministers from actual consequences of decisions. That is exactly what this bill does, and that is why the coalition will oppose it.

Every Australian understands the basic question at the heart of this debate. When the Commonwealth decides whether a convicted offender should be released back into the community, who should answer for that decision? At present, the answer is clear: it is the Attorney-General, an elected minister answerable to this parliament and accountable to the Australian people. Labor's answer, though, is of course different. Labor's answer is, 'Well, no-one in the Albanese government could possibly be held accountable for any of these decisions.' Instead, with this bill, Albanese Labor wants to hand that responsibility to an unelected board, appointed behind closed doors, operating at arm's length and perfectly positioned to absorb blame when something inevitably goes wrong.

This bill is not about improving decision-making; it is about removing ministers from the line of fire. Under this bill, the Albanese government strips the Attorney-General of direct responsibility for parole decisions relating to federal offenders and transfers that power to a new statutory authority, the Commonwealth Parole Board. Now, the government will say that this is de-politicisation. We've got to be honest in this chamber: there is nothing political about taking responsibility as you should, as the Attorney-General and the government, for public safety. There is nothing improper about ministerial accountability. And there is nothing outdated about expecting an elected government to own its own decisions.

What is political, though, is designing a system so that when the worst happens ministers can say, 'Well, don't look at us; it wasn't our call.' That is the architecture in this bill, and Labor is building it here. This bill creates what I can only describe as an accountability dead zone. Here's how it'll work in practice. The board makes a parole decision. A serious offender is released. The offender reoffends—violently. Victims demand answers. The public demands answers. And this is what the Albanese government says, 'Well, the board is independent; it's got nothing to do with us.' The board then says, 'All we did was follow the statutory framework.' And suddenly no-one elected, no-one answerable, stands in this place to explain why a dangerous person was allowed back into the Australian community. That is not an accident. That is the whole point of this bill. Labor is legislating a system where failure is anonymous.

The government also wants this chamber to believe that federal parole decisions are just another administrative task, something that can be safely delegated to a board just like any other. That is simply not true. As a former attorney-general I can assure you that they are anything but. I know this is the reality, because I dealt with them. Federal offenders include terrorists. They include child sex offenders. They include people smugglers. They include serious organised crime figures. They include cybercriminals and foreign interference actors. These are not low-risk cases. That's why they're federal offences. They are cases that can involve classified intelligence, national security assessments, cross-border implications and serious risks to the Australian community. These are precisely the cases where Australians can expect a clear chain of responsibility, not a diffusion of accountability across a committee table.

The Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The public expects that when decisions carry grave consequences a minister, in this case the Attorney-General of Australia, is responsible. Labor, with this bill, is going to break that expectation. The government points to language in the bill saying that public safety is paramount. Every failed system says that, quite frankly. Every parole failure comes with the same words after the fact: 'Oh well, the risk was assessed, the process was followed.' But we can assure the public lessons will be learned. Quite frankly, the Australian public are sick and tired of hearing excuses from the Albanese government. Words do not protect communities. Accountability does, and this bill is designed to do one thing, and that is remove it.

Then, of course, there's the cost. The Albanese government is proposing to spend $28.3 million establishing the new parole board, with $7.3 million every single year ongoing. This is at a time when mum and dad Australia are struggling with groceries bills, power bills, rents and mortgages. Labor says that there's no money for relief. There's no money for restraint. There's no money for discipline. But they've got to abrogate responsibility here, and, in particular, in relation to terrorists and sex offenders. So guess what they'll do. They'll spend a bit of money—plenty of it, in fact—and they'll will build a new bureaucracy whose primary function is to shield ministers from blame. Australians are asked to fund Labor's accountability escape hatch.

This, quite frankly, is an insult to Australian taxpayers, but the bill also reveals Labor's ideological priorities. Clause 29 requires the board membership to reflect 'as closely as possible the composition of the Australian community'. Let me be very clear about that. I hate to tell the Albanese Labor government that parole boards are not symbolic institutions. They are not representative forums. They are definitely not exercises in social engineering. They are bodies that decide when dangerous people are released back into the community. I will say it again: as a former attorney-general, I dealt with this. I dealt with terrorists, child sex offenders, people smugglers, serious organised crime figures, cyber criminals and foreign interference actors. Appointments should be made on merit, experience, judgement and integrity, with particular experience in law enforcement, corrections, intelligence and victim advocacy.

Remember, this is the body that is likely to go through this chamber and will decide whether those federal offenders are indeed released back into the community. The fact that Labor has inserted demographic considerations—you have to be kidding me!—into the statutory framework for parole decision-making speaks volumes about where their priorities lie. Let us be clear that, just like with the ISIS brides, it's not safety first. Just like with the ISIS brides, it's ideology first, and, once again, under Labor, the victims of these federal offences—the victims of the terrorists, the victims of the sex offences, the victims of the people smugglers, the victims of the serious organised crime figures, the victims of the cyber criminals and the victims of the foreign interference actors—are just an afterthought.

What is worse is that, when you read this bill, it does not require mandatory consultation. It does not guarantee mandatory notification. It does not even guarantee—and this is utterly despicable—enforceable rights for the victims to be heard. Victims are offered sympathy and process language but not power. Quite frankly, that is not good enough. Victims do not experience parole as an abstract policy debate. They experience it as fear, anxiety and permanent trauma. Labor's bill treats victims as a procedural consideration, not as people whose safety and dignity must come first. But this fits Labor's broader pattern. This bill is not an aberration; it fits a clear pattern. When faced with hard decisions, Labor outsources them. When faced with risk, Labor creates distance. When faced with accountability, Labor builds a buffer. Boards, authorities, panels and reviews—they are always one step away from responsibility. And, when something goes wrong, Labor's response is always the same: 'Oh well, it wasn't us.'

I hate to tell the Australian Labor Party, but Australians aren't stupid. They can see exactly what is happening here. The coalition believes in something very simple. If you exercise power, you own the consequences. We believe that decisions about releasing federal offenders should be made by someone who can be questioned by this parliament, held to account and judged by the Australian people, and that person is the Attorney-General of Australia. This is not because parole should be political but because parole should be accountable.

The bill does not make Australians safer; it makes ministers safer from scrutiny. It strips accountability from elected government. It creates a bureaucratic shield. It costs tens of millions of dollars, it sidelines victims and it weakens confidence in the justice system. Australians don't want a government that hides behind boards; they want a government that takes responsibility. The Albanese government has yet again failed that test, and for those reasons and so many more the coalition will oppose the bill.

Debate interrupted.

I rise to speak about the Joint Policing Cybercrime Coordination Centre, or the JPC3, led by the Australian police and based in Sydney. The importance of JPC3's mission cannot be overstated. In a world where our lives, savings and businesses are increasingly online, safeguarding Australians from cyberthreats and criminals is more urgent than ever. I recently visited the headquarters of the JPC3 to hear firsthand from the intelligent and passionate men and women in uniform trying to keep Australia safe from cybercriminals.

The JPC3 brings together Australian law enforcement agencies and industry partners under one banner. This unity is our greatest strength. By sharing knowledge, resources and intelligence, JPC3 creates a coordinated front against high-harm cybercrime. Whether it's a coordinated scam target for thousands or a syndicate stealing millions of dollars, this collaborative approach means we can respond faster and more effectively. JPC3 is not just about responding to attacks; it's about preventing them. By pulling intelligence from police, banks, telcos and industry experts, JPC3 can quickly identify patterns, target offenders and disrupt criminal networks before they do irreparable harm. This means getting upstream of cybercriminals and striking where it hurts most.

High-harm cybercrime is not just a technical challenge; it is a deeply personal one. Every day, Australians lose their hard-earned money to banking scams and online shopping frauds. Too often I hear of people losing their life savings to scammers. Most recently, a woman lost over $300,000 of her hard-earned money only to be duped a second time by those who promised to be able to recover the funds. JPC3 works tirelessly to prevent those crimes, protect families and reduce financial loss to the community. Through rapid information sharing and coordinated action, the centre has helped to block fraudulent transactions and recover funds before they disappear offshore.

At the heart of JPC3's work are the hardworking officers at the Australian Federal Police. They're professional and dedicated to protecting the community, often working long hours and tackling complex investigations. Their dedication is matched only by their willingness to collaborate not just with Australian partners but with the best in the world. Cybercrime knows no barriers. To tackle global criminal syndicates, JPC3 and the AFP work hard hand in hand with international partners, and our officers regularly collaborate with agencies like the FBI, the IRS and European law enforcement. Together, we share intelligence, coordinate operations and tackle offenders across the continents. Through their partnerships, we are sending those criminals messages that, no matter where cybercriminals side, we will pursue them.

Cybercrime, as we know, is not static. Criminals are quick to adapt to new technology and change their methods. From phishing emails to sophisticated malware, the tools of cybercrime are constantly evolving, and JPC3 must stay one step ahead, continually learning and adapting to meet these new challenges. One of the greatest challenges we face is the recovery of stolen funds, especially when money is moved overseas. Once funds are sent to foreign accounts, particularly in locations like Nigeria or the UAE, retrieving them becomes extremely difficult. Why? It is because the speed of transaction is so quick. Every minute counts. We need people to report these scams so that we can take steps to help other people.

What was really disturbing about this briefing was the amount of very young people who are being recruited into some very sadistic behaviour online. The criminal acts that they are participating in should be something that worries each and every one of us in this chamber. There are a lot of messages here, and they are to report a scam, and, if you've had an unfortunate attack on your bank, make it known.

Senate adjourned at 20:05