If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

() (): I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's approach to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action as circulated.

Senator Lambie, I'm informed that the Clerk doesn't think it has been circulated, and the government is saying it hasn't seen it.

Too bad.

You can still seek leave.

I'm seeking leave.

Leave not granted.

Senator Lambie, do you want to take the time to circulate it and then come back? You can seek leave later if—

No, I'm just going to do it, thanks.

That is your prerogative.

Pursuant to contingent notice 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 consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the government's approach to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide received hundreds of submissions about sexual abuse in the ADF. There were so many submissions that, when the final report was handed down, military sexual violence got a 600-page volume all to itself—outstanding performance, aye? Defence's own figures show that close to 800 sexual assaults have been reported in the Australian Defence Force over the past five years, but—let's face it—the number is much higher, because ADF members are too scared to come forward because victims aren't supported and perpetrators are protected. That is still going on, even after a royal commission. In too many cases, Defence protected the perpetrator—it still does—and hung the victims out to dry. This seems to be the norm, and, once again, I call on the Australian Defence Force Academy to be closed down effective immediately.

The commission also noted that Australian Defence Force members convicted of sexual assault and rape remain in service, and, yes, Australia's sexual abusers are still walking around in our Australian military uniform while their arses are covered by the top brass. The commissioners wrote in volume 3:

To say we find this concerning is an understatement.

Defence's total failure to address this issue is more than shameful. I am sick to death of Defence protecting these abusers. My legislation to create a sexual assault prevention, intervention and response commission position with real powers to deal this is under inquiry. The purpose of this inquiry is not to re-examine previous inquiries or individual cases but to ensure my bill best supports victims-survivors and not the abusers, unlike the top brass in our military.

Seriously, I thought the situation couldn't get any worse, but here it goes. An Australian law firm has a class action going on. The action alleges the Australian Defence Force is liable due to the systemic failure to protect its female members from sexual harassment during their service between 13 November 2003 and 25 May 2025. Given Defence's total inability to fix this sort of issue, despite numerous inquiries over 20 years, this class action does not surprise me one bit. I personally think it has a pretty good chance of getting some justice for these female veterans.

But the government is trying to wriggle out of facing these veterans in a court of law. How about that? What a disgrace. I'm going to be clear and tell you now what the government is up to today. Because some of the Australian veterans in the class action were on duty overseas when this abuse happened to them, today the Commonwealth is expected to file an application in the Federal Court of Australia, in response to the Australian Defence Force sex discrimination class action, to advance an extraterritoriality argument. Basically, they are arguing that, if the abuse and discrimination happened overseas, Australian laws don't apply and you will not be protected. To make that really clear, the government aren't saying this abuse didn't happen; they are saying that, if it happened overseas, it's not their bloody problem today. This position risks denying affected service men and women meaningful access to justice. It also sends the message that the protections of Australian law may diminish when Australian Defence Force members are placed in the most vulnerable and dangerous environments overseas.

In December last year, Minister Keogh told the National Press Club:

Sexual misconduct in our Defence Force is unacceptable wherever it occurs. I'm very clear on that.

This statement is similar to the remark made 25 years ago by the then Chief of Army, Sir Peter Cosgrove, who said to the Senate Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 6 October 2000:

We will weed out discrimination and harassment wherever we find it. We will punish those who harass and support the victims of it.

Both statements make it clear that sexual misconduct in the ADF is not acceptable, no matter where you are. They also highlight the inconsistency—actually, the hypocrisy—of the government's public messaging and the position of the Australian Defence Force in sex discrimination class actions. The government and Minister Keogh have fallen all over themselves since the royal commission, promising to fix the problems in Defence and veterans affairs, but now the same government is saying, 'If you enlist and you are sexually discriminated against overseas, then, sorry, we're not protecting you because the law doesn't apply to you.' This argument—a disgraceful argument, if you ask me—doesn't make sense. When a soldier is deployed, they are deployed by the Commonwealth, by the Australian people. They operate within Australian command structures and remain subject to Australian military discipline and policy and the statutory authorities at all times. Their service relationship is regulated by Australian law. It doesn't matter where you are deployed. The ADF's own framework relies on this. But are they now saying, if you're a victim of sexual abuse or discrimination as it relates to our serving members, then Australian laws don't count? The Commonwealth would rather engage multiple barristers and top-tier commercial lawyers involving senior counsels and partners, rather than providing justice to these victims. I have to ask: what are you doing, Richard Marles? (Time expired)

I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this motion urgently before the Senate. If you want to know why it's urgent, it's urgent because in the next 24 hours—and we've spoken to lawyers involved—the Commonwealth government may well file an application in the Federal Court to try and defeat a class action brought by members of the Australian Defence Force and say, effectively, that sex discrimination laws don't apply in the Australian Defence Force and women won't have that protection inside the Australian Defence Force. This is after all we heard during the veterans royal commission about how so much of the ADF is unsafe for women. Women who have put their hand up to serve this country deserve the protection of our laws, they deserve the protection of our parliament and they should deserve the protection of this government.

Senator Lambie stood up and said, 'Where's the defence minister in response to this?' The Minister for Defence said, 'Yes, everything has changed in the ADF; we are fighting discrimination and women have a right to be safe.' Where's the defence minister when the Commonwealth lawyers are about to file a defence saying, 'Actually, none of the laws protecting women from discrimination apply if you're in the Defence Force—it's fair game in the Defence Force'? Where is the defence minister? I'll be clear: one of the reasons the Greens are supporting this motion is to send a peaceful, non-violent shot across their bows to say, 'Don't do this,' and to say to the Commonwealth lawyers, 'Don't you dare say that discrimination laws don't apply in the ADF and can't protect women in the ADF.'

Why is this urgent? This is urgent because if this is filed by the Commonwealth,= then the entire veterans community and all of those serving in the Defence Force will know that nothing the Chief of the Defence Force, the former chief of Defence Force, the Minister for Defence and the government said about being honest about responding to the recommendations from the veterans royal commission and being honest about making women safe meant a pinch of beans. I don't want that to happen. The Greens don't want that to happen. I think there are so many people in the veterans community who don't want that to happen, and there's a way for it not to happen: Defence Minister Marles can call the lawyers and say, 'Don't do it.'

We won't be supporting the suspension. We had no notice of it at all, which means that I am at a disadvantage in being able to even respond to it. Those in this place who always seek to have advice about what's going on have brought something that wasn't even circulated at the point that the senator moved it. I'm here trying to get information in order to be able to be in a position to respond to the suspension—

It's atrocious that you're doing it.

Senator Lambie, all we ask is that, if you're going to do something like this, you give five seconds notice.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

No, I'm not ashamed of myself, Senator Lambie.

Senator Lambie, you were listened to in silence.

This Senate, frankly, in the way in conducts itself at the moment, is an embarrassment to the nation. The way that we conduct ourselves in this chamber is an absolute embarrassment. Yesterday was an all-time low, and it seems that, at 10 minutes past 12, we're sinking into exactly the same kind of conduct. All I am saying to you, Senator Lambie, is that if you are going to move a motion like this—a suspension—it is common courtesy in this chamber to give a heads-up so that people can be prepared in order to respond respectfully to the issues that you raise. That has not been afforded, and I have tried to get as much information as I can in the last 10 minutes about the issue you raised.

This matter, which is currently before the courts, remains in its early stages. It is standard practice for preliminary issues to be addressed through the court to clarify and confirm aspects of the claim. This ensures that the proceedings can be managed appropriately. I am not in a position to comment any further or, indeed, even to respond to some of the allegations that have been raised in this chamber by Senator Shoebridge and Senator Lambie, as the Commonwealth has not yet put a position to the court, and disclosing details could prejudice the court proceedings and impact legal professional privilege. There was a time when this chamber would have listened to that and respected that. I accept that the Senate has moved way beyond operating in that world, and we've seen plenty of evidence of that. I know that this issue was raised in estimates. The CDF, Admiral Johnston—

If I could just finish without being shouted at by other senators, Admiral Johnston has been clear about the supportive approach the ADF seeks to provide to women who serve in the ADF.

Yeah, sure, on paper but nowhere else.

I accept that you disagree, Senator Lambie, but we each have the right to stand up and respond. The advice that I can give this morning, based on the information that I've been able to glean, is that it is standard practice for preliminary issues to be addressed through the court to clarify and confirm aspects of the claim so that the proceedings can be managed appropriately. As this matter is before the court, I am not in a position to provide any further information. If there is more engagement that we can provide to Senator Lambie through the Minister for Defence, I'm very happy to undertake that and to see if we can provide that information because I know that Senator Lambie's advocacy around matters relating to defence and veterans in defence is a priority for her and one the government respects and has sought at every opportunity to work with her on. But in terms of being able to respond to some of the allegations that you have asserted in this place, I am not in a position, and that is partly procedural due to the fact that we were not given any notice and also due to the disrespect that was shown to people in this place to engage in this suspension stunt. That happens every single day that we are due to start on government business but never ever happens on private senators' business days, ever. There is never any suspension that is sought on those days because it is not nearly as important then, so that stunt is the first point. The second point is, because these matters are before the courts and they are being considered by the court, which is the appropriate place for this to occur, we will not support the suspension.

I just want to take the opportunity to briefly put the opposition's position on the record in relation to this. A defence force is nothing without its people. You can have the most impressive platforms, you can have the most advanced technology, you can have the most extensive ammunitions but if you don't have people to operate them, you have nothing. It is very clear from the evidence of the royal commission into veterans that, on a bipartisan basis over a very long period of time, we have failed our people in uniform, and it is very clear that we must do better. It is clear from the evidence that instances of sexual abuse have occurred in the Defence Force and that the Defence Force has not adequately dealt with those.

Senator Lambie raises very legitimate and very serious issues today that we should all have great respect for and understand is coming from a good place. The opposition is not in a position to support the suspension today, though, because, as the minister said, this does go to a matter which is currently before the courts. I have not had an opportunity to be briefed on the case. The motion calls on the Commonwealth to take a particular position on the case in the courts and it is not clear to me, based on the limited time I had to understand this, what the implications of the Senate encouraging the government to do that would be and, as the minister said, this is in a preliminary stage.

I would encourage the government to very carefully consider the arguments made by Senator Lambie, by veterans and by others in this place as to how to best handle this case from a point of view of having due care and consideration for the welfare of our men and women in uniform and veterans who have been victims of abuse historically. But, as I said, the opposition is not in a position to support this motion today.

I thank Senator Lambie for moving this motion. The Australian Defence Force, as Senator Paterson has just said, protects us and it relies upon its people to do so, and we need to protect the Australian Defence Force people. One Nation supports getting this on the record and noted urgently—urgently! I agree with Senator Gallagher; this place is a shambles, and the Labor government is making it even worse. Labor is destroying formal motions. We saw yesterday a stunt persecuting and denying Pauline Hanson justice that was cooked up days in advance. It was in the media. So, yes, we agree with you; this place is a shambles. The top brass in the Defence Force is avoiding responsibility and that is what Senator Lambie is after here. Why have a royal commission into veteran suicide, why have an inquiry into honours and awards and just ignore both of them—ignore everything—and just let the top brass run? We need to hold the top brass accountable.

As I read this motion, Senator Lambie is calling the government to immediately abandon this position, adhere to its legal and moral obligations to ADF members and ensure that no ADF members are denied legal protections or access to justice because they were serving outside of the Australia at the direction of the Commonwealth. She just wants women to be protected. She wants all people in the Defence Force to be protected. The key issue here is sexual discrimination and an answer from the government to fix this problem regardless of whether it goes to court. We support Senator Lambie.

I want to rise in support of Senator Lambie's work to highlight the plight of too many defence personnel and veterans in this country. We have to do more to look after serving personnel and their families and then veterans once they decide to leave our defence forces. The biggest issue in defence isn't just recruitment; it's also retainment.

Senator Pocock, I will remind you that we do need to speak to the reason why we are seeking to suspend standing orders. It's not just an opportunity to talk about the general issue.

Sure. I think this is directly relevant to exactly what Senator Lambie is urgently trying to get the Senate to deal with—a government who talks a big deal on defence. We have both major parties talking a big game when it comes to defence and then, from what I've seen, not having the same focus and care on the actual defence personnel.

As many senators have pointed out, without Australians who are willing to sign up to our defence forces to defend Australia—with the cost that they and their families incur—we don't have a defence force. We have to be doing more, and it seems to me that a government that is willing to say to defence personnel, 'What happens overseas is not our problem'—that goes to the very heart of some of the issues that we see in defence. I would urge the government—I know this is a complex area. I know there are a lot of things to balance in terms of budget and all of the other constraints that we hear a lot about, but, surely, we can find it in us to better look after defence personnel, their families and veterans. Surely, that should be a focus. If you're willing to put your life on the line for our country, this great country, if you're willing to sign up where you could die in the name of Australia, we owe it to you to look after you while you're serving and then once you're out. We have an obligation to you. So I would urge the government to do more. It is deeply troubling. If what Senator Lambie is bringing forward in this motion is true, it is deeply troubling to have an Australian government that is doing that.

To the broader issue around defence, if this five per cent cut—which the government is denying but we're hearing will potentially affect departments—is true for somewhere like DVA, what will that mean for veterans' processing times? What will that mean for people who feel like they're not getting the supports that they need? This is all connected. I urge the government: we need a change of attitude from the top brass down. I would say that that actually comes from the government demanding of the Defence Force that we better look after serving personnel and that we better look after veterans. Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your work on this.

The question is the suspension motion moved by Senator Lambie be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings — Joint Statutory Committee —

Discharged—Senator Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—Senator Antic

Community Affairs References Committee—

Discharged—Senator Collins

Appointed—

Senator Ruston

Participating member: Senator Collins

Corporations and Financial Services — Joint Statutory Committee—

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—Senator Scarr

Economics Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—

Senator Liddle

Participating member: Senator Hume

Education and Employment Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—

Senator O'Sullivan

Participating member: Senator Nampijinpa Price

Education and Employment References Committee—

Discharged—Senator Blyth

Appointed—

Senator O'Sullivan

Participating member: Senator Blyth

Finance and Public Administration References Committee—

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—

Senator Chandler

Participating member: Senator Hume

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade — Joint Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—Senator Collins

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Henderson

Appointed—

Senator Collins

Participating member: Senator Henderson

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—

Discharged—Senators Henderson and Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—

Senators Blyth and Collins

Participating members: Senators Henderson and Nampijinpa Price

Migration — Joint Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Bragg

Appointed—Senator Blyth

National Disability Insurance Scheme — Joint Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—Senator Liddle

Parliamentary Library — Joint Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Nampijinpa Price

Appointed—Senator Kovacic

Parliamentary Standards — Joint Statutory Committee—

Discharged—Senators Chandler and Henderson

Appointed—Senators Hume and Liddle

Privileges — Standing Committee—

Discharged: Senators Chandler and Henderson

Appointed—Senators Liddle and Scarr

Procedure — Standing Committee —

Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee's inquiry into orders for the production of documents]: Senators Bell and David Pocock

Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —

Discharged—Senator Hume

Appointed—Senator Sharma

Publications — Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator Askew

Appointed—Senator Scarr

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—

Discharged—Senator O'Sullivan

Appointed—

Senator Scarr

Substitute member: Senator McKenzie to replace Senator Scarr for the committee's inquiry into Australia's aviation sector

Participating members: Senators O'Sullivan and Scarr

Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation — Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator O'Sullivan

Appointed—Senator McLachlan

Senators' Interests — Standing Committee —

Discharged—Senator O'Sullivan

Appointed—Senator Scarr

The committee is considering the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025. Yesterday evening a division on amendment (1) on sheet 3472 moved by Senator Shoebridge was deferred. The vote on that amendment will be held now. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

My question is to the minister. Minister, is it intended that this new secret committee would be consulted before Australia supported—I don't know; I'll think of something at random—an illegal war by the United States and Israel on Iran? Would it be intended that the committee be consulted before the Australian government adopted a position on—again, just to pick something at random—the Albanese government supporting an illegal war from Israel and the United States on Iran? Would it be intended to be consulted in those circumstances?

The senator asks essentially about war powers. Those who have served in this chamber for some time will know that this is an issue that has been well canvassed in this Senate. Most recently, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade undertook an inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making. This was a serious piece of work, and the government has responded to that work. I think Senator Shoebridge probably understands the parameters of that response, because he's asked questions about this in other forums before. But, for other senators, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that it is appropriate that decisions to enter into international armed conflict and the deployment of the ADF overseas remain a prerogative of the executive. In practice, that is a power that is exercised collectively by the National Security Committee of the cabinet, and that was recognised by the committee in its recommendations on 31 March 2023.

Senator Shoebridge's question went to a series of hypotheticals. He seeks to speculate whether, if this committee was formed, these kinds of matters would be referred to the committee. I can simply say that the powers of the committee are set out. Equally, the government's approach to decision-making in relation to international armed conflict has also been set out in the response that we made to that inquiry undertaken by the joint standing committee. I can add, of course, that our government acknowledges that the executive prerogative can and must coexist with the important role that parliament has in holding the executive to account for decisions taken. There must be an appropriate balance between enabling the government of the day to respond to challenges to our national interest and security whilst ensuring that parliament has effective mechanisms to examine and debate those decisions.

Thanks, Minister, for the response to Senator Shoebridge's question. Your response, however, begs the question of whether the executive is going to make decisions without the oversight of parliament or indeed without even consulting this very special, highly acclaimed parliamentary committee before not just participating in some type of conflict or military intervention but offering support. Does this committee have any insight or ability to know and to ask the question of the executive as to whether a particular military intervention is even legal? What we've seen in the last 48-to-72 hours in the Middle East is an attack launched by the United States and Israel that is indeed illegal under international law. And every time an Australian journalist has asked the Prime Minister, the defence minister or anybody else in the government whether this new Trump led war is legal, they get dismissed, and the question gets deferred off to the United States. I don't need to ask the United States whether this is legal or not. Every legal expert in the world is saying it isn't. The United Nations has said it's not. Your government knows it's not, and that is why you refuse to even engage with the question. What is the point of having a parliamentary committee of such supreme power and importance if they can't even get some basic parameters about whether Australia is backing an illegal war or not?

There are many aspects of the contribution made by Senator Hanson-Young that are simply inaccurate and incorrect, and I welcome the opportunity to correct those statements in this response now. Let's start with the government's position around accountability and transparency in relation to deployment of armed forces. As I've already indicated in response to a question from Senator Shoebridge, we consider that that power appropriately remains with the executive, and there are a range of good reasons for that, and it is entirely consistent with the constitutional arrangements which are set out in section 61 of the Constitution.

As I said in my earlier answer, that is entirely compatible with the role of the parliament in scrutinising any such decision. The government has agreed that a ministerial statement in both houses of parliament is an important way to improve transparency in relation to any such decision, and that has been set out in the Memorandum on Government Conventions Relating to Overseas Armed Conflict Decision Making. So, Senator Hanson-Young, what is proposed by our government, our policy, is in fact not just to brief a committee but to make a public statement in the parliament that sets out the reasons and allows the parliament to engage with what would be a very important question for the Australian public and for Australian parliamentarians.

In relation to the committee's role, the committee's functions are set out really clearly in the legislation. They are also set out in the memorandum of understanding. They include: examining and being apprised of war or warlike operations, including ongoing conflicts, and monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non-conflict operations domestically and internationally. So we do have a difference of opinion, Senator, between our parties. The Greens political party has one view, and you're very welcome to express it this morning, about decisions on overseas armed conflict. We have a different view. We've engaged seriously with the work that was done by the joint standing committee on this question. We have published our response. Indeed, as I've indicated, we've published the memorandum, which sets out the conventions that our government will adopt should we take decisions around overseas armed conflict.

This is all laid out very transparently. So allusions that are designed to scare—about secrecy—and references to a lack of transparency couldn't be more wrong. The government has set out deliberately—and, frankly, independently of any contribution made by the Greens—our approach to this question. It's a question we take seriously. It's one we have proactively engaged with in government. If you wish to examine the public statements that have been made by the Deputy Prime Minister and others about this, they are all on the record.

Thanks to the minister for the answer. The government in previous debate on the importance of this committee argued that the reason this committee is so special, the reason this committee is supreme, is that it has access to information and will operate in secret. Now, I might have a different understanding of the English language than the minister, but operating in secret seems to me to be an absolute lack of transparency. That is precisely why we've just moved an amendment to try to at least have a broader representation of the parliament on this committee, because we know that when it's the Labor Party and the coalition operating in secret—behind closed doors, away from the public view, without parliamentary scrutiny—bad things happen. All you need to do is ask members of the Australian community whether they trust members of the Labor Party and members of the Liberal Party to operate in secret, behind closed doors, in the best interests of the community. I'll tell you what, a lot of people out there in our community would say no, because the tried and tested examples continue to show that, when there is no sunlight and when there is no transparency, governments and opposition colluding together is bad for the public.

In this situation, we're talking about the most serious of discussions, the most serious of decisions, the most serious of scrutiny of intelligence. That is in relation to whether countries are supporting military action or intervention or not. What types of resources are being used to support overseas military activities? So spare me the lecture around transparency, when the whole purpose of this committee—of why it is so supreme—is because it is secret. That is the whole purpose.

I do have another question for the minister. That is this: does the minister agree that the current bombarding of innocent civilians and infrastructure and buildings in Iran and around the Middle East is indeed legal?

Again, Senator Hanson-Young, your contribution just now makes a series of assertions that are simply wrong. This committee exists to augment the existing scrutiny arrangements that exist around defence. Many members of the Greens political party attend estimates and ask questions in public of Defence officials. There are also a range of oversight bodies which publish reports about their investigations into the activity of the agencies that sit within the Defence portfolio, including the ADF. This committee adds to those—augments them. It doesn't detract from any of those other functions.

What I will say is that it is often the case that there are sensitive questions that can't appropriately be discussed in public. There are good reasons for that. They go to our national security. They go to the safety of our personnel. Senator Hanson-Young, your party may think, may wish to make the case, that every operational detail about our servicemen and servicewomen in any environment should be spoken about publicly in this chamber or should be spoken about publicly at estimates, but that is not a position that our government accepts. Our government accepts that there are some things that do need to be treated as confidential and classified, because it is in our national interest for that to be so. It goes directly to the safety of our personnel in many cases.

What this committee does is allow members of this committee to engage with material that is secret or classified for some purpose and to do so in a secure environment. It puts the appropriate protections around that. In that, it does mirror the operations of PCIS. This is a difference of opinion between our party and yours. I've had the privilege of serving on PJCIS and I can tell you that the debate that occurred within that forum when I was a member, often in public, saw robust examination of important questions, supported by access to classified information that was provided in an appropriate secret environment.

On this, we do differ, because the Green political party, as far as I can tell, has never really acknowledged that there is any genuine threat to national security that requires a response from our national security community. I've never heard any of you say that in this chamber, and you're welcome to do so now if you think it to be the case. We take the security of Australia seriously. We consider that the bill before the parliament now, before this chamber, adds an important piece to the architecture of oversight that exists around the ADF and the broader agencies in the Defence portfolio. It's why we brought it forward. I look forward to the bill passing so that it may scrutinise key questions that, frankly, can't and shouldn't be scrutinised in a public environment.

Minister, there is no suggestion that all information is to be, you know, posted on Facebook. You seem to be arguing that it's either that or total secrecy. Our contention here is that you have chosen, with the cosy club between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, that only you, the chosen few, get to make these decisions, get to have a look at what's really going on and get to make the judgement. My proposition is that the Australian people call BS on that—that you are not trusted to monitor yourselves and that you are not trusted to just sit there and collude, year after year after year.

We know, in relation to the existing joint committee, the cosiness between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party—that there has been only one report in 20 years that hasn't been unanimous. That's testing the proposition? That's having robust debate, is it? And this is what people are talking about. The collusion between the major parties is continuing today with this piece of legislation and the attitude that—despite the fact that there is a growing parliament, and diversity of voices and representation, and growing concern in the Australian community—that should all be ignored, and that, because it has always been the case that Labor and Liberal can collude on military operations, information and decisions, we should all just roll over.

Of course, we are having this debate at a very prescient time, when the world is watching the horrors in Iran, the bombs falling in Lebanon, airports around the Middle East being shut and Australian citizens stranded, for a war that is being led by Donald Trump. And we have the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Liberal Party and One Nation all saying: 'It's fine. The US said it's fine, so we'll just follow.' No wonder people are sick and tired of the secrecy and the cosy relationships, and, of course, the collusion between the major parties—the war parties. You're not the major parties; you're the war parties.

We have seen this story before. We saw what happened when the Australian government just followed suit with the United States in Iraq. We saw what happened in Afghanistan. Dozens of Australian defence personnel lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands of citizens were killed. There were decades of further unrest, suffering and oppression. All you need to do is ask any mother or schoolgirl in Afghanistan how they feel right now about the US led intervention in Afghanistan and all the promises of hope and freedom. History is repeating itself again. And we have no excuse to be ignorant about this. Donald Trump, as President of the United States, is making it crystal clear how callous he is prepared to be, how irresponsible he is prepared to be, and how he does not care about the innocent lives of mothers, of fathers, of babies, of children, in his quest to drop bombs.

I find it extraordinary that our government here in Australia, the Albanese government, was the first to jump on board with this bombing from Donald Trump. I find it extraordinary that the Australian Labor Party has swung in behind this atrocity, this blatant abuse of international law—dismissal of international law. We have Democrats in the United States showing more opposition than the Australian Labor Party are.

Republicans.

You've got Republicans in the United States condemning what is happening. Where is the spine? Where is the forethought? Talk about, 'Shoot now; ask questions later.' The world is in a terribly fragile, complex situation, and the last thing we need to be doing is pumping up the egos of erratic, irresponsible, nasty bullies like Donald Trump.

I've listened to the words from the Australian government ministers over the last 48 hours: 'We've asked those questions of the United States, and we're just doing this.' You do realise this is a war being launched in one of the most volatile regions on the planet? It's not just bombs being dropped on schools in Iran; the entire region is now a tinderbox, and Australia has a responsibility to say, 'No, we're not having anything to do with it.' The lack of moral courage is staggering. It makes me feel sick, frankly—and many other Australians as well—to hear the defence minister weasel his way out of answering direct questions about what is being done from Australia, from the Pine Gap base, to facilitate the bombings that are killing innocent children, mothers and fathers and keeping Australians stranded overseas, separated from their families.

I know the government would prefer we just didn't ask these questions and we didn't have this debate. I get it; it's uncomfortable. Well, war is messy, and it requires questions. If you don't have the ticker and the courage to respond and to be honest with the Australian people, you don't have the courage to hold the decision-making solely among yourselves—and certainly not in secret.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

We tried in committee to at least fix some of this bill by preventing it just being a Labor-Liberal stitch-up and you are having none of that. So we're now left with a situation where, as this government has decided to join an illegal war, this parliament is looking to set up a secret closed-shop committee for two of the war parties—you might invite the third war party in due course—the Labor and the Liberal parties, to work out how we should back in the next illegal war from Donald Trump, the next illegal war from Benjamin Netanyahu. As Greens, we're going to have none of that.

We are the only party in this place that is committed to peace, not war. We seem to be the only party in this place that can see the obscene dangers, the bluster, the violence, the threats of Donald Trump. We see him not as a dependable ally, which is how Labor and the coalition see him, but as a dangerous threat to world peace. In fact, when the Australian public are asked about who the greatest threat to world peace on the planet is, they don't point where Labor and the coalition want them to point to, or One Nation; they point to Donald Trump. And they demand of this place to at least have the imagination to think about an Australian defence and foreign policy that isn't tied at the hip to a dangerous, increasingly despotic, random, violent man who seems to be want to visit war, assassinations and arbitrary power on whoever he chooses in the world regardless of international law and constraints.

Increasingly, we see the US's partner of choice in their wars being Israel. We saw the US Secretary of State in just the last few hours come out and criticise the United States' allies, the UK in particular, because they haven't shown the same commitment that Israel has shown to support illegal wars, to ignore the constraints on international conflict, and to not want to openly target hospitals, schools and civilian infrastructure. The United States is clearly saying that it wants more of that, more of those illegal, unrestrained wars wherever they choose against whoever they choose.

While the Albanese government has been hiding, while Foreign Minister Wong has been refusing to make any statement about the legality of the current appalling conflict—the bombings and the missiles coming from the United States and Israel against Iran. Instead, she says, 'Well, that is a matter for the United States to work out—if it is lawful or not.' Last time I checked, international law was only supported when the international community stood up and supported it. To simply contract out our morality and our thinking to the United States on whether this is legal or not is a gross breach of duty from the Foreign minister and from the Prime Minister.

This is an illegal war based on lies. The current lies are that this was required to deal with an imminent threat from Iran's nuclear capacity. I mean, Donald Trump just barely, not even a week ago, in the State of the Union address told his own congress that the United States had 'obliterated' Iran's nuclear capacity. He said that repeatedly. So which current lie from Donald Trump should we believe—that he has obliterated the Iranian nuclear capacity or that it is an imminent threat to world peace? Which lie is Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, relying on? Is it the most recent lie from Donald Trump that it's an imminent threat, or is it the earlier lie about the obliteration? What is the basis for the Prime Minister and the Foreign minister to come out and tell the Australian public repeatedly that this war is somehow justified to deal with an imminent threat from Iran's nuclear capacity? How do they square that with Donald Trump's statement from barely a week ago that he had obliterated that? We can see these lies in plain sight. You can see them in plain sight. And then we have the Australian government here, the Labor government, and the coalition and One Nation—the war parties—giving false hope to the Iranian diaspora that this is about regime change and democracy.

In the last 24 hours, we've seen the United States, Donald Trump and the Secretary of War clearly say they're not interested in regime change and they're not interested in democracy. It's about the raw exercise of US power. They have said it clearly. How many times are we going to watch the United States betray people? They betrayed the people of Afghanistan. They betrayed the people of Iraq. They betrayed the Kurds and others in Syria, and they're in the process of betraying the people of Iran. It's as sure as night follows day that, as soon as Donald Trump loses interest in this campaign or he starts seeing the 24-hour news cycle spinning the wrong way while he's eating his burgers late at night, he'll just dump the Iranian people. He'll drop them like a gun. That's what he'll do. Then we'll have our prime minister and our Foreign minister and our deputy prime minister spinning wildly to try and come up and agree with the latest fantasy coming out of Donald Trump and the United States and desperately say that that was the plan all along—it was never about democracy and it was never about regime change; it was about destroying the already destroyed nuclear capability and destroying the Iranian defence forces. They will desperately spin it that that's what it was all the time—just watch! Watch how the lies morph and change as this conflict rolls out and as the violence spreads across the Middle East.

Will the Australian Labor government and its supporters in the coalition and in One Nation share any responsibility for the lives lost in the countries surrounding Iran as the conflict spreads? No. Will they say a single word today about the Lebanese lives lost in Israeli attacks on Beirut and Southern Lebanon? No. We can pretty much guarantee they won't, because the three war parties are all fine with Israel continuing repeatedly to bomb and kill in Lebanon. That's what you do—you back in these illegal wars.

We see you. We see you for your warmongering and your moral cowardice and your hypocrisy, and, perhaps, at the centre of this hypocrisy is that you are backing in Israel to attack Iran for Iran's potential, at some point, to have an illegal nuclear weapons program when Israel, right now, has hundreds of nuclear weapons in breach of the non-proliferation treaty and illegal under international law. And what? It's just 'nobody mention it'? It's really the emperor has no clothes and nobody mention that we're backing one nation with illegal nuclear weapons to attack another nation so it doesn't get illegal nuclear weapons, and somehow we're just not meant to mention that the first one has nuclear weapons?

If you want the ultimate irony in all of this, which country gave Iran its first nuclear reactor? Let's try and think—which country gave Iran the first nuclear reactor? The United States, when they had their own little despot in place and they wanted them to have a nuclear reactor in the 1950s. The layers of deceit and betrayal and hypocrisy—they just stink. I'll finish with this. If the war weren't illegal in the first place—and it so clearly was; its purpose is might and power, disconnected with any even vague excuse of legality—the war is now being conducted by the United States in gross breach of international law.

Foreign Minister Wong, Prime Minister Albanese and Defence Minister Marles are saying nothing. Well, while they're saying nothing, this is what the US secretary of War said just a few hours ago:

America, regardless of what so-called international institutions say, is unleashing the most lethal and precise air power campaign in history. B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles, and of course classified effects. All on our terms with maximum authorities. No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.

They have said it with utter clarity. They don't think they're bound by international law. They don't think they're bound by the rules of engagement such as proportionality. They don't think they have to protect civilians. They have no time for those rules of restraint in wars. They are fighting a brutal, illegal war, and who will be at the front line of that brutal, illegal war? It will be civilians in Iran, people trying to keep their families are safe, dads worried about their kids, kids worried about their parents, uncles and aunties worried about who will be coming together to share a collective family meal, people desperately anxious about their kids at school and their relatives in hospital as the bombs and the missiles rained down with no rules to constrain them, because the United States have said they are not bound by these rules and, to their utter, contemptible shame, the Albanese government is backing this in.

You are making the world less safe. You are making Australia less safe. You are backing in two violent, aggressive regimes who show no restraint, and you pretend that you have the best interests of Australia at heart. We see you. We see the war parties and we despise what you're doing.

Over the weekend, we have been reminded why decisions about war, intelligence and military power must never be made in the shadows. We watched the United States and Israel launch coordinated military strikes on Iran in an unrestrained and unprecedented violent escalation in a region already at breaking point. This was another decision made in closed rooms by powerful men, with consequences that will be now paid for in civilian bloodshed.

This is what the modern war machine looks like: two global military forces converging with overwhelming power and acting with remarkable confidence that there will be no meaningful democratic resistance or scrutiny. If anyone believed that the era—

Senator Hodgins-May, please resume your seat. Minister, on a point of order?

The point of order is relevance. Senator Shoebridge made an entire contribution without making any reference that I heard to the bill for the chamber. The senator on her feet now appears to be going down the same path. I wonder if we could ask senators to make contributions about the bill before us.

I will seek advice from—Senator Scarr on the point of order?

On the point of order, I note that the senator has only had 53 seconds so far to give her contribution.

I'm going to seek the advice of the Clerk. Senator Hodgins-May, you can resume the call. This is just a reminder that we are debating the third reading of the bill before the chamber currently.

Thank you. At the heart of what I'm saying is the need for military oversight at this time more than ever, and so I think it is entirely relevant to the discussion that is being had.

If anyone believed that the era of imperial interventions was behind us, that illusion has well and truly evaporated. We cannot be clearer—the Iranian people have endured decades of repression under a brutal and totalitarian regime. Women have been beaten and imprisoned for demanding basic rights. Protesters have been silenced, journalists jailed, minorities persecuted—the struggle for Iranian liberation is real and it deserves solidarity. But you do not bomb your way to peace. You do not drop explosives on a country and claim to speak on behalf of its people. Regime change imposed from the sky is not liberation; it's chaos.

The United States does not have the interests of the Iranian people at heart, and that is becoming increasingly clear. An administration that cannot uphold human rights within its own borders cannot credibly claim to be the guardian of rights overseas. In the US, we have seen migrants brutalised, families separated and state violence excused when politically convenient. Human rights observers have been executed by ICE. This is not a government that gives any thought to, let alone acts upon, humanitarian principles. It is a government that acts solely for its own interests and those of its powerful allies and corporations.

Israel's government, which is still committing an active genocide, is hardly a credible force for democracy.

I have a point of order from the minister.

I rise again for a point of order on relevance. The senator has now been speaking for some minutes. She has made no reference to the legislation before the chamber, as did the Greens political party speaker before her. I conclude that this is a desperate attempt to try and stop the progress of this bill. I ask you to draw the senator back to the question.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order?

At the core of this bill is setting up a committee to consider ongoing defence issues. We heard that clearly from the minister when she read the terms of reference for the committee. Surely, it's consistent with a third reading to discuss current, ongoing defence issues in light of this committee. I hear my colleague making reference to the secrecy of the committee. It's entirely within the scope of the third reading to discuss current defence issues.

She didn't even read the bill.

I know it's awkward for the government. I know they want to shut down my colleague, who's doing a great job, but it's entirely within the scope of the third reading.

Senator Scarr, on the point of order before the chamber?

Just quickly, I did rise initially to give indulgence to the speaker. They'd only been speaking for 53 seconds; it has now been 2½ minutes. I think there is merit in terms of the minister's point of order.

I sought some advice from the Clerk, and you may resume, Senator Hodgins-May. I will remind you that we are debating whether the chamber passes this bill for the third time, so please make sure your comments are tied towards the bill before the chamber.

These circumstances are exactly why we need more oversight of our military interventions, not less. Once again, we are seeing Australia lining up as the well-behaved lapdog, and I know this is hard for the war party on my left, the Labor Party, to hear, but it is the truth. Instead of condemning this unprecedented and illegal act of war, the Prime Minister rushes to back the United States. The Foreign minister fails to condemn the strikes while invoking the so-called rules based international order. International law cannot be conditional. It cannot apply only to our adversaries. A rules based system that excuses powerful allies while punishing others is not a system of law; it is a system of hierarchy, which is why Australians deserve oversight of the decisions that are being made in their names and by the representatives that they elected to represent them.

Australians deserve to know whether our country has been implicated in these attacks. We deserve to know whether Australian territory and infrastructure at Pine Gap played a role in coordinating the strike. A secret committee will not give us and give Australians the confidence they need about these decisions. If Australian facilities were used, then we are not observers; we are participants. The government should immediately rule out Pine Gap's involvement in acts of war and commit to ensuring Australian soil is never used to facilitate unlawful military action.

Who benefits from this escalation and ongoing secrecy? It's not the Iranian people, who now face the risk of internal instability in a power vacuum, nor the thousands more across the region who will bear the brunt of retaliatory violence. It's not the Iranian schoolgirls—over 100 of whom were killed yesterday when a bomb hit a primary school, not a military target. Fatima al-Zahra Mohammad Ali, a nine-year-old student, was among those killed. A nine-year-old girl was killed by the US and Israel, and her only crime was attending school. As a father of a six-year-old girl killed at the school waited for her body to be removed from the rubble, he said:

I cannot understand how a place where innocent children learn can be bombed like this. We are talking about small children who knew nothing of politics or wars. And yet they are the ones paying the highest price.

We've seen this before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya—intervention after intervention justified by the language of liberation and ending in protracted violence and civilian casualties, with children and families paying the price.

We need more oversight, not less. Why will we not learn from history? When bombs fall, it's ordinary people who suffer; it is women and children. It is not the architects of war strategy in Washington, Tel Aviv or right here in Australia, in the Australian parliament. It is not the executives in corporate war rooms masquerading as boardrooms, but there is always someone who profits. Global defence corporations, surging oil markets—there is so much money to be made in war by the right people, with the ultimate cost being human lives.

Australia's defence and foreign policy has become entangled with the objectives of the US with no public, transparent debate, and, here we are, listening to one of the war parties trying to reduce transparency even more. AUKUS is another example of absolute self-delusion and self-denial. Hundreds of billions of dollars are being committed to submarines that will never materialise, while people struggle to afford rent, health care and energy bills. You want them to have less oversight and understanding of how their taxpayer dollars are being spent.

We must do everything we can to help the struggle of the Iranian people to promote peace in the region and support their pathway to a safe and fair democracy, but we cannot and we must not become complicit in another bloody American war. We are not at the beck and call of Donald Trump. The answer to an escalating war machine isn't more decisions made in dark war rooms by the global elite. It is not Australia's automatic alignment with everything that the United States does. It is transparency and accountability. It is listening to voices from Iran and across the diaspora, but, above all, it is the bravery to put our own interests and the interests of civilians around the globe ahead of the interests of powerful warmongers. This is the bravery that the Labor government so clearly and utterly lacks at this crucial moment in time.

At precisely the moment when Australians are witnessing how quickly military escalation can occur, this parliament is being asked to endorse another structure in relation to this bill that conducts defence oversight largely out of public view. Accountability cannot simply mean a small group of insiders making decisions behind closed doors. At a time when the world is crying out for de-escalation, diplomacy and independence from powerful interests, this bill risks entrenching quite the opposite—greater secrecy, less visibility and more consolidation of power. The Greens do not support this bill. The Greens do not support an illegal war led by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. As a party of peace, we do not support outsourcing international law or the illegal violence and civilian bloodshed that is apparently supported by the war parties in this place: the Labor Party, the Liberal and National parties and One Nation. Shame on them.

The question is that the bill be read a third time. Those of that opinion say aye—I'm putting the putting the question, Senator Shoebridge.

My colleague has a contribution.

I didn't see your colleague standing, Senator Shoebridge. I've put the question before the chamber.

A government senator: Are you desperate to keep it going?

I'm not desperate to keep it going. My colleague has a contribution. We thought it was coming to the 1.30 hard time, and we were showing courtesy to the chamber.

Minister, a point of order?

Senators do have an obligation to pay attention to the business at hand. The question is in the process of being voted upon.

It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted. We will be in continuation on this bill.

Labor loves to lecture this parliament about transparency and integrity, but, when you follow the money, what you find is scale, secrecy and spin. I reviewed the latest financial disclosures lodged with the Australian Electoral Commission, and the numbers are staggering. Last financial year the Australian Labor Party self-spent around $150 million, but that is just the storefront. Behind it sits a vast industrial network of 89 associated entities, unions, trusts and subsidiaries, altogether spending an extraordinary $672 million in the same year. Taken together, that's more than $800 million flowing through Labor's political ecosystem in a single financial year. This dwarfs the spending of every other political party in this country combined. Australians are entitled to ask: what exactly is this money funding? Even the returns of organisations entirely devoted to political campaigning, like Climate 200 and GetUp!, are at best dubious. Of the more than $25 million expended by climate 200 in 2024-25, less than $5 million has been classified as electoral expenditure. Are we really expected to believe that Climate 200 spent $20 million on non-electoral experiences? Whether it's Labor or the Teals, millions of dollars are being spent to influence elections, and the public remains in the dark. I can't for the life of me see how the Labor Party and its union affiliates spending some $800 million—close to $1 billion—in a single year has benefited our nation in any way. When Australians see what has occurred with the corrupt CFMEU in Victoria, they are right to question how union money is being used. What are you hiding, Mr Albanese?

I rise to draw attention to the Albanese government's submission of the Flinders Ranges for consideration for World Heritage listing. Anybody who has been lucky enough to visit this unique part of South Australia will tell you that it is truly extraordinary. From the stark majesty of Wilpena Pound to the spectacular Brachina Gorge, it is a place that's so vibrant. I know that my family spends a lot of time there. There are plenty of extreme mountain bikers who spend a lot of time there. There's so much to do, and it's such an amazing place—not just for the dunnarts, quolls, snakes and lizards but for the rest of us as well. It is also home to the earliest evidence of animal life, with a fossil record dating back 600 million years. It is spectacular, and it's already a really, really popular international tourism destination.

I was interested to note that it's the only Australian site on this year's Lonely Planet top-10 visitor locations. Thousands of visitors come to the Flinders Ranges every year, and this listing will just expand that. It will really enhance the economic value of the area and provide huge benefit to many of the towns and people in that arena. But the listing also brings a very, very special economic opportunity to the Adnyamathanha people. They are custodians of that land, and the rangers play a central role in protecting and preserving the Flinders Ranges. They also undertake some really important, innovative cultural tourism. If anybody is thinking of going, please sign up for one of the Adnyamathanha tours. They are doing a spectacular job, and it is an amazing, amazing part of the world.

The housing crisis is putting people through hell. For renters, it's an endless cycle of house inspections, unattended maintenance issues and rent increases, and then it all starts again. Meanwhile, on Queensland's Gold Coast, there are plans for a Trump tower with 270 apartments likely starting at $5 million to buy.

Tell that to Tammy, a Gold Coast mum of two disabled kids who has applied for more than 30 rental properties and is worried that her family will become homeless if they can't find a new home before their lease ends in March. Australians need affordable housing, not Trump towers for the ultrawealthy. First home buyers aren't faring much better than renters. The cost of buying your first home in Brisbane has more than doubled in the last five years. In the last year, it's gone up by 20 per cent. If you finally manage to scrape together a deposit, you're outbid by investors adding yet another asset to their property portfolios. But this isn't your fault, because the housing crisis is not by accident; it's by design.

Labor is giving ultrawealthy property investors access to tax loopholes like the CGT discount and negative gearing that cost taxpayers billions of dollars every year, and they're making the housing crisis worse. The housing crisis is driving the cost-of-living crisis. The cost-of-living crisis then pushes up interest rates, and interest rates then increase the cost of your mortgage and your rent—what a vicious cycle. Until we make the ultrawealthy pay their fair share of tax and get rid of those unfair tax perks for property investors, we will be stuck in that cycle where the rich get richer and everybody else gets screwed.

I rise to wish a blessed Ramadan, or Ramadan Mubarak, to the Muslim community across Australia, who are currently celebrating the holy month. This is a time not only for that community to celebrate but for all Australians to celebrate the contribution that our Muslim community has made to Australia in all walks of life. In that spirit, I was delighted to join an iftar dinner hosted last week by the Bangladeshi Muslim community in Sydney with my colleague Senator Bragg and others, and I look forward to joining Sydney's Muslim community in future celebrations in the days and weeks to come.

A particular favourite of mine—and I know many of my colleagues would have been there—is Lakemba Nights on Haldon Street in Lakemba, an event that allows Muslim community members to gather together and break the fast but also invites other parts of Sydney's community to share their celebrations, traditions and culture with them, whether that's having a knafeh—a Middle Eastern sweet that I'm very familiar with and fond of—or a camel burger. Many Sydneysiders go to Lakemba during this month of Ramadan to share, celebrate and support Sydney's Islamic culture and Muslim culture.

There are some one million Australians who are of the Islamic faith who are celebrating the event this year. For them, it is a time for reflection, a time for spending time with family and connections and a time to think about hardships and suffering amongst the Muslim community in Australia but also around the world. It's a time, importantly, for those of us not of the faith to celebrate and recognise the contributions that Australian Muslims have made to Australia and will make in the future. Ramadan Mubarak.

University isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't have to be, but those for whom it unlocks a life-changing opportunity should have every opportunity to access it and every opportunity to succeed. For families in regional parts of South Australia, this presents special challenges. The costs involved in moving to Adelaide to study, not to mention the emotional burden and the social sacrifices of doing so, can simply be too high for South Australians from our regions. But, rather than changing our regional communities to fit the model, we need to change the model to fit our regional communities, namely through the delivery of our regional and suburban university study hubs.

These hubs enable more people to stay living within their respective communities amongst their family, their friends and their support networks while studying for a higher qualification. I've visited a number of these study hubs across South Australia and just recently had the privilege of opening a new one in Kingscote, on Kangaroo Island. Only 26.7 per cent of young people on Kangaroo Island have completed tertiary study, but, by late last year, already 26 islanders had registered to use the facility to further their education. From recent graduates to young mums, this study has the potential to be transformative for those enrolling. Our universities accord set a target for 80 per cent of the workforce to have a tertiary qualification by 2050, up from around 60 per cent, what it is today, and we are on our way to achieving that target. But, if we are to succeed, these numbers must include those living outside of our capital cities.

Labor has always been the party of education, and we are proudly hard at work to ensure that the benefits that higher education may bring are extended to all of those who seek it, including on Kangaroo Island, in my home state of South Australia.

Australians are facing higher petrol costs as a result of what is unfolding in Iran. Petrol prices are tipped to jump by 40 cents a litre following the US and Israeli strikes, which is going to have a significant impact on household budgets across the country. We obviously cannot control whether the Strait of Hormuz opens to allow oil to be transported or whether international prices rise. What we can control is whether international instability becomes an excuse for domestic profiteering.

Here in Canberra we're already seeing prices above two bucks a litre. They are spiking in response to the Iran conflict but before wholesale prices have even increased, and that should concern every single one of us. Canberra, alongside Darwin, already has the highest petrol prices in the country; they're around four cents per litre higher than in other capital cities. That means Canberrans are paying almost $20 million a year extra to fill up their cars.

If global instability is being used as cover for price gouging, it's going to get much worse. The Senate needs to stand up and say, 'We will be watching you.' The Senate needs to say to the fuel companies, 'We will be watching when prices go up, and we will take action if we suspect price gouging.' I'm also calling on the government to look at a national, open, real-time fuel price reporting standard. Markets only work when they are transparent and competitive. In an environment ripe for price gouging, Canberra drivers and drivers across the country need the market to be both.

It is very regrettable that our world has become very dangerous in 2026, but the actions taken by the Iranian government against their own people over the last almost 50 years have been some of the greatest atrocities in history. The death of the Ayatollah Khamenei is a good thing for humanity, and this man deserves to rank with the great villains of history like Hitler and Pol Pot. Anyone who has the privilege and honour of meeting with the Iranian Australian community would know what a terrible intergenerational impact this theocracy has had on the freedoms of the people of Iran, particularly on women. That human impact should be considered by all those in this building who comment about his current conflict.

Of course Iran has also been a terrible actor. It has spawned a whole bunch of terrible proxies, who have launched attacks across the globe, including in our own country, Australia. So what we want to see now is maximum pressure placed on the regime so that it crumbles. We want the regime to crumble, we want freedom to come to Iran and we think that is a laudable objective. In fact, it's probably the best thing we could do for humanity right now.

It was a privilege to be able to meet with members of the Iranian Australian community on Sunday afternoon in Sydney and listen to their stories. They are excited about the opportunities ahead for the people of Iran. They are hopeful that freedom will come. They're hopeful their suffering will end. It is revolting to see members of the Australian community honour the ayatollah today; it's outrageous.

My bulk-billing campaign across Mandurah and the south-west of Western Australia has received hundreds of responses from local residents. They're telling me which GP they attend, how often they need care and whether or not they are being bulk-billed. The responses are overwhelmingly clear: when a clinic bulk-bills, patients see their doctor earlier and more often. They don't wait until their condition worsens. They don't put off an appointment because payday is still a week away. Whether you can afford a doctor should not determine whether you see a doctor.

Labor has delivered the biggest investment in bulk-billing since Medicare began: tripling the bulk-billing incentive and increasing the Medicare rebate, which means stronger support for local GPs to provide fully bulk-billed care. I'm really proud of the uplift in bulk-billing that we've seen in Western Australia, particularly in the Peel and south-west regions. I want more local GPs to take up these incentives because there is clear local demand.

Labor is making a significant investment in health infrastructure in the Peel region. Just last week, I visited the new Peel community mental health and Kara Maar eating disorder clinic in Greenfields, which is expanding care closer to home. The Cook and Albanese Labor governments are working together to build a brand-new Peel Health Campus in Mandurah thanks to the advocacy of local member Rhys Williams, who has been a long-time advocate for getting his community hospital that they need. This is real health support for the people of Mandurah and Peel—putting patients first because we want every Western Australia to have access to quality, affordable health care where they need it, when they need it.

There is an epidemic damage of violence in this country that shames us all. It's been going on for far too long and it needs to end. We know that gay men are being lured through dating apps into snuff-video-style bashings. They are set up, they are ambushed, and they are viciously exploited by extremists and thugs who think hatred is a virtue. The technology might be new, but the brutality has been there for many decades. This is the same toxic masculinity that fuelled Sydney's gay gang murders in the 1970s and 1980s. We've seen it right through, ongoing until today—that same ideology that says that some people are less worthy than others just because of their sexuality, the same bile that tells insecure young men that violence proves something.

These bait-and-bash attacks are being reported across Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT. So we know the problem is big, but we just do not know how big, because many crimes go unreported because victims carry shame that is not theirs—shame that rightfully sits with the perpetrators. A 2022 Sydney inquiry heard police evidence that, for decades, an average of 20 gay men were bashed every day. That is thousands in a year; that is hundreds of thousands over the decades. And we have a violent epidemic against trans folk as well.

Whether it's gay men, whether it's trans folk, whether it's anyone else in the queer community, they deserve urgency and protection. The Greens are here, and we are demanding greater action.

Budget week is just around the corner, and for a lot of Australians, especially young people, this budget will say one simple thing. Whose side are we on? For Australians who are too busy juggling bills, kids and work to follow tax policy, let me put it in plain English. When someone sells an investment, like a rental property or shares, and makes a profit, they pay capital gains tax on that profit. But, if they've held that investment for more than a year, they only pay tax on half of the gain. That's the capital gains tax discount—a 50 per cent discount that should be halved.

If you make a profit from selling an investment, you should not automatically get half of it tax free. At a time of record housing stress, that generosity is simply not justified, because right now we have retail workers, early childhood educators and young tradies spending more than 30, 40 or even 50 per cent of their income just keeping a roof over their heads. Even medical graduates, our future doctors, are stressing about housing affordability. We need to ask whether our tax system should be giving the biggest breaks to billionaires like Gina Rinehart and other multiproperty investors while renters are taking second jobs and skipping meals to pay the rent.

Yes, we need to build more homes. Yes, we need productivity reform. But we cannot pretend that tax settings don't shape the housing market.

This government has a fat majority in the other house. It cannot blame the opposition. It cannot ignore the crossbench. If it believes in fairness, now is the time to prove it. Should the system keep rewarding property investors growing their wealth, or should it start backing the next generation? This budget is the moment to choose and a test of courage for the Labor government.

For the last three years, western Victorians have been fighting the Labor Party's reckless renewables agenda. VNI West is a proposed 500-kilometre high-voltage transmission line that will run right through prime agricultural land, connecting industrial wind and solar farms in rural Victoria and New South Wales with Melbourne and Sydney consumers.

The project will receive over $2½ billion in taxpayer subsidies through the Rewiring the Nation Fund, yet its cost has already escalated from $3.6 billion to $7.6 billion, with warnings it could reach over $11½ billion. Ultimately, these blowouts will be paid for by households and by small businesses through higher electricity bills. Farmers are rightfully concerned about fire risk, operational constraints, biosecurity, visual intrusion and the long-term impacts on land values.

The Labor government in Victoria has armed transmission planning agency VicGrid with coercive powers to be able to enter private property, threatening fines of up to $8,000 for anyone who resists them. Previous attempts by VicGrid staff to conduct surveys were unsuccessful last year. However, people are fearful right now, as they are receiving letters forcing access onto their land. It's taking a heavy toll on their mental health and wellbeing. Reports by VicGrid that the majority of landholders are onboard are simply not true.

The great resistance from farmers will continue, as they fight for their land, their homes and their communities. I applaud the communities of Marnoo, St Arnaud and Donald, under the leadership of Across Victoria Alliance and Andrew Weidemann and his helpers. We will stand with you on this fight.

With the federal budget bearing down, Labor are cracking, panicking and coming apart at the seams under the weight of their own economic wreckage. The policy leaks are flooding out. They are broke, busted, and coming for your money.

Right at the top of their list is the CGT discount. Labor are eyeing a return to indexing, or slashing it to 33 or 25 per cent, or just abolishing it altogether, all of it dressed up as 'fixing the housing crisis'—the very crisis they created with their mass-immigration Ponzi scheme.

But Labor are too arrogant to consider why the CGT discount even exists. The Ralph review introduced it to stop investors locking up assets forever because the tax was too punitive. Now Labor want to bring that disaster back, guaranteeing fewer properties on the market, fewer new builds and a rental crunch that will send prices and rents through the roof, while they keep flooding the country with hundreds of thousands of new arrivals every year.

And it doesn't stop at housing. Shares, crypto, gold—the investments young Australians use to actually get ahead—are being eyed off by Labor too. They will take an even bigger slice of whatever meagre gains our kids manage to scrape together with their overtaxed pay cheques.

Labor cannot control their spending, so they are coming for your and your children's money. They refuse to admit that their open-border madness is the real driver of the housing explosion. Then they punish the very properties that they've inflated with even more taxes. After all that destruction, they'll stand up with straight faces and tell young people, 'We did this for you.'

To every young Australian watching this: Labor are not on your side. They're actively destroying your future. They are pricing you out of the Australian dream. Do not fall for Labor's tax grabs. They have failed at every level of economic management. It's time to fight back, for yourselves and the next generations.

As a senator for the greatest state in Australia, I'm always happy to talk about how Queensland is leading the way. At the weekend, Australia proudly hit a major milestone: a quarter of a million homes and businesses are now fitted with solar batteries thanks to Labor's 30 per cent battery discount, saving them energy and money.

But what's really interesting is where in Queensland the battery uptake has been the highest, because, while this has been dubbed a 'green energy policy', it has been the most popular in Liberal held electorates of Queensland. In pole position is Wright, where an incredible 3,715 households and businesses around the Lockyer Valley and Beaudesert area have embraced Labor's solar batteries. Coming in at No. 2 is Fadden, around the northern Gold Coast area, where 2,186 homes and businesses now boast battery technology, closely followed by Bowman, where 2,176 homes and businesses in Redlands are now saving money and energy using battery technology. At No. 4 is Longman, a seat held by the Liberals by just 300 votes at the last election, and yet 2,091 people in Longman now have solar batteries because of Labor.

This should be an existential crisis for the Liberals and the Nationals here in Canberra, because, even if you don't believe the science, you'd better believe the votes. Your climate denial has already cost you the seats of Wentworth, Warringah and Kooyong, and now regional Queensland and Liberal held seats are waking up to your chaos. Is it any wonder that Labor now holds more seats in the regional areas of this country than the National Party? It's because Labor gets it. I want to acknowledge the work of Minister Chris Bowen, who has put real and practical initiatives at the centre of Labor's net zero—

Opposition senators interjecting—

They don't like to hear it, Acting Deputy President.

Teamwork makes the dream work, eh! We need to make housing more affordable and fairer, yes. We need to increase supply, particularly through medium-density housing. But we also need to fix the unfairness in our housing market; we need to fix the unfair tax breaks. They benefit property investors more than they benefit first home buyers. The government should remember what Labor stands for and enact real tax reforms to tax capital more and tax workers' labour less, like reducing income tax, taxing property moguls properly and taxing gas companies.

Right now, the system is tilted. It rewards those who already own multiple properties, while renters and young families are locked out of homeownership. It isn't fair for people to have tax breaks for owning 10-plus houses whilst renters struggle to buy their first one. That's inequality baked into policy. We need to fix the unfair tax breaks so more people can buy their first home.

In particular, just like every expert is saying, we need to change the 50 per cent capital gains tax discount which means investors pay tax on only half their gain in property value when they sell. This tax break helps wealthy property investors outcompete renters. The average loan size is around $100,000 more for investors than for first home buyers. No wonder young Australians are struggling.

Treasury is reportedly modelling limiting negative gearing to two properties, and that's sensible. We can't have people avoiding their fair share of tax when they own three or four houses while others can't secure one.

Yes, supply is still critical, and that's why I fought for the 12,000 homes for Tasmania through the HAFF—1,200 homes; it should have been 12,000! But investors mostly buy existing homes, rather than building new ones. We need to help first home buyers by fixing our unfair tax breaks for property investors.

Bulk-billing is on the top in Australia in that it is rising, and no example is better than that of Tasmania. The increase means that more Australians—in particular, more Tasmanians—can see a GP, as they don't need to worry about any out-of-pocket costs, making health care fairer and more accessible for everyone. In fact, as I said, Tasmania is leading the way. We have more doctors bulk-billing than ever before—greater access to GPs—and we are working together with our urgent care clinics, relieving the pressure on our hospital systems. What we are seeing is better outcomes for Tasmanians.

What we do recall, what we do remember, is that there is a very different focus from this Labor government under Anthony Albanese than there was when those people opposite were in government. And what did they want to do when it comes to Medicare and with health care in this country? They had a plan to have a GP tax. They are the party of tax, just as they took to the last election. After 42 years of great success with Medicare, Australians now are better off because of the Labor government, and they know that they can always rely on Labor to deliver better health outcomes. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. How many temporary exclusion orders in total have been issued under the life of the Albanese government?

Thank you for the question. Obviously, those are matters within the Home Affairs portfolio and I'm sure could be was responded to by the Minister for Home Affairs, but what I would say is that this government works to the full extent of the law available to us by the legislation—passed by you—which is obviously limited in parts by the Constitution.

I'll take that interjection because this is the latest issue that the opposition want to run on. After having passed laws which they themselves know have to be constrained because of the constitutional limits, they now want—they are now demanding—as a stunt, that a law be passed which they never sought in government. I think we understand that they are playing politics with national security, and we do not.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

No answer to that. What assurances can the minister provide to the Australian public about whether Kirsty Rosse-Emile has been issued a temporary exclusion order? According to media reports, she's openly declared that she wants to 'make bombs' and is among the cohort of 34 Australian citizens seeking to return from Syria. If she hasn't been issued a TEO, why not, in view of the obvious seriousness and the dangers of such a mindset and the many associated security risks from it? (Time expired)

We take advice from security agencies in relation to any individual, and Minister Burke has made clear that he will act in accordance with the full extent of the law when it comes to temporary exclusion orders, which was legislation passed when you were in government and supported by the then opposition.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Does the minister concede that the sole person among the group of 34 who's been issued a temporary exclusion order should not have been given a passport to Australia first? Doesn't that defy the most basic purpose of the temporary exclusion legislation of 2019, which was to prevent a person from obtaining an Australian passport in circumstances exactly like these?

I responded to this yesterday. I will say it again. Any Australian can apply for and, if they meet eligibility requirements, be issued an Australian passport, full stop. A passport can only be refused or cancelled on security grounds if a competent authority—that is, a security agency such as ASIO—requests it. As I have said repeatedly, no such request was made. No such requests were made.

I would just remind Senator Duniam of what he himself said in the really quite disastrous press conference that he and his new boss gave on these matters. He himself said:

This is a terribly complex situation. Anyone who suggests it's straightforward is lying …

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. The current conflict in the Middle East is making an already unstable region even more unstable and unpredictable. Over the last 24 hours, Iran has expanded its attacks across the region, with missile and drone attacks reported against multiple countries. What is the Albanese Labor government's assessment of the current state of conflict in the Middle East and what are the risks of further escalation?

Thank you, Senator Darmanin, for the question. I know that you and so many members of this place and the other place have many constituents, and relatives of constituents, who are very concerned about what is happening and the situation particularly for the travellers who have not been able to leave the UAE and other ports. This is a perilous and unpredictable time in the Middle East, and over the past 24 hours the conflict in the region has escalated and expanded. On a single day, 2 March, Iran fired missiles or drones at nine countries in the region. The Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that this included the Al Minhad facility, which is used by Australian troops. We can confirm that all ADF personnel at embassies and deployed throughout the region are safe and accounted for. Iran has launched attacks on Bahrain, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, including a drone attack as far away as a UK military base in Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean. We condemn these reckless attacks by Iran, including against civilians and civilian infrastructure.

The regime is also threatening to attack vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, jeopardising global oil supplies and shipments. We call on Iran to cease these actions. The Albanese government has made clear that it supports actions to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. The Iranian regime has shown in recent days why it remains a threat to peace and stability in the region, and its violence risks further destabilising an already volatile region. We do not want to see further regional escalation. We urge the protection of civilian life, we call for adherence to international humanitarian law, and we stand with the brave people of Iran.

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary.

Thank you, Minister. The conflict in the Middle East has resulted in the closure of airspace throughout most of the region. Australians, like many travellers around the world, are experiencing flight delays and cancellations. What is the situation for Australians in the region?

Thank you, Senator. Typically around 11,000 Australians a day travel through the region—11,000 every day—the majority through the United Arab Emirates. The situation is unprecedented, because in this crisis it is the hubs that we would usually rely on in a crisis that are in crisis rather than being the solution. The number of affected Australians dwarfs any consular operation that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has ever conducted. This morning I spoke with the UAE deputy prime minister and foreign minister to express our solidarity. I thanked him for supporting Australians who are impacted by travel disruptions, including the UAE's provision of accommodation and meals for Australians. The UAE and airlines are working hard to put flights on for travellers when safe to do so. We will continue to work with airlines in the region to support Australians.

Senator Darmanin, second supplementary.

It is a relief to hear that some flights have been able to depart, but Minister, as has been said, most of the airspace remains closed, and the travel advice for most of the region is currently 'Do not travel.' What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support Australians in the region?

I am advised that, as you said, Senator, a small number of commercial flights to other destinations were able to depart overnight. However, the unfortunate reality is that an immediate resolution to this situation is unlikely. Many Australians are also having issues with travellers insurance claims and exclusions in their policies for conflict situations. Australians are looking to their insurance providers for certainty in uncertain times. I'm pleased that the Assistant Treasurer has been working closely with insurance providers through this crisis, and we welcome the Insurance Council of Australia today declaring the conflict in the Middle East a significant event. The government will continue to press Australia's insurers to do the right thing by Australians who are facing disruption. Our priority, as I have said, is keeping Australians safe. We have activated the crisis centre and opened a registration portal for Australians in Israel, Iran, the UAE and Qatar, and we urge Australians to follow Smartraveller for the latest advice.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, at Senate estimates hearings on 12 February, during an exchange on the subject of so-called ISIS brides, you said:

… Australian citizens have various entitlements which are not discretionary under law and no government is able to make them discretionary.

Is it true that, as Foreign minister, you have no discretion under current law to refuse to issue a passport under any circumstances?

I have made clear already in this place it is possible for the Foreign minister to refuse or cancel a passport on security grounds if—this'll be the fifth time—a competent authority requests it. What I have said is that ASIO and other competent authorities have not made such a request.

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Minister, section 9 of the Australian Passports Act states that a minister may issue emergency documents. Furthermore, the entitlement to a passport outlined in section 7 is qualified in section 8, which requires the minister to 'be satisfied' of a person's citizenship and identity. Can the minister confirm if the passports or travel documents issued to the 34 so-called ISIS brides and their families were authorised under section 9?

It remains a legal entitlement for Australians citizens to be issued an Australian passport if they meet eligibility requirements, so that is the position. As you know, Senator, I'm not in a position—you may have asked questions about this at estimates—nor was the department, to answer specific questions about specific individuals, and I think the department went through why that is the case. But what I would say is that—

Oh!

Senator Ruston, come to order. Minister Wong, do you wish to continue?

Does Senator Ruston want me to respond, or would she like to—I know that she hasn't got much influence these days— (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, second supplementary?

():

Minister, section 14 of the Australian Passports Act states:

(1) If a competent authority suspects on reasonable grounds that:

(a) if an Australian travel document were issued to a person, the person would be likely to engage in conduct that:

(i) might prejudice the security of Australia or a foreign country;

…   …   …

(b) the person should be refused an Australian travel document in order to prevent the person from engaging in the conduct …

In your four years as Foreign minister, how many passports have you refused or cancelled under section 14?

That is the section that I have been referencing now in numerous questions, and no such request was made in relation to the group that you are referencing. In relation to other matters, I act as Foreign minister, under that section, on the basis of any advice provided by a competent authority, which in general is ASIO or AFP. Senator, I am not in a position—you should not ask me—

Senator Paterson?

On direct relevance, President, I have asked the minister how many passports were refused or cancelled under the section of the act.

The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Paterson.

The extent to which those opposite are irresponsible—that you would actually ask questions about the advice of security agencies! I act on the advice of security agencies. You have been on PJCIS. You have been on the committee, Senator. If you want a confidential briefing on classified matters, I will provide it.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Did you hear what I said? If you want a confidential briefing on classified matters, I will provide it. (Time expired)

Order! That was extremely loud and disrespectful, and some of the people on my left on the front bench were louder than the minister. This is not a football match; it's the Senate.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. Minister, Muslims and migrants of colour are under attack across the country. Racism is rising, women are attacked on the streets and white supremacists are plotting violence on mosques. In yesterday's censure of Senator Hanson, you stated:

… I want every Australian child … to know and to believe that they belong here …

Yet your government refuses to take action to address the hate and racism that challenges their belonging. In your speech and motion, the words 'racism' and 'Islamophobia' were not even mentioned. The National Anti-Racism Framework, a plan to tackle systemic racism that exists in this country, has been gathering dust on government shelves for more than 450 days now. Minister, if you seriously care about eliminating racism, why have you not even responded to the National Anti-Racism Framework?

There are many people in this chamber who've spent much of their lives standing up against hatred and racism. One of the things that I have believed—which, clearly, you do not—is that we do best if we do that together and if we stand in solidarity together, even if we don't agree with each other on many things. I remember, as a young Asian Australian—oh, this is not legitimate?

Senator Faruqi?

I have a point of order on relevance. My question was specifically about the National Anti-Racism Framework.

Order! To those on my right, I'm running the Senate. Senator Faruqi, you also had quite a significant and broad-ranging introduction to your question, and the minister is being precisely relevant.

I remember, as a young Asian Australian—and I think I speak for many of my generation—how comforted we were by the bipartisan support for a non-discriminatory immigration system, including by members of the Liberal Party, and by bipartisan condemnation by many of Senator Hanson when she was in her first iteration.

I want to acknowledge Senators Scarr and McLachlan for their principled stance yesterday because it speaks to a history of bipartisan support for respect and equality that we have in this country. Senator, what I would say to you is that we may not agree on everything, but, surely, people can stand together against racism, which is what this Senate sought to do yesterday. It saddens me that, instead, you chose to engage as much in an attack on me personally as on Senator Hanson.

Senator Allman-Payne?

I have a point of order on impugning the motivations of a senator.

Senator Allman-Payne, that is not a point of order. Minister Wong, did you wish to continue?

I think the motivations which were impugned in the question were mine. What I would say is that, all my life, including yesterday and in all the time in public life that I have had, I will stand against racism. On the National Anti-Racism Framework, that is a matter for the Attorney-General, and I will refer her—

You're standing up for racism!

Senator Faruqi, I'm not sure if that comment was directed to Senator Wong. If it was, I will ask you to withdraw it.

It was directed to the Labor government.

Senator Faruqi, in the interests of the chamber, I ask that you withdraw—

I haven't finished speaking, Senator Waters, so I would like respect from you until I finish speaking, then I will come to you. Please resume your seat. Senator Faruqi, in the interest of the harmony that I am trying to establish in this chamber, I will ask you again, in the interests of the chamber, to withdraw that statement. Senator Waters?

On the topic of withdrawals, Senator Sterle has been a frequent, nasty contributor, and his latest contribution against Senator Faruqi must be immediately withdrawn.

He's just repeated it as well.

Senator Sterle! Order! Just a moment, Senator Ayres. I am going to restore order first. Senator Sterle, silence. Senator Waters, you've made a point of order. I am going to address it, but I will not address it until the chamber is quiet. Senator Sterle?

It would be my pleasure to withdraw for you, President.

On a point of order, I would seek that Senator Faruqi withdraw what she said. Prior to what she said, she said 'you'. There is no way possible to make an argument that that was a reflection upon the government. It was a snide, unserious personal attack and it ought to be withdrawn.

I withdraw. But this chamber has massive double standards. When a Labor member stands up and calls me a 'cretin' then you are standing up for racism.

Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Senator Faruqi, I asked you to withdraw. You are well aware of the standards that I seek: when I ask senators to withdraw, they withdraw without comment. So I am asking you to withdraw.

Senator Faruqi, you are not in a debate with me. Senator Allman-Payne, resume your seat; I'm not going to come to you at the moment. Senator Faruqi, I would ask you to simply withdraw.

I have withdrawn.

I rise on a point of order. You have asked, and Senator Sterle has complied, to withdraw the first insult that he threw at Senator Faruqi. I now ask you to request that he withdraw the second insult. I won't repeat it but it started with an 'f'. I ask that you require him to withdraw the subsequent insult as well.

Thank you, Senator McKim. You are also aware of my standard and I never allow senators to repeat an offence. I did not hear any of the offences.

Senator Allman-Payne, I am speaking. Sit down, please. Senator Sterle, if you made a second—

I certainly did use a word beginning with 'f'. It wasn't the f-word but I will withdraw that, gratefully.

Senator Faruqi, a first supplementary?

On 21 March we will mark the International Day of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in a climate in which racially marginalised communities are increasingly fearful for their safety because Labor and Liberals continue on their dog whistling and scapegoating. This date offers a perfect opportunity for Labor to put their money where their mouths are and fund the National Anti-Racism Framework in the upcoming budget. Minister, will you announce funding for the NARF by the end of this year?

Budget decisions will be made in the budget context, but this government stands against racism in all its forms.

Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary?

Last week, the Prime Minister was very quick and so wrong to call Grace Tame 'difficult', a sexist and patronising label for someone who has more courage than the whole Labor cabinet put together. But he can't bring himself to call One Nation the racist, Islamophobic and hateful party that they actually are. Will the Prime Minister and the Labor Party ever muster up the courage to call them out for what they are—racists?

I think I outlaid very clearly our views about Ms Hanson and what she stands for.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Today, the Workplace Gender Equity Agency released the annual employer gender pay gap data, providing greater transparency about pay outcomes for women and men across Australian workplaces. This data is available because of reporting requirements introduced under the Albanese Labor government. It shows progress but there is more work to do. Can the minister outline what this latest data reveals about the state of gender pay equality in Australia and how it reflects the government's broader agenda to get more women into secure, well-paid jobs.

I thank Senator Grogan for the question and for all the work that she has done throughout her career in advocating for gender equality across all industries. It was a pleasure to stand with Mary Wooldridge, the head of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, today to release the annual employer gender pay gaps data, and this report—this is the third year in which we have been providing this information—shows continued progress to reduce the gender pay gap. In fact, the average total remuneration take-up has reduced from 12.1 per cent last year to 11.2 per cent, and there was good progress in terms of reducing the number of employers who are conducting gender pay gap analysis, the number of those who did a comprehensive analysis, the number of those employers who found the cause of the gap in that analysis and the numbers who took action to review performance structures to ensure there was no bias, and, indeed, we see more employers falling into the target range of pay, including—this year, we recorded the Commonwealth public sector data for the first time alongside the private sector data. We now have half of employers with an average total remuneration gender pay gap smaller than 11.2 per cent, which is a reduction of 0.9 per cent. There are more women in high-paid roles, but women are still more likely to be concentrated in the lowest paid jobs. As I said earlier, more employers are conducting the analysis that leads to further change.

We know that there is more to do. We thank WGEA for the work they have done in working with employers to deliver this information. In particular, I'd like to thank Mary Wooldridge, who's been the head of the Workplace Gender Equality Agency since 2021, and this will be her last reporting season. (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, first supplementary?

I'd just like to thank Senator Gallagher for the amazing work that she's done to get this progress. While we do see recent data showing women's average earnings have increased significantly since this government came to office, the latest figures show women still earn around 88 cents for every dollar earned by men. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government remains committed to helping women get ahead at work and take home more pay?

I thank Senator Grogan for that. Just to finish on acknowledging the contribution of Ms Mary Wooldridge, who has led WGEA with a high level of professionalism and has led significant reforms, including Respect@Work, the transparency data and the world-leading target-setting approach that she has implemented, I wish her all the best.

The work that the government remains committed to is helping women get ahead at work and take home more pay, as Senator Grogan outlined. We have been very clear that this has been a core priority for us, in terms of not only our government policy but also our economic approach, and we know now that the gender pay gap is the lowest on record. We know that women are earning more and, on average, taking home $291.60 more a week than they were when we came to government. We've got women's workforce participation trending up at 62 per cent in December, with over 640,000 new jobs for women since— (Time expired)

Senator Grogan, second supplementary?

That's great news. The progress on gender equality requires sustained effort and a continued focus on policies that expand choice and opportunity for women in the workforce. Can the minister outline how greater flexibility and secure work empower women with more choice and what barriers still stand in the way of achieving these outcomes for Australian women?

There are challenges that remain, certainly challenges in the approach that happens with non-base remuneration—those performance bonuses or other arrangements outside of pay. Base pay remains a challenge. We also know that flexible work is a key issue for women, and, where that is not addressed, when workplaces genuinely don't genuinely support flexibility, including access to flexible work—I should point out today is the one-year anniversary of the Liberals announcing their scrapping of working from home. It's been 12 months since that big policy announcement that went down like a lead balloon. Why did it go down like a lead balloon? Because women, who are already juggling everything else, were told by the Liberal Party that they were a bludger—if you're not in the office, you're a bludger. That's what they heard. That's what they don't get about women's policy—we need flexibility when it comes to work. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and the Minister for Science. An AI advisory body was promised by former industry minister Ed Husic in 2024 after he appointed an interim expert panel to start work to ensure the technology was safe. In 2025, Minister Husic said that mandatory guard rails would be prioritised by the second term of the Albanese government. But, on 24 February, the government scrapped the permanent AI advisory body after spending 15 months and $200,000 working to identify experts to sit on it. Minister, you then announced a replacement AI Safety Institute that will be established in early 2026. Can the minister please explain how an institute with no powers other than to offer advice can protect Australians from the worst of AI?

Thank you, Senator Lambie, for that question. As you would be aware, the Albanese government announced the national plan for artificial intelligence some months ago, and that did include establishing an AI Safety Institute funded with just under $30 million to play that role. That work occurs against the backdrop of the efforts put into, in the previous term including by Minister Husic, establishing the government's approach to this vital technology, which comes with enormous opportunity and with some risk.

The national plan for artificial intelligence is about making sure that Australia captures the opportunities of this technology; that we spread the benefits so they're not just in the central business districts of our big cities but are spread to small businesses, to the tech sector, to regional communities to make sure that schools and everybody gets access to the benefits of this technology; and importantly that we keep Australians safe. The AI Safety Institute's role will be to do the technical evaluation work, particularly testing new frontier models, to make sure that we understand what the platforms are that are accessible for Australians and to do the work in terms of safety and alignment with the interests of Australians to perform a regulatory support role so that we make sure as a government—working with colleagues like Minister Gallagher and others across the government to ensure that our regulators, our agencies, our departments, have the capability that they require and the regulations they need to make sure— (Time expired)

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

South Korea, Denmark and the European Union are all bringing forward new AI laws, not relying, like our government, on existing laws to regulate AI and protect its citizens. Why does the government think Australians can be protected by laws that were prewritten before AI even existed or was invented? When will we actually get new laws to protect our citizens from the worst aspects, once again, of AI? I just don't understand how you can possibly use old laws when you haven't brought new ones in.

Thanks, Senator Lambie, for that second question. As I was about to finish the previous answer—you've touched on exactly where I was to go next, which is that part of the function of that safety institute is to cooperate with partners overseas, including the jurisdictions that you referred to, who all have AI safety institutes themselves as a key piece of their architecture. There are different approaches being taken in different economies and jurisdictions around the world.

The AI Safety Institute, in this government's judgement is an important adjunct to having our capability as a government to make sure that we're capturing the opportunities and spreading the benefits and dealing with those safety issues adequately and effectively. We don't believe that an additional piece of legislation—I might have to come to this in your second supplementary.

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

The government uses GovAI to build, test and deploy customised AI solutions, including using OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, and Microsoft's Copilot underwent a trial. Members of the general public and organisations now get an email telling them that their submission will be first assessed by AI. Can you tell me exactly which AI models are being used for this, and can you assure Australians that their data isn't being shared with big tech globally?

I'll just finish that first point. We have a regulatory framework in Australia. Our job is to strengthen it and to make sure that it is fit for purpose, and that may engage future regulatory change in some areas to make sure that Australian laws, whether dealing with financial harms, dealing with protecting young Australians or dealing with whatever, are up to scratch, modern and fit for purpose.

On the question of which platforms are being used in the context that you've referred to, I'm not in a position to answer; I don't know the answer to that question. I'll happily come back to you about that in more detail.

On a point of order, I just wanted to know how you can assure Australians that their data isn't being shared with big tech globally. That's the assurance we want to hear today. Thank you.

Did you have anything further to add, Minister Ayres?

I don't believe so. Data protection is a core principle of the government's operation here.

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Did Israeli president Isaac Herzog visit ASIO headquarters during the course of his recent trip to Australia?

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I believe the program was made public. Obviously, in relation to that particular entity, we are cautious about what is said, but I can provide some further information on notice.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, I would expect that you would probably know this detail. I'm just wondering if you can confirm that President Herzog did not visit ASIO headquarters or any other intelligence operational facilities here in Australia in the course of his recent visit.

Thank you, Senator. If I can provide information I will. You ask about one of Australia's security agencies. Obviously they've been extensively involved in the investigation and circumstances of the Bondi attack, and, if I'm able to provide you with further information, I will.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, can I take it that you are unaware of President Herzog visiting ASIO or any of our security agencies? I appreciate that you will take it on notice, but I just wanted to confirm that you are unaware of that.

Senator, what you can take is that I will do what I can on notice to provide you with the information that I'm able to.

I just have a point of order on relevance. I've tried to ask this very respectfully, with no preamble and no long-winded intro, and that was not the question I asked.

Senator Pocock, I'm also trying to be courteous. I'm not able to answer your question.

Please. I think Senator Pocock doesn't need your assistance, Senator Whish-Wilson. I'm also seeking to be courteous. I'm not in a position where I can answer your question. Obviously questions about that agency are often very sensitive. I will clarify what I am able to outline to you, and I will come back to you. So I'm seeking to be courteous also in my response.

Minister, I'm not trying to be funny here, but—

Senator, why are you standing?

It's a point of order on relevance. My question was whether you know and you can't say or you—

Senator Pocock, I've listened very carefully to your questions and the minister's answers, and she has been directly relevant to the questions. In answer to your first question, the minister has agreed to take it on notice to see what she can provide. She has been relevant for all of your questions. I'm going to move on.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, I asked you to confirm that Australia was entering a period of oil supply disruption, with a mere 26 days of petrol in the system. Under International Energy Agency guidance, the minimum fuel reserve is 90 days, yet you responded that Australia has 150 per cent of its minimum requirement. Last year, the Albanese government quietly chose to ignore the International Energy Agency and instead decided to introduce its own minimum stockholding obligations, which it set at a mere 24 days—problem solved! Aside from 26 not being 150 per cent of 24, how can you justify ignoring International Energy Agency best practice and introducing a patently absurd and dangerous minimum stockholding obligation of only 24 days of petrol supply? Why are you entrenching energy insecurity and volatility for which Australians will pay?

I'll start at the end of that question, and then I'll try to deal with some of the substance of it. Energy insecurity in Australia is a consequence of what happened over the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull catastrophe where four out of our six oil refineries closed. Despite what Mr Hastie says, when he turns to you for work, these things are not straightforward to rebuild. Four out of six closed, so, if you want to ask questions about energy insecurity, ask them how it is that they sat on their hands for so long.

Senator Roberts?

Point of order: I'm not asking the opposition; I'm asking the minister, and I want an answer.

I will direct the minister to your question. Minister Ayres?

While I'm on the subject of the opposition and the current fuel security arrangements—we have larger reserves on hand today than there have been at any time over the last 15 years as a result of the action, not words, that this government has taken. When Mr Taylor was in charge of energy, sort of—it was unclear, as I think Mr Morrison was secretly also the minister at the same time—he was the worst energy minister in Australian history and did more to debauch and pull down our energy policy framework. His proposition was that Australia's fuel reserves should be contained in Texas. (Time expired)

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

In the next few weeks, Brisbane's Lytton fuel refinery is scheduled to close for 10 days maintenance. Lytton produces the majority of Australia's domestic petrol, diesel and industrial gas. Ten days production taken out of the system at a time of supply shortage is a recipe for disaster. Why didn't the Albanese government secure additional supply prior to Lytton closing to ensure fuel security in Australia?

In relation to the previous question, Texas in the United States—not Texas, Queensland—is where, supposedly, this character had our fuel. You say that there is a 10-day—I couldn't be any more relevant.

Senator Roberts?

Point of order: I'm not asking about Texas. I'm asking about Lytton and securing additional fuel supplies to protect this country.

I was about to direct the minister to your question, but he went to the question himself. Minister Ayres?

I did. Of course, these kinds of maintenance shutdowns occur from time to time. If there's anything in relation to this particular shutdown that I can provide to you, I will. There are not six oil refineries. Four closed. Four closed when Senator Canavan, who's very noisy about these issues in opposition, was as quiet as a mouse when the other side was in government. I think I've run out of time.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Of the 3,000 oil tankers that service Australia, we own just four, with a total capacity of approximately 1.8 million barrels every delivery cycle, which takes 30 days from Singapore and 40 days from South Korea, our major supply point. 1.8 million barrels is enough to last Australia six days. Minister, what's your plan here? Will you beg other countries for some of their oil, force Australians to pay $3 a litre at the pumps, or use the petrol shortage to introduce more Labor communism control?

I'm not sure there's an adjective big enough for that overreach in the English language. If you're so critical of Mr Taylor's performance as the Minister for Energy and the fact that our merchant fleet declined over that period, the fact that four out of our six oil refineries closed and the fact that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure, why do you cuddle up to them so much?

Senator Roberts?

I'm not asking about his uniparty mate, Mr Taylor. I'm asking about his own policy. What's he going to do?

Senator Roberts, you've made the point of order. I will draw the minister to your question.

I've answered the question. I make the point that, if you and the Nationals and the Liberals really want to get behind Mr Taylor, who was the worst energy minister in our history, who did more damage than any other person to Australia's energy security and who did more, along with Senator Hume, to trash the economic record of the Liberal Party at the last election, be our guest.

My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. You, in your capacity as the Minister for Indigenous Australians, and the Prime Minister have both made clear in your statements that closing the gap remains a priority for the Albanese Labor government. How is the government working in partnership with First Nations communities, peak bodies and state and territory governments to make real progress on closing the gap and expand opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people?

I thank the senator for her question and for her support on our work on closing the gap. The Albanese Labor government is working in partnership with First Nations communities, the Coalition of Peaks and state and territory governments to try to improve the outcomes for First Nations Australians. Our Closing the Gap plan demonstrates the progress we have made and the work still ahead. We promised at the last election to create 3,000 jobs in remote communities, and I am delighted that we're doubling that number to an incredible 6,000 jobs, as the Prime Minister announced. It's an investment in real jobs, with proper wages, superannuation and career pathways. And we're tackling the cost of living. Our Low-Cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme is already saving families at the checkout in 113 remote stores around the country. It's slashing the cost of 30 essential items so that families can put more food on the table. We're now expanding that program to all 225 remote stores right around the country.

In health, we're upgrading critical Aboriginal community controlled health services, and we're making sure our public hospitals better support First Nations people through a joint $450 million boost through the National Health Reform Agreement. We're delivering the first standalone national plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, and we're backing it in with an immediate $218 million injection of funds into frontline services. We are building stronger futures for First Nations Australians.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Improving mental health and suicide prevention remain critical priorities in closing the gap. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government's investment in culturally safe, community led services, like 13YARN, is supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to access crisis support?

Supporting the social and emotional wellbeing of First Nations people is essential to closing the gap, and that's why the Albanese Labor government is strengthening 13YARN. That's the national crisis support line designed, led and delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. 13YARN provides confidential, culturally safe crisis support 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It ensures people can speak to someone who understands their situation, their cultural connections, their community and their lived experience. The $13.9 million investment we've announced through Closing the Gap will extend operating hours and expand services so people can access support when they need it the most.

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

Recent flooding across Central Australia and the Barkly has highlighted the challenges remote communities face in accessing essential services and reliable food supplies. How are the Albanese Labor government's Closing the Gap investments strengthening remote stores and improving food security during extreme weather and supply disruptions?

We've certainly seen tremendous amounts of rain right across Central Australia, and, even still, right up through to the north. This is all too common during the wet season in the Top End, but our food resilience package is helping stores limit the impact in terms of some of our communities being cut off from access. It is working. It's why the Albanese Labor government is expanding that package to 75 additional remote stores. We're upgrading storage and refrigeration so stores can keep essentials stocked and foods fresh when roads are cut off, which has been happening quite a lot recently. All we heard yesterday from those opposite was just negativity. I do encourage those opposite to really see what we are trying to do here. It's one of the first times that I haven't seen bipartisan support here in the Senate, and I really urge senators to try and do that. (Time expired)

My question is to Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Minister, many Australians now stranded in the Middle East have reportedly been unable to contact consular staff, with emergency lines unanswered and hotlines overwhelmed, yet your government has spent months coordinating the return of ISIS sympathisers, issuing them dozens of passports. Why can the Albanese government pave the way for the return of terrorist sympathisers but not ensure law-abiding Australians stranded overseas can get help when they need it?

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right! Before I call the minister, I remind those on my right that I need to be able to hear the question. Senator Sharma should be able to ask his question in silence. Minister Wong.

This is one of the few times I will take an interjection from Senator Shoebridge—that's the great moderate hopeful channelling Peter Dutton now. Senator Sharma, you know, because you are smart enough, that your question is incorrect—that what you are asserting there is untrue. But I will leave aside the political untruth in relation to the Syrian cohort. What I will go to, which I hope matters, is what we are doing for Australians in the Middle East. As I have been very clear with the Senate and the public about, yes, the numbers are larger than any consular crisis that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, including when you were working there, have ever dealt with. We have 115,000 Australians in the Middle East, and 11,000 Australians transit through Qatar and the United Arab Emirates every day. It is a major hub for Australians to go, from other parts of the world, to and from Australia. Staff in consulates, in embassies and at the crisis centre are working around the clock and we will do everything we can. What I have said is that, obviously, we're looking at whatever arrangements we can make, bearing in mind that, given the numbers, the best way of ensuring people can get home safe and quickly is for flights to resume. But, as I have also been upfront in saying, currently the situation in the Middle East is risky and unpredictable. Nine countries were hit in one day, and we know we have seen the hubs hit. That is the reality of the situation that the government is dealing with. I feel for Australians overseas— (Time expired)

Senator Sharma, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I do point out that in the hours after the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami there were some 15,000 Australians unaccounted for, so I appreciate this is a significant consular crisis, but we have dealt with ones of a similar magnitude before. Last week, Minister, DFAT ordered the departure of dependants from Israel and facilitated the departures of dependants from Jordan, Qatar and the UAE. If the government knew the situation was deteriorating to the point of withdrawing its own personnel, why did you not publicly front up and warn the Australian public at that time?

An honourable senator interjecting

I'll wait for silence. Minister Wong.

Senator, you know that the government has a policy around no double standards, which is why that travel advice was published on its travel advice channel, Smartraveller, and my office made media aware on 25 February, and you would know that from your vast experience. I would also say that I can take you through the iteration of travel advice, which, as you would know, is done on advice and after consideration, that has been put out. The travel advice that we have been giving has been in line with like-mindeds. We have issued a number of warnings, including on 15 January and 30 January. The time remaining doesn't let me—

Why didn't you stand up as minister?

Order! Senator McKenzie, I don't believe this is your question and I'd ask you to be quiet. Senator Sharma, second supplementary?

My question was: why did the minister not stand up last week and reiterate that travel advice from her department, because, clearly, given the significant US military build-up in the region, given we were ordering the departures of dependants and facilitating the departures of others, we saw this crisis coming? Wouldn't acting earlier have allowed us to mitigate the impact on Australians abroad and doesn't this represent a failure of preparedness and communication that has left Australians stranded with limited options?

It is always so disappointing that, when there is a crisis for this country, the first thing the opposition do is try to make politics out of it. They always go to politics about it. That is what they always do.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I have worked very hard to make sure that Senator Sharma was respected and that his question was heard in silence. That same respect applies to Minister Wong's answer. Please continue, Minister Wong.

I want to make some comments.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order. Senator Watt, I've just finished saying to the Senate that Senator Wong needs to be heard in silence, yet the interjections started again. Minister Wong.

This year, before the conflict began on 28 February, we issued a total of 41 travel advice updates for the Middle East, including to warn that conflict could result in airspace closures, flight cancellation and other disruptions. We posted 26 times across X, Facebook and Instagram, including, on 15 January:

Regional tensions in the Middle East are high and the security situation could deteriorate rapidly and without notice.

This may result in airspace closures, flight cancellations and other travel disruptions.

On 30 January, we also provided information that there was a risk of further escalation and that closure of airspace around transit hubs in the Middle East may impact flights globally. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Since the election in May 2022, a key priority of the Albanese Labor government has been delivering a higher wages for workers. How important is it for the government to continue its policy of higher wages for workers to help Australians with cost-of-living pressures?

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'm going to wait once again until there is order on my left. Minister Watt.

Sorry. I was so enraptured by that question, President! Under the Albanese Labor government, Australians are earning more and keeping more, helping them to deal with cost-of-living pressures. Wages increased by 3.4 per cent to December 2025, up from 3.3 per cent in September.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Once again, order on my left, particularly those on the front bench. Minister Watt, please continue.

As I said, wages increased by 3.4 per cent to December 2025, up from 3.3 per cent in September. They doesn't just happen by accident; it's the result of deliberate Labor policies that have actively increased wages. Of course, all of this has been opposed by the coalition because they don't want to see everyday Australians getting ahead. If you thought it would be any better under the new Liberal leadership team, you would be very, very wrong. As the former leader Ms Ley—remember her? None of you seem to. She said last week that the new Liberal leadership team immediately re-adopted her policies. It kind of makes you wonder what the point was, really. We've got a new Liberal leader whose solution to the cost of living was long lunches for bosses and a deputy—who hasn't been given a question yet, I notice—who wanted to ban working from home. Happy anniversary, Jane!

The rap sheet is long when it comes to these characters. Let's look at the new shadow Treasurer, Mr Wilson, who has criticised the Fair Work Commission's decision to increase the minimum wage and opposed legislation enshrining penalty rates and law. And the Liberals' secret election review—ooh!—hidden by the Leader of the Opposition but now leaked to the media, admits that those who now have control of the party were the architects of their electoral defeat. The review blames policies like opposition to income tax cuts. You should make that bloke leader! Oh, that's right: you have! And there was the denial of flexible working arrangements—happy anniversary! Oh!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Watt, please resume your seat. I'm waiting for silence. Senator Henderson?

A point of order: could you ask the minister to direct his answer through the chair? Thank you.

Senator Henderson, I am more than happy to do that. I would also request that the front bench—

Senator McKenzie, just as I'm speaking to try and get order, you interject. Perhaps there's a deal here. Senator Watt can direct his answers to the chair and the front bench on my left can be quiet. Minister Watt.

Through you, President, we are very happy to see Senator Henderson back on the front bench. The challenge for the coalition now is: will they heed their own review or continue to cut Australian— (Time expired)

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government knows that higher wages are vitally important to ensuring the pay packets of Australian workers can keep pace with cost-of-living pressures. Improving working conditions can also have a material benefit in the lives of millions of workers across the country. How has the government improved conditions for Australian workers, and how important is it that these measures are maintained?

Thanks, Senator Sheldon. Whether it's our closing-loopholes legislation, voted against by the coalition; fixing the labour hire system, voted against by the collision; or enhancements to flexible working arrangements, the Albanese government knows that making changes to help workers get ahead is really important to do. Unfortunately, that view is not shared by those opposite, who only wish to punish workers who want more flexibility. The treasure trove of quotes from the new shadow Treasurer—he wants to repeal the right to disconnect, he wants children to take up side hustles to help feed their families. As has already been canvassed by Minister Gallagher, the architect of their failed work-from-home policy, Senator Hume, is now in charge of their entire industrial relations policy.

Now, the Liberals' secret review was scathing in his assessment of the policy which Senator Hume led. and how do we know that? Because I tabled the Liberal Party review of their policy. My favourite line in that review is on page 18, about the working-from-home debacle: 'Memories vary on who approved it.' It was Senator Hume!

Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government's policy of higher wages and better conditions is also driving increased participation in the labour market. With a record number of Australians now in work, how is the government helping to keep Australians in their jobs?

Senator McKenzie, it seems you want to answer this question, but the question was directed to Minister Watt.

No Nationals have had a question today, but there's always hope!

Since the government came to office in May 2022, more than 1.2 million jobs have been created. Of course, one of those jobs has been created a few times over, and that's the leader of the coalition. While we're focused on creating more jobs for Australians, the new leader of the opposition's sole focus is on protecting his own. What other reason is there for him announcing his willingness to do preferences with One Nation? He's someone who wants to return to Howard-style conservatism, but he won't follow John Howard's principled decision to put One Nation last. That decision is certainly not following recommendation 16 of the Liberal's secret election review, which states:

Broadening the support base is necessary if the Party is to reflect modern Australia.

When the authors of that review said that they need to broaden the base, I don't think they were talking about Bolt and Credlin; they were talking about a wide range of Australians, including Australian workers, who deserve every pay rise they've got under a Labor government.

As much as I would like to keep listening to Minister Watt, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I undertook to Senator Lambie, during question time, to come back on data protections. I can't give an answer for the whole of government, because it depends upon the software that different departments use. For my department, artificial intelligence tools for use with regard to inquiries would be Copilot or, for large-scale consultations, a purpose-built consultation summarisation tool that's built on Microsoft products. My department is subject to the whole-of-government agreement with Microsoft, which states that all data is stored within Australia.

I move:

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

Good questions.

Yes, there were—I will take that interjection. There were very good questions today. There were serious questions on national security, and unfortunately we got unserious answers from this Labor government. We asked about the return of terrorists and we asked about the return of ISIS brides to Australian soil, but all we got was obfuscation. We got no answers from this Labor government, but the Australia people deserve better. The Australian people are afraid and uncertain. They're scared about where these ISIS brides are going to live. They're scared about what these ISIS brides are going to do. They're thinking, 'Are they going to be our new neighbour?'

There are beautiful communities in Australia—migrant communities that have come here from the Middle East to build a better life for them and their families—and they are scared. This Labor government has lost control of Australia's safety and security. The Australian people want to know how many temporary exclusion orders in total have been issued over the life of this Albanese government. We asked that question today and we got a nonanswer. It's a very simple question about a very simple mechanism that the government can use to prevent people from returning to Australia if they pose a security risk to the Australian people, yet they couldn't tell us how many, under the Albanese government, had been excluded from returning to Australia because of the security risk that they pose.

Australian people want to know what assurances the minister can provide to the Australian public about whether Kirsty Rosse-Emile has been issued a temporary exclusion order, because, according to reporting in the Nightly, she once openly declared that she wanted to make bombs. This woman is now among the cohort of 34 Australian citizens seeking to return from Syria.

So I ask the Australian people: do you have confidence in this Labor government keeping you safe? I don't. You've just got to take one look at its record over the past few years—the firebombings of synagogues, of places of worship, of childcare centres, where Australian children go to learn and have fun with their peers. Australian parents shouldn't be in fear of sending their children to child care or to schools every single day. We've had homes attacked, and of course we've had the tragic event at Bondi, Australia's worst terror event on Australian soil. This is a hopeless, reckless and weak government that has little regard for Australia's national security.

What is the coalition going to do about it? Well, we are very clear. We will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to facilitate the re-entry of individuals linked to terrorist hotspots or terrorist organisations who have committed terror related offences. We will take direct action in parliament to strengthen our laws to protect Australia's way of life, because we take national security, domestic security, the security of Australian families seriously. We will shut the door to people who do not share our values. And we will send a very clear message that anyone who travels to a designated terrorist hotspot such as Syria to support a death cult like ISIS does not deserve to come back to Australia.

The coalition, under the leadership of Angus Taylor, will always put national security and community safety first. We will not allow third parties to facilitate the return of individuals who choose to align themselves with ISIS. And let's be very clear about that. These women chose to support the death cult that has held a reign of terror over good people. And now they want to come back to Australia and bring that here. That was a grave choice that they made, and we will always stand against that and we will always put the safety and security of Australian citizens first.

Before I respond to some of Senator Collins's comments, I'd first like to comment on some changes I've seen in this chamber around the debates on these very specific topics from those questions in question time. The level of disrespect and blatant politicking is an absolute disgrace—asking questions over and over that seek to divide our community and that seek to incite hatred, or about things that many of you in this chamber know full well cannot be aired publicly. And I will say, as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, that the committee has been briefed. Yes, those opposite have been briefed on the whole ISIS bride scenario. So a lot of what's going on here is blatant and disgraceful politicking.

I look around this chamber, and this issue and the other issues more broadly around racism that we have been looking at are a disgrace as well. The behaviour that we've seen just this week has been deeply saddening to so many of us. I look around this chamber, and I know many of you have worked very hard to build community cohesion. You've worked very hard to stand against racism. I would say the standout person in this chamber is Senator Penny Wong. Tireless, dogged and passionate, she is a mighty advocate. And I have been disgusted with what I saw at question time today—disgusted. I and many others I know look up to Senator Penny Wong and what she has done to build community cohesion and to address issues of racism. I was speechless with what I saw happen in question time today—speechless. And we should remember the history of bipartisan support to stand against racism that this chamber has had but that so many have plundered in this term. They've plundered it.

You should be ashamed, because it's not just about having a few arguments in this chamber; we're all happy to have a robust and out-there debate if you want to talk about your policy, their policy, their policy or our policy on housing, tax or energy. Sure. Let's go. But, when it is about inciting hatred and racism and picking one set of people over every other to highlight, it is a disgrace. Make your points without that. Be careful what you do, because we are going down a very, very dirty, slippery path here. I would advise serious caution.

Our community is precious. People come here from all over the world. I came here. I'm an immigrant. I came to this country, and I was amazed at what a beautiful, safe place it is to be. I'd never experienced that kind of community before. I was delighted to be able to immigrate into this country. And my heart goes out every other person who has—those who've maybe found themselves the subject of the disgraceful conversations in here. My heart goes out to you. You are welcome. And our politics in this chamber need to get better. We need to understand the importance, the value and the risks and just be better.

I rise to also take note of answers to all coalition questions—and I thank the minister for providing details about the management of the consular crisis in the Middle East. But I want to make important points here. Firstly, this conflict was entirely foreseeable. We have had over the past few months two US aircraft carrier battle groups in the region. We have had dramatic negotiations underway directly between the United States and Iran in Geneva that were clearly making very little progress. Last week we had for the first time ever F-22 Raptors deployed to Israel—the squadron—and we had the US Fifth Fleet at Bahrain disperse.

All of those signals suggested that the risk of a conflict in the Middle East was high. Indeed, our Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade seem to appreciate that, because, on Wednesday last week, they ordered the evacuation of dependants of our diplomatic and other personnel in Israel. And on the same day that week—Wednesday last week, 25 February—they provided voluntary assistance for the departure of dependants of diplomatic personnel in Qatar, Jordan and the UAE. So the government knew the situation was deteriorating, to the point that they were mandating the withdrawal of some of their own personnel and facilitating it for others.

That being the case, why did the Foreign minister, the Prime Minister or the defence minister not step up in front of the cameras and tell the Australian public: 'We are updating our travel advice. We are warning. We have changed the level of advice. We are getting our own people out. The travelling public in Australia should consider using commercial options while they are available'? That's what the Canadian Foreign minister did. Before the war broke out, the Canadian Foreign minister put out a press release urged Canadians to use commercial options while they were still available.

The Prime Minister was asked about this last week. On an interview on ABC radio last Tuesday morning, he was asked about the risks of conflict in the Middle East and about whether he had any advice to give to Australians. He just said: 'Check the DFAT website. We're keeping that updated.' Here was an opportunity for him to communicate the risks to Australians and to mitigate the impact that Australians are dealing with now, and he didn't take it. Instead, he spent most of that interview talking about the person who is currently eighth in line to the succession of the House of Windsor. So the Prime Minister last week was dealing with what would happen if William and Harry and their children were to pass and who would take the throne of the United Kingdom and Australia, rather than dealing with the Middle East crisis that was unfolding in real time and on our watch.

The minister also said that the number of affected Australians dwarfs any consular operation the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has ever conducted. Well, I don't know if that's an assertion she's made or something she's been advised by the department, but I would point out that, after the Boxing Day 2004 tsunami, in which 26 Australians were killed and many more injured, there were some 15,000 Australians unaccounted for. I would point out that, after the Sari nightclub bombing in Bali in October 2002, some 88 Australians were killed and the ADF had to conduct 66 medical evacuations to treat the injured survivors. So our consular services and our department have dealt with crises of this magnitude before, certainly, and unlike in those other two crises—the Bali terrorist attack and the Boxing Day tsunami—we had some forewarning of this.

If the public had been given advance notice—if the minister had stood up at the same time as the department updated its travel advice to highlight and publicise this, as you would expect a responsible government to do—then we might well have a situation today where fewer Australians had gone to the region or where Australians had deferred or changed their travel plans, which would have meant that the crisis we are dealing with right now would be significantly less. That is my complaint, at its heart—that the government had the opportunity to act here and to mitigate the impact on the travelling public. The public right now are understandably frustrated because they have uncertainty, they don't know when they're going be able to get out and they can't get through on DFAT's consular helpline. The lack of preparedness undertaken before this crisis developed is the cause of at least some of that. This is a basic duty of governments—to prepare for national security crises, to make contingency plans and to forewarn and forearm the Australian public. On that most basic duty, this government has failed.

What a disappointing contribution from the Liberal Party today in question time! This is a Liberal Party that has learnt nothing from the last federal election. They have tried desperately, time and time again, to use this country's national security as their political sport, thinking that they can somehow sneak into government through the back door by fearmongering and deliberately scaring our community for their own political gain. They simply haven't changed, and they haven't learnt anything. We know the situation is a difficult and complex situation. They know it too, because they set up the legal framework. They know this. It is the coalition, after all, who in government let at least let 40 people, including foreign fighters, back into the country under the same legal framework. They know it. They're just using this for political sport, and it is so disappointing.

The Albanese government's position on this issue is clear, and it is longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. That is how we keep Australians safe. Our agencies have been monitoring these individuals for some time. Our law enforcement and national security agencies are following the same approach they have for over a decade—the same approach the former government took when they were last in power.

But what this is, at a base level, is politics. I thought, maybe—we've got a new Liberal leader; we've got a new deputy Liberal leader—things might be different. But, sadly, the deputy leader sat here patiently for two days, not even getting a question. It was the same old guard asking the questions—Senators Cash, Duniam and Paterson—the old guard holding the mic, not passing it over to the new leadership team. I had hoped we might have heard something different this week from the new leadership team. But it's a bit like the same old show changing the chairs around on the deck of the boat—it's still the same old nasty cruise heading off to nightmare island.

They say, if you're headed in the wrong direction, it's really good to stop and reflect—take some moments for some deep reflection. What kind of deep reflection have they been engaged in across there? Well, we now know, because we've got a leaked copy of the Liberal Party review, about the type of deep reflection that these guys have kind of been ignoring. It says in the report that they've actually been trying to ignore reflection. They don't want to do it; they don't want to think about it.

But what was really interesting in the copy of the report I received was that the reviewers noted the party's capacity to thoughtlessly offend migrant voters, particularly Chinese Australian and Muslim voters, was breathtaking. Those opposite have had the opportunity to reflect on the election review, helpfully made available to all of us from media outlets. But what questions did they bowl up today in question time? More fear mongering, more material offensive to Muslim voters, more material offensive to Australian citizens. The coalition simply cannot be trusted on these issues.

I was really disappointed to see the contributions from Senator Sharma, someone who should know better because he knows, as a former DFAT official, exactly how hardworking our officers are out there on the ground in very troubling, very dangerous and very difficult situations. He comes into this place and he has a crack at them—people who are working around the clock in really dangerous situations—again, to try and fearmonger. We know that there's a difficult situation in the Middle East, so it was so disappointing to hear that contribution.

I will quickly share some advice. We have had a 'do not travel' in place for the Middle East for some time. Those people who require assistance should contact the Consular Emergency Centre on 1300555135 in Australia—or from outside Australia.

We will protect Australians' way of life and restore their standard of living. It is a pity that the answers that were given in response to the questions asked by coalition senators did not reflect such an approach, because we must defend Australian values and we must keep our country safe.

We have a prime minister who once said:

My word is my bond.

But, on national security, Australians are again seeing the opposite. When it comes to keeping Australians safe, as with being transparent, you must be seen to be doing that. You must be transparent about what you're doing, because otherwise Australians will conclude the opposite.

Labor claims it does not want ISIS brides to return to Australia. Yet considerable assistance has clearly been given, including the issuing of passports. We're told that the government is not assisting, yet federal and state agencies have reportedly been meeting for months to manage their return. This is disappointing. It is disappointing that the government of Australia, whose primary KPI is the safety and security of Australians, is not being honest with Australian in relation to the dealings with the ISIS brides.

If Labor truly opposed these returns, it could use existing powers robustly and work with the coalition to strengthen the relevant laws even further if necessary. But instead, most disappointingly, we are seeing secrecy from this government. We saw it in question time today. We saw it in question time yesterday. We see it when ministers do the media. They fail to answer the questions, or they use a collection of words that, while making up grammatically correct sentences, certainly do not come anywhere near answering the questions that have been put to them. That is disappointing because Australians deserve clarity, not contradictions.

These ISIS brides chose to enter these ISIS controlled areas. Islamic State was not a social movement. It wasn't a sub-branch of the CWA. It was a brutal terrorist regime. It treated people who were opposed to the caliphate's life view with horrendous violence. These women chose to enter these areas. No-one forced them to. No-one paid them to. These ISIS supporters did that freely and voluntarily. Indeed, it has been reported that one of them said, before going overseas, that she wanted to make bombs. This is someone who freely, of her own will, decided to go overseas to support a horrible terrorist organisation because she wanted to make bombs—bombs to kill people, bombs to maim people.

Australians who are listening to the Senate today and listening to the answers in response to the questions that were put by coalition senators will be able to clearly determine that, while the questions were pointed and while the questions had a clarity around them, sadly the answers in response to those questions had anything but that. They failed to answer the questions; they failed to provide the information; and, most importantly, they failed to provide security to Australians that their government was doing the right thing to keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the Minister for Foreign Affairs's response to Senator Farqui's question today.

I want to start by making some general comments about racism in Australia. We need to be honest, and we need to be truthful, about the role that racism has played and continues to play in our country. Remember, when Europeans colonised this place, this country, it was done so on the basis of the racist lie of terra nullius. That is a racist lie that this was an empty land and that no humans were present, when, in fact, the simple truth was that there were a lot of people present in this land and they had lived here for a long, long time. The racism that underpinned the colonisation of this land has been entwined in the fabric of our society and our structures ever since and that remains true today. We remain a country in which racism is entwined in the very fabric of its being. Senators like Senator Faruqi and others like Senator Thorpe face racism out there in the community, as they do their job as senators and as they simply live as Australians, and they face racism in this place on a regular basis.

Of course, the political embodiment of racism in contemporary Australia is Senator Pauline Hanson. She is relentlessly platformed by mainstream media in this country, given a boost to spread her hateful rhetoric, and the media and, for that matter, the Australian Labor Party and the coalition have repeatedly failed to call her out for her racism and failed to strongly respond to racism when it occurs, not just in our society but here in this place. I remind folks that Senator Hanson, when Senator Faruqi took an action against her for telling Senator Faruqi she should 'piss off back to Pakistan', was found by a Federal Court judge to have engaged in a racist attack on Senator Faruqi. She was also found by a Federal Court judge to have a tendency to make negative, derogatory, discriminating or hateful statements in relation to, about or against groups of people relevantly identified as persons of colour, migrants to Australia and Muslims and did so because of those characteristics. You don't engage in racist attacks and you don't have those tendencies the Federal Court found that Senator Hanson does unless you are a racist.

Off the back of Senator Hanson telling Senator Faruqi to 'piss off back to Pakistan', the Australian Greens moved a motion in this parliament to censure Senator Hanson. This was a moment where the Senate could have actually sent a strong message to Senator Hanson that her racism and her instruction to Senator Faruqi to 'piss off back to Pakistan' were not going to be tolerated. But what did this Senate do? It squibbed it, because Senator Wong, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, along with the then leader of the opposition in the Senate Senator Birmingham, moved an amendment to the censure motion, which removed the censure provisions from the motion. So instead of sending the strong, absolutely required message to Senator Hanson that her racism wouldn't be tolerated, we did no such thing. If the government is serious about addressing racism in Australia, it could start by engaging with the blueprint, the National Anti-Racism Framework, and by making sure it is fully funded in the budget. That is the bare minimum we expect the government to do.

Question agreed to.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 6 January 2026 of the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell AO, a senator for the state of Queensland from 1983 to 2014. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its sadness at the death, on 6 January 2026, of the Honourable Ronald (Ron) Leslie Doyle Boswell AO, former senator for Queensland, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

I rise on behalf of the government to acknowledge the passing of the former senator for Queensland Ron Boswell, or Bozzie, as he was known, on 6 January 2026 at the age of 25—'of 25'! He would have liked that!—at the age of 85. And I want to express our condolences, and my personal condolences, to his daughter, Cathy, and granddaughter Sophie Beasley; his other family and friends; parliamentary colleagues; and others who are mourning his passing. I pay tribute to his late wife, Leita, and his son, Stephen, too.

Ron said it best himself: he might not have been pretty, but he was pretty effective. He served as senator for Queensland for more than 31 years and as leader of the Nationals in the Senate for 17 of those years. Ron Boswell, or Bozzie, as he was known to friends and colleagues in this place, was a forceful advocate for Queensland, for farmers and fishers and for small businesses. He saw his role in this place as giving a voice to those who lacked the institutional heft to advocate for themselves, and it was a role he discharged, honourably, for decades.

He was born in Perth in 1940, son to Bill and Phyllis Boswell, and his father, Bill, was a clerk by profession, a devout Roman Catholic, and his mother, Phyllis, was, in many ways, a woman ahead of her time—a working mum, which, in those times, was less common. At 13, he moved to Brisbane with his father. At 14, he left school and he entered the world of business, as an office worker for the Queensland Insurance Company. He quickly turned this into a budding career, deploying his affable nature and keen salesmanship to quickly become the youngest rep in the industry—all before his 18th birthday. I served with Bozzie; I did not know this till I did this. It's a great story.

These early experiences and his work to establish his own small business in his 20s shaped Ron Boswell's political values. Ron Boswell credited much of his early political involvement to his beloved wife, Leita, who passed away in 2021. It was she who encouraged his involvement in the Nationals and facilitated his connection to party luminaries like Joh and Florence Bjelke-Petersen and Bob Sparkes. Ron and Leita's involvement in the 1974 election helped the Nationals win their first urban seat and deepened his engagement with politics. And this culminated at a crossroads familiar to many in this place: choosing between work outside politics and seeking elected office. Ron's decision to leave the world of business and to seek elected office led to a 31-year career and an enduring contribution to Australian public life.

Ron Boswell entered parliament from third on the Nationals ticket in the 1983 double dissolution election. It was a turbulent time to be entering parliament as a Nationals member. When I read this, I thought: 'There seemed to be quite a few turbulent times.' But fair enough! Ron was the only gain for the party at that election, and, before the coalition agreement, came to be under immense strain, as can happen from time to time. It wouldn't be long before Ron made the principled decision to support the expansion of the parliament, despite the senior coalition party's strong opposition.

After 1990, Ron was elected as the leader in this place, a position he would hold for a record 17 years, and, I would reflect, I doubt that anyone will serve in the modern era, in the contemporary era, for a period that long as leader. In this role, he worked effectively with both sides of parliament. A lifetime defender of small business, he worked with Labor senator Chris Schacht to amend the Trade Practices Act, helping to protect small businesses from the monopolising power of larger retailers. Similarly, he used the Nationals' crucial numbers in the Senate to advocate against allowing geography to be a barrier to accessing health, educational and telecommunications services.

Ron Boswell spent a great deal of his later parliamentary career fighting back against the rise of the far right. And, as a Nationals senator for Queensland, he was familiar with the concerns that newly-emergent far-right figures sought to exploit. In a speech to this chamber in 1997, he said this about the then member for Oxley, now Senator Hanson:

I wish that the world was as simple as Pauline Hanson makes it out to be. I wish that the solutions were as obvious. But the truth is, they are not. … While she provides a temporary emotional outlet for fear and uncertainty, her solutions would only entrench trauma, insecurity and division.

Ron described defeating Pauline Hanson and One Nation in a race for the third conservative Senate spot at the 2001 election as his greatest political achievement, and he risked his career to stand up to what he called Senator Hanson's aggressive, narrow view of Australia.

I went back I looked at the contribution I made—as I was lucky enough to serve with Ron Boswell in this place—when he retired from the parliament, and, with the Senate's indulgence, there are some extracts of that I'd like to read now. I said:

In relation to Senator Boswell, Bozzie is one of the great characters of the Senate. I went up to Senator Boswell after his speech and said, 'The place really won't look the same without you.' I was reflecting, as Senator Boswell spoke, on his election in 1983 and I was trying to think where people—

a number of people in this chamber—

might have been at that time. … Senator Birmingham … was probably in primary school …

…   …   …

… it's an extraordinary period of service from that election in 1983 through to now. He—

Ron Boswell—

faced the people, I think, seven times. It is meritorious service to this place and to our country. I assume also … that Senator Boswell must be one of the last senators—if not the last—to have served in the Senate chamber of the Old Parliament House. Senator Boswell, that is, perhaps, a mark of the generational change that your leaving this place demonstrates.

There are many things that can be said about Senator Boswell. I think he had one of the best re-election slogans I have ever seen: not pretty, but pretty effective. I thought that was fantastic. I disagreed with it, obviously.

To which there was laughter. Then I said:

I actually meant that I disagreed with the 'pretty effective' part, not the 'not pretty' part. Anyway, I am glad you took it that way.

There were a number of things that you said in your speech tonight, Senator Boswell, which really resonated. One of them was that you have been a strong voice in your party room. There is no doubting that. Sometimes, frankly, we have enjoyed that and sometimes it has been more difficult for us. You have really taken the maxim that one has to be a strong voice inside one's party as a core political creed.

…   …   …

He—

Ron Boswell—

said tonight in his speech that politicians must have the courage of their convictions. I agree with this. Senator Boswell showed the courage of his convictions when he stood up against right-wing extremism. He deserves enormous credit for his stand against the far Right of the kind that was symbolised by Pauline Hanson.

Others have spoken—as has Senator Boswell—of the long fight against the far Right political movement, probably culminating in the 2001 federal election, which was the election when I was elected to this place. That was when Senator Boswell vindicated his position by refusing to preference One Nation. Senator Boswell competed directly with Pauline Hanson—the woman who famously said that Australia was being over-run by people who looked like me—and defeated her to retain his Queensland Senate seat, again relegating the far Right to the political wilderness.

…   …   …

Senator Boswell faced defeat at the hands of Pauline Hanson herself in the Senate race of 2001 but he said that he would refuse, point blank, to swap preferences with a One Nation leader.

I say to you, Senator Boswell, that for this principled stand you deserve not only my thanks but the thanks of the parliament and of the Australian people. At a time when debates about racism and freedom of speech are still present in this country I think all of us would do well to remember Senator Boswell's position. I wish him well in his retirement.

He continued that fight until the very end, and, last year, former senator Boswell wrote critically of One Nation in the Australian, labelling them 'the party of complainers' and 'the people who point at problems but never lift a finger to fix them'. On that point, former senator Boswell was consistent. He instinctively understood that support gained through appeals to grievance can only be fleeting and that forces can be used to sow division in communities. He proudly championed the practical, and he knew a key bulwark against the extreme right in this country was a strong centre right.

This isn't to say that he and I didn't ever have disagreements. We did—as many of his speeches in Hansard can attest to. In 2011, he wryly asked me this during question time:

In my 71 years, Labor has only ever delivered six budget surpluses, an average of one every 12 years. Minister, will I have to live to be 83 before I see another Labor surplus budget?

It turned out that he was spot on. In the 83rd year of his life, we did deliver a surplus budget—something, of course, those opposite failed to do in their term of government.

Come on! Stay nice!

I had to say that—fair enough. Having delivered the second the year after, I can honestly say to former senator Boswell that we trying to do our part to bring the average down.

Despite our differences, those of us who knew Ron will recall fondly the friendly and decent way he treated his political adversaries. Particularly after what has occurred this week and today, I was reflecting before I stood up about the fact that Senator Boswell speaks to a very different time in this chamber, because he was courteous. He and I disagreed on many issues, but he was always courteous to me, and I hope I was generally courteous back. He was a gentleman in a way that I think too few people in this place are today, and I appreciated that.

He said in his biography, 'I never considered the Labor Party as the enemy; they were the opposition.' Of course, he was thoroughly committed to the National Party. He believed he could have more influence as the Nats leader in the Senate than by taking up a ministry, although I'm told the opportunity was presented to him many times. He left parliament on his own terms as a National Party statesman. In his valedictory speech, Ron Boswell reminded us:

Each of us in this place steps in, and out, on one page of a continuing history; it is for others to write the future. There is still much to achieve; the job is never-ending.

Ever practical, he always knew that even a career as long and storied as his would someday end. We would all do well to remember this.

Australia's democracy is richer for Ron Boswell's service, and I once again extend my condolences on behalf of the government to his family—those here today and those watching from afar—and to all those who called Ron a friend.

I, too, rise to pay tribute on behalf of the opposition but, in particular, the Liberal Party. Senator Bridget McKenzie, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, will obviously give the lead tribute on behalf of the Nationals.

As I said, today we pay tribute to the life of the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell AO, former senator for Queensland. I have to say, when I first read that line—as Senator Wong has said and Senator McKenzie and, in particular, Senator Colbeck—it's difficult to even come to terms with that name because he was only ever known in this place as Bozzie. But today, as we gather in this chamber, we do so in the presence of those who loved him most. In particular, I acknowledge and warmly welcome to the Senate Ron's daughter, Cathy Boswell, and his granddaughter, Sophie Beasley. Cathy and Sophie, your father and grandfather gave more than three decades of his life to the service of our nation, and we honour him today.

As I said, Ron Boswell was known to all of us simply as Bozzie. In fact, if you referred to him as Senator Boswell, I honestly think he didn't even know who you were talking to. To say that he was a giant of the National Party was a complete understatement. Not only was he a giant of the National Party; he was a stalwart of the Senate and a tireless champion for Queensland but, in particular, for regional Australia. Elected to this place in 1983, he served, as we have now heard, until his retirement in 2014, and that was a remarkable 31 years, three months and 26 days. On reflection now, the reality is that we actually have some senators in this place who are younger than his entire service.

He was the 369th member of the Senate and the 57th senator for Queensland. But, more than those numbers, he was without a doubt a conviction politician in the truest sense of the word. Bozzie came to this parliament as a manufacturer's agent—a small-business man who well and truly, from firsthand knowledge, understood the pressures faced by those who back themselves, employ locals and keep regional communities alive. From the very beginning, he promised to be a strong voice for small business, for primary industries and for traditional family values. If we all look back at Ron's contribution in this place, that was precisely what he was.

Another thing that we all loved about Bozzie was that there were no airs and graces. There couldn't be; that just wasn't Bozzie. But he also never pretended to be anything other than who he was. The following slogan I think we're going to hear several times throughout all of the tributes to Bozzie today. As I said, he embraced it. His famous campaign slogan, 'Ron Boswell—he's not pretty, but he's pretty effective', captured Bozzie perfectly. There was no artifice with Ron, no spin, no carefully crafted persona. What you saw was quite literally what you got: direct, principled, determined and effective.

For 18 years—some people don't even serve 18 years in this place—he served as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, from 1990 to 2007, guiding his party through opposition and government. Each one of us in this place knows that that longevity in leadership speaks volumes. In politics, longevity is earned through trust, through loyalty and through the confidence of one's colleagues. Bozzie had all three.

He also served as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services from 1999 to 2003, a role that perfectly aligned with his passion for the bush. He understood that infrastructure, transport and communications are not luxuries for regional Australians; they are, in fact, lifelines. Upon his retirement, he nominated improvements in bush telecommunications as one of the highlights of his career. That focus on practical outcomes, on making life better for people outside of the capital cities, defined his parliamentary service.

Bozzie was also the Father of the Senate from 2008, and that is, of course, as senators know, a title given to the longest serving member of this chamber. It was a role that he well and truly wore with quiet pride. He understood the history and traditions of this place. He respected its processes, its committees and its capacity for rigorous debate. His service across an extraordinary number of committees, ranging from national resources to foreign affairs and defence, from environment and communications to rural and regional affairs and transport, reflected both his breadth of interest and also his work ethic.

But, if there was one chapter of Ron's career that he himself singled out, it was his 2001 electoral battle against Senator Hanson. In his valedictory speech, he did describe it as the fight of his life.

Bozzie, as so many of us know from working with him, was a man of deep and abiding faith. That faith informed his politics, and it also shaped his world view. He spoke passionately, on so many occasions, on issues of life, family and marriage. Many in this chamber will have disagreed with him, sometimes strongly, but no-one could ever doubt that his views were sincerely held or that he expressed them with clarity and with courage. He was never afraid to stand alone if that was where his conscience led him.

He was, as so many colleagues and those who knew him said following his passing, a conviction politician. He articulated arguments with force, he championed stronger competition laws to protect small businesses, he stood up for fishermen, he backed primary producers, he was one of the first to raise concerns about the policy settings around energy and the subsidising of renewables, he fought for vulnerable Australians overseas, and, even in retirement, after 30-plus years in the Australian Senate, he never stopped working. I'm sure we're going to hear from contributions today that he was always on the phone, always engaged and always ready with advice.

In 2020, Ron was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia. It was a fitting recognition of a lifetime of service to his party, to Queensland and to our nation. Yet, for all of his public achievements—and there were many—we know that the centre of Ron's life was his family. He was married to his beloved wife, Leita, for more than five decades until her passing in 2021. Together they endured the heartbreak of losing their son, Stephen, in 1999. Those who knew Bozzie well know how deeply that loss affected him. Through joy and through sorrow, family was his anchor.

I sat with Bozzie once on a plane from Sydney to Perth, and it was around a 4½- to five-hour trip. Probably the one thing that he wanted to discuss with me the entire trip was the losing of his son, Stephen. I think I got a completely different perspective on Bozzie once I'd listened to him for those five hours—how much he loved his son, how it affected him, how he would never forget him, but, more than that, how he knew each and every day they had to go on.

He was immensely proud of his daughter, Cathy, and of his grandchildren. Cathy and Sophie—and I know you'll hear more of this day—your father and grandfather spoke of you often with enormous pride, and that pride was evident to us all.

Ron's memoir—30-plus years in the Senate; it doesn't also stop you writing a book when you leave, though—was published in 2023. Again—we're going to become very familiar with this—it bore the title Not pretty, but pretty effective. It was a classic Boswell: self-deprecating, honest and quietly proud of what he had achieved. He charted a life that began in Perth in 1940 and led, through party service in Queensland and leadership with the Nationals, to more than three decades in this place. He was part of an era of National Party figures who lived and breathed the bush. He chaired his local branch. He served on the management committees. He was a central councillor of the party from 1976 onwards. His commitment was lifelong and selfless.

In reflecting on Bozzie's life, we see a man who believed that politics was not about personal advancement but about service—service to small businesses struggling under red tape, service to farmers facing drought, service to families seeking stability and opportunity, and service to a nation whose unity he cherished. The Senate, as we all know, can be a place of fierce contest, and Bozzie understood that. He loved a great debate; he relished it. But he also understood that beyond the contest of ideas lies a shared commitment to our great country, and that is why, even amongst those who disagreed with him, there has always been respect—respect for his integrity, respect for his conviction and respect for his warmth. As we record our sorrow today, we also record our gratitude—gratitude for 31 years of faithful service, gratitude for the leadership that endured for nearly two decades and gratitude for a life lived with conviction.

To Cathy and to Sophie, your father and grandfather has left an enduring legacy in this parliament and in our nation. May you take comfort in knowing that his service is recognised, his contribution is valued and his memory will endure in the history of this place.

I rise as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate to thank both the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition for their honest, kind and very thoughtful contributions. We are at our very best in this chamber when we do remember those past, irrespective of our differences in political persuasions and the contribution that we all seek to make in this chamber on behalf of our nation and our communities.

Senator Ron Leslie Boswell AO served in this place from his election as senator for Queensland in 1983 until the expiration of his seventh term in 2014. That is an extraordinary 31 years, three months and 26 days. For 17 of those years, Senator Boswell was Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, a position for which he gained great respect across the political divide. The fact that both the Prime Minister of Australia and former prime minister John Howard both attended his funeral in Brisbane is, I think, testament to the esteem he was held in right across the political spectrum, and what an amazing sight it was to see his former National Senate colleagues Barry O'Sullivan, Nigel Scullion, John 'Wacka' Williams, Peter and Julian McGauran—although, on Julian, we'll never get over that defection in Victoria—and Sandy Macdonald, act as pallbearers at his funeral.

Bozzie, as he was known, was a champion of many issues, notably small business, but also primary industries: fishing, sugar, pineapples, tobacco and beef. He was also a champion of the family and of traditional rural and family values. He was a man of faith, a man of conviction. He held firmly to positions on abortion, on euthanasia and on same-sex marriage

In taking the honour to participate in this condolence motion, I want to mention a few things about Ron Boswell that were emblematic of his work as a senator and as a person and from which we can all learn, from his long and distinguished career. The first was that Bozzie never sought the heady stratosphere of being a cabinet minister. He turned down numerous opportunities to become a minister when he could have so easily demanded to be one. He did serve four years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services from 1999 to 2003 and in various shadow ministerial positions, including regional development and external territories, northern Australia and external territories, and consumer affairs. But Bozzie knew instinctively that there was often more power, influence and freedom being on the outside than as a cabinet insider. He could always stay true to his values and closer to the people who elected him by being a troublesome outsider—and troublesome he was. On telecommunications for the bush, on the sale of Telstra, on the sugar industry, on trade, on pharmacies, on banks, and when it came to post offices, carbon taxes and competition policy, Bozzie was troublesome indeed, irrespective of who was sitting on the treasury bench.

Senator Boswell also made a calculated but principled decision to rebuff what one might broadly call the lunar right in Queensland. Despite the claims by the Greens and prominent members of the ABC, Australia is not a racist country—not remotely. We're one of the most welcoming countries in the world, where people from every corner of the Earth come to live, to start a new life and to grow, contribute and prosper. But that is not also to say that there are no racists in Australia. Following warnings from former journalist Tony Koch from the Australian about the League of Rights, Bozzie set about investigating and then distancing himself from the group, which had infiltrated the highest level of the Queensland National Party and were moving into evangelical churches across Queensland as well. This was a group that was deeply antisemitic and racist, denied that Jesus Christ was a Jew and had crackpot ideas about social credit and the economy. In a landmark speech in 1988, Bozzie spoke out against the league. For many months afterwards, the retribution was savage, but eventually the churches too recognised that they were being used by the league. Bozzie believed in the dignity and respect of every person, regardless of creed or colour.

It's worth noting that later, when he took on One Nation, Bozzie says he 'fought against the party with all the fora available to me as a senator', but in his memoir he writes: 'I did not participate in any attempts to involve the criminal justice system. Hanson's prison sentence was a grave error that only saw her become a political martyr—not a strategy I would ever support.' Bozzie believed that traditional rural values of community, patriotism, property rights, private enterprise, supporting traditional faith and the family, which are all under attack from globalism, liberalism and socialism, were battles enough on their own without having to deal with the conspiracy theories of crackpots. Indeed, leadership in a democracy is not agreeing to every populist theory or current opinion. Very often it is saying what is unpopular but what is also right.

A former insurance and paintbrush salesman, Bozzie was a strong proponent of the private enterprise philosophy that encouraged people to run their own businesses, but not unbridled markets. As he said in his maiden speech:

The National Party, however, will not and does not support the argument that the market must find its own level, the big must get bigger and the small must wither and die. My party wishes to see private enterprise flourish and grow with all Australians enjoying the benefits which this creates.

It was a theme throughout his career. 'Market power is so fundamentally important to the prices of everything we put into the supermarket trolley,' he wrote in his autobiography, co-authored by Joanne Newbery. Early in parliament, working in cahoots, as he so often did with a variety of souls, with South Australia Labor senator Chris Schacht during the Hawke government, Bozzie successfully struck a blow for the reform of the Trade Practices Act, much to the chagrin of his Liberal Party colleagues. Bozzie recalls reminding his Liberal colleagues in the joint party room of a speech by Sir Robert Menzies in which Australia's longest-serving liberal prime minister said:

Australian Liberals are not the exponents of an open go, for if we are all to have an open go each for himself and the devil take the hindmost, anarchy will result and both security and progress disappear.

Deregulation, Bozzie warned, was not the answer to all problems. He also used the committee system in the Senate effectively, establishing deep connections into regional Australia, where he championed so many causes, including the freedom of Lindy Chamberlain. As the ever-astute John Roskam, former IPA chief, said of Ron Boswell:

He is a far more significant figure in Australian politics and public policy than 80 per cent of people who have been a minister.

Thank you, John, as always, for your insightful recollections. Roskam compared Senator Boswell with the late Bert Kelly, a long-serving Liberal backbencher whom no less than Gough Whitlam described as 'the most influential modest member of Australian parliament'.

Yet, despite this, Bozzie was also a fierce coalitionist. He was a Queensland National and admiring confidant of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in his younger days, and he recognised the value and the superglue of the combined strength of the Nationals and the Liberals. Yes, it's true that later in his career he worked closely with the Katter party and regretted the amalgamation of the Queensland right-of-centre parties into the LNP, because the Brisbane Liberals had become the dominant force within the LNP, but Bozzie's ways of doing politics was elbows out and spare the niceties, and I think anyone that ran into him or was bowled over by him in the corridors would always recall that he was often carrying lunch on his tie—for afters!

I regularly visited his apartment, overlooking the Brisbane River, following his retirement, where advice flowed, as did terrible coffee and biscuits. Yes, Bozzie, I have my riding orders. But he always said to me, 'If you're going to lead, bloody well lead.' Anyone who's been on the end of multiple phone calls from Bozzie when he wanted something knew this methodology very well. If he didn't get around the brick wall in front of him, he'd knock it down. Very often he didn't bother making an appointment; he'd just barge into ministerial offices when he needed something. And he never really retired from politics, giving advice to sitting MPs on an almost daily basis—and many sitting here today will know of the constant phone calls.

He also was an influential player behind the scenes. I think of the sacking during question time of former CEO of Australia Post Christine Holgate and the role that Bozzie played throughout that Senate inquiry in supporting Ms Holgate through that period. He championed fairness to the very end, irrespective of who you were. And he wrote newspaper columns, and his last was on his last birthday. It was about betrayal and how much he loved our party.

Ron's beloved wife, Leita, died in 2012 and was a driving force behind his career but also a great support to him. After the couple lost their son, Stephen, to a brain haemorrhage, a situation he never got over, Ron and Leita built a high school in East Timor in his honour. It was an act of extraordinary generosity but one of many such acts of generosity that Ron made during his life.

They are survived by his daughter, Cathy, who is here in the gallery together with Sophie, who is also here—also Tom and Will and his great grandchildren, Charly and Bonnie, of whom he was so proud. This is not a man who didn't just speak about family values. He lived family values.

I would also like to recognise his National Party colleagues Llew O'Brien and Colin Boyce, who he also loved.

Bozzie, you were a remarkable man, a great Queenslander, a mentor and a guide. We will miss you dearly. And it would be remiss of me if I didn't encourage you all to buy his book—always a salesman! It's well worth the read. Our party, our parliament and our nation are greater for your service. Vale, Ron Boswell.

I rise as a National Party senator cast in the footsteps of Senator Ron Boswell—something that I think we all aspire to. I wish to extend my condolences upon his passing to his daughter, Cathy, to Sophie and to the rest of the family who couldn't be here today. I extend my condolences to all those who loved him and to those who respected him and who were impacted by his political conviction and community advocacy. They certainly broke the mould with Ron, and I don't think there will ever be another senator like Ron Boswell. He has been a blueprint for those who follow.

Many people will refer to Senator Boswell as Boz and Ron and every other thing, but to me he will always be Senator Boswell. The first times I came across him were when would ring the party line to the station to speak to my father, and his calls, of course, were legendary across the state. He was generous with his advice, as Senator McKenzie has already said, and honest to a fault. When I stood for preselection, he said to me: 'I won't vote for you. I will vote for the incumbent senator. And you should only ever believe those people who say they're not voting for you'—very wise words! Immediately after my preselection, he said, 'Now I will always vote for you.' It was a generous to do.

I take this opportunity to remember and acknowledge Leita Boswell, who stood with Ron for over five decades and whom he recognised in his valedictory speech by saying this:

I could never have got to the Senate, nor remained here as long as I have, without you.

We also know that Leita was responsible for introducing Ron to the National Party in 1974.

Ron's final words to this place, with the collaboration of St Paul, reflect also how he left this world on 6 January this year:

'My time of departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight. I have run the race. I have kept the faith.' Thank you very much. God bless and goodbye.

Senator Boswell grew up in Perth, living what he described himself as a tumultuous childhood. At the age of 14 he left school to work as an office boy in a Queensland insurance company. He was immensely proud of his working history and believed his success would come through selling and salesmanship, which of course proved to be more than true. On the back of years of hard work as a young man and a sharp mind for business, Senator Boswell started his own successful hardware business, and who knows how successful his enterprise could have become if he had never discovered politics.

While he grew up as a Liberal, his wife, Leita, and her family were long-term members of the Queensland Country Party, and it was at a conference for the newly renamed National Party that Senator Boswell was first introduced to politics. As a successful businessman and volunteer within the National Party, his first volunteer role was identifying small-business owners to run for preselection in the bayside suburbs of Wynnum and Manly. I believe that it was during these efforts that he decided it was Ronald Boswell himself who would make a good politician and great figure for working and small-business Queenslanders—and how glad we all are that he did.

During his opening speech, the newly elected Senator Boswell stated:

I will do all in my power to aid the growth and development of this nation as a whole—Queensland in particular …

And this dedication stretched incessantly throughout his career. Senator Boswell fought tirelessly for the development of regional and remote communities all over Australia. During his valedictory speech, Ron stated that getting modern telephone, email and internet to the bush was one of his career highlights.

Senator Boswell was incredible loyal to the National Party. He believed in its ongoing purpose in representing regional Australia and small businesses across the nation. However, he was never afraid to stand up for his beliefs and his community, crossing the floor on multiple occasions, often to his own career's detriment. However, Senator Bowell never seemed overly concerned with this risk. In fact, he consistently called out career politicians and believed that his experience in the real world—in primary industries and business—was his biggest advantage in representing Queensland. As a small-business owner himself, Senator Boswell was intensely determined to give Australian small businesses a fair go. He strongly defended small retailers against the deregulation of trading hours, which threatened to overload and overwork family owned businesses just so they could compete with big retailers. He was a major supporter of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, advocating for the model that only pharmacists should own community pharmacies. Often alone he challenged big businesses and large retail chains, never scared but always dedicated to give a voice to the businesses and organisations who rarely were given the chance to defend themselves.

Senator Boswell's fierce and determined spirit for Australian small businesses, like tobacco, fisheries and farmers, did not fizzle out after his retirement. In the words of my colleague Senator Canavan, he was always on the phone, fighting to protect the livelihoods of fishermen, for stronger competition laws to protect small businesses, to help vulnerable Australians overseas and to defend life. Senator Boswell strongly believed in an egalitarian Australia, where every Australian, regardless of their level of education or where their home is, and every Australian business, regardless of size or location, gets a fair go.

As I said before, my first contact with Senator Boswell was answering the party line to Devonport, looking for dad. My brothers and I made it quite the competition to see if we could get him to give us some more details of his call, and it was mostly to our disappointment that we never broke him. His calls around Queensland, though, were legendary, campaigning and speaking to people on every issue possible. Later on I worked with Senator Boswell as State Secretary of the National Party, but he was the true fighter for important places in parts of Queensland and Australia that most politicians never went to. His funeral, as Senator McKenzie said, was an extraordinary gathering—in the words of Banjo Paterson, 'a gathering of the fray'. From prime ministers to party presidents and party members, people gathered from around the state and country to farewell such a great man. And Cathy's tribute to him was extraordinary.

Finally, I will tell you that, as a younger woman, I bought a house based entirely on Senator Boswell. I was walking around, unsure if this was the right place for me. And a cupboard door swung open, and across it was the big campaign sticker: 'Boswell—not pretty but pretty effective.' I said, 'It's a sign!' I bought the house very happily.

Senator Boswell was a great Australian. He will be respected as a great man, a campaigner for everyday Australians and one of the great characters in Australian politics. Vale, Senator Ron Boswell AO. Thank you for your most honourable service and your contribution to our nation.

I too would like to pay tribute to a great Queenslander, a great senator, a great servant of the National Party and someone who is a huge loss to many of us. It was a shock a couple of months ago when I received a call on my phone from Ron Boswell. It wasn't a shock to get a call from Ron Boswell, but, when I answered, his daughter, Cathy, who's here today, was on the phone and gave me the very sad news of Ron's passing.

Ron was 85 years old, but you just never thought he could be stopped. He'd had had a fair number of close health shaves in recent years, but he always pulled through. You got yourself into a false sense of security that he would always pull through. It's been very sad to not receive those calls, sometimes multiple a day, from Ron in the last couple of months. When I got into this place, I in effect took over from Ron Boswell. Ron retired at the 2013 election, and I had the great honour of being the National Party candidate at that election to eventually take over this spot in 2014. I said at the time that I was very lucky in a way. It was a huge challenge to fill Ron's massive boots, but I was lucky because Ron Boswell had written the book on how to be a good senator.

Thankfully for all of us, he has now actually written that book, which you can go and buy. As Bridget has said, we checked this morning, and it's not in the parliamentary gift shop right now, so we'll have to fix that. Ron will definitely want us to fix that. But please get yourself a copy, because it does demonstrate what we're here to do. Ron never lost sight of what the vocation of politics is about. If you read that book—in fact, you don't even have to read it; you just read the table of contents of the book—it's not about winning elections or different positions that Ron achieved for himself. All of the chapters of the book are things like 'Wool and wheat', 'Ginger groupie'—work that one out—'Bananarama', 'Have I mentioned fishing?', 'Pharmacies' and 'Sugar seats'. Every little chapter is a little vignette of how Ron was presented with a problem that someone had—a problem that a business, a farmer or a fishing business had—and how he went about working his guts out to fix that problem for that person or that group of people. More often than not, he was successful for them because of his tireless efforts to just fight for people. That's what we're here for. He went to Africa to help one of his constituents get out of a Mozambique jail. He travelled there to do that. He'd be on the phone to ministers and premiers all the time. He once had a huge blue with the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, over the sale of fishing markets, which he eventually changed Joh's mind on.

The other thing this demonstrated from his book may be something we've lost—not so much on what we do now, but the way things work now is different. In that era, Ron could often call up the Premier and, in that conversation, change his mind. With that meeting of that group of people, he could get a result. I find, in my experience, that is much harder to achieve, seemingly, because we now have this layer of bureaucracy, process and probity—things that maybe had to come post the Joh era, but there is now a big barrier between the people and the politicians. People who have a problem or an issue are frustrated at either the incompetence or sometimes just the ignorance of the people making decisions about their lives. They can't get through to the decision-makers. There's just a massive, massive gulf between the people and the ruling class that maybe wasn't there when Ron was around, or at least Ron was able to bridge that gulf so often, and people felt like they were served by the political process.

Ron took up all these causes, and, as those titles of chapters demonstrate, a lot of those causes were on farming issues and primary industry issues, but I think it is important to note that Ron himself was an atypical National Party senator. He did not grow up in the bush. He grew up in Perth and Brisbane. He himself did not come from a farming background. What really marked Ron out as an exemplar of a National Party politician wasn't his background; it was the fact that he always fearlessly fought for the small against the strong, for the weak against the powerful, for those who had no voice or opportunity against those who had a direct connection to the powers that be. That is what marks out the National Party—we always stick up for the small as much as we can. Ron exemplified that in spades.

When I first came across Ron, I had gotten a job with Barnaby Joyce., and I was driving around with Barnaby, as we often did in western Queensland, late at night. I said to him, 'What I can't understand, Barnaby, is that the worst climate change energy policy is the renewable energy target, but no-one's against it.' He went off. He went: 'Ron Boswell is against it. You need to go talk to Ron Boswell.' This would have been in 2010. I said, 'Okay, I'll look up Ron Boswell.' I spoke to him, and it immediately struck me that he was, as he would like to say, a paint brush salesman. I think he was a bit higher than that, but he would say he was a paintbrush salesman. He had no extensive schooling; he left school at 14. He spent very little time in academic exercises. He, at a gut level, got the absolute rubbish we were told about energy—and are still told about it—more than anyone else. Ron Boswell had more common sense than all these people who spend their lives in energy, who build models about it and who read lots of books about it combined. I immediately got it. This guy, how did he know that? How did he know? It was because he went through the school of real life. He went through classes of hard knocks and knew rubbish—and some other words we would probably describe it as—when he saw it. He just knew it. He knew these people were full of it because he had seen it before in his life and been hurt by it.

I would take a hundred Ron Boswells over the expert class that rule over us. The 'expertocracy' is not working out for us. We need people like Ronald Boswell with real, hard life experience who know what works and what doesn't. Ron, in that book I mentioned, spent a lot of time talking about how we could get people with more real, hard life experience into this place. We'd be wise to look at it.

That book was never really about Ron. I remember reading that book then going back and reading it again. He had one paragraph in that book about his ministerial ambitions. He was a parliamentary secretary—what we now call an assistant minister—and he lost that position in backroom dealings that happen in this place all the time. It was never something he brought up. He had every reason to be spiteful about it but he just got on with life, helping people, and he never really worried too much about it. That is an example for all of us, because he wasn't in this for himself; he was in it to help others. And he was in it, I know, to help his family as well, who were very close to him. As I said, it was a great honour to take over from him as a National Party senator for Queensland. I did disappoint him in taking this position over because I decided to move the office to Rockhampton. He lobbied me hard against that—just typical of Ron. I was on the receiving end of calls, where he was saying, 'You have to be in Brisbane, Matt. These are all the people to talk to. You need to be here.'

He wanted to reconvene the LNP state council. I told him, 'I can't do that, Ron. I told the state council I would be outside of Brisbane.' He said, 'That's okay, we'll reconvene the whole body—400 people around the state—and you can go to state council to tell them that you have changed your mind and that you will be in Brisbane. They will ratify that and we'll be on our way.'

I would have voted for it.

Yes, that's right. Ron never took no for an answer, but I did do it. Someone taught Ron how to use a mobile phone. That person definitely has some questions to answer. I had received all these calls. I thought, 'If I had an office in Brisbane, I would probably come home a lot of weeks after the Senate, walk into my office and there would be Ron at my desk directing my staff, continuing to work, because—as others said—he continued to work. He eventually forgave me for the decision to go to Rocky, after we won the seat of Capricornia in the 2016 election. But, as I said, he just kept going—a lesson for all of us as well.

I do want to pass on my condolences not only to Cathy and Sophie, who are here today, but also to Tom and William, who work in the frontiers of our country and couldn't be here today. Cathy called me not only to let me know but also because his family were keen to have a state funeral for Ron, which I think was well deserved. I do want to put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister, who listened to those requests and made that happen. The Prime Minister did not just make that happen but, as others have said, he came and attended the funeral as well, which was very good of him.

Ron's passing is a great loss, I believe, to all of us because he was someone who worked with everyone in this building for the betterment of this country, for the betterment of Australia, and particularly as a champion for the great state of Queensland. Vale, Ron Boswell.

I, too, disappointed Ron in my first close dealings with him. As a New South Welshman, I had run into Ron a few times, but not too often—until I went up to work on the 2012 Keppel election with Bruce Young in Queensland. Senator Boswell came up and organised a visit to a mango farm, where he became concerned that I'd never tried a mango in my life at the age of 40-something. After I had it and thought it was a bit meh, he proceeded to give me a review of my parentage, tastes and abilities in life that was not complimentary.

I thought that was it for me and Ron for the rest of our relationship, but, in 2016, I was able to run the campaign for Barnaby Joyce in New England, and Ron reached out because he wanted to help. He wanted to give advice, as he always did, and he wanted to be part of something that he thought was important—that Barnaby beat Tony Windsor in that election. He was very kind to me, and I think he may have forgotten the mango incident. He certainly gave advice and good counsel, and he was phoning twice a week to help out and give me his views on things and how he was seeing it. Many of those things I took on board, and I probably forgot to give him credit. He also gave me an interesting bit of advice, when we were doing a campaign, that was poignant. He said, 'You always regret the things in life that you don't do, not the things you do do.'

I regret, from hearing some of the stories here and from Nationals colleagues—I'll get some of the staff stories later—that I didn't know him better. I think you can be judged on how you act here in the views of those around you and those that work for you. So many of his staff I have spoken to over time have such fond memories and such bad stories, which I can't tell most of—but some I will. It comes up that Ron's politics were built from life, like Senator Canavan said. It's the life experience and the lived experience. They shaped everything he did here.

The last chance I had to speak with him was in 2024 after we had the supermarket inquiry. It was the first time I crossed the floor. We voted with the Greens and some others about market power and divestiture powers. He phoned me after that and said that I did the right thing—that there'll be pressures, but always support the little guy, which is something that came through. He gave some of his experiences, especially what he did on pharmacies. It was really interesting for me to know that here was Ron Boswell watching this thing from afar, like an omnipotent political player that comes out and just says those sorts of things. I was concerned. It was the first time I walked across the floor, but it was an issue that he knew was going on. That was very important to me, and I thank him for helping me out with that.

When I go to some of his staff and talk to them, they say that it wasn't just the way he worked on policy; he was a mentor to many of them. He was kind to them. I don't want to say 'false idol', but they saw him as someone they really aspired to be. They went further than just the work. They were talking about his generosity of time, his advice—very, very direct advice. Some of them said that he's the only man that could spend five minutes telling you how wrong you were and then you'd be thankful at the end of it. Under chaos, he became calmer. He was normally calm, but, when the pressure really came on, he was calm. He was a rock and he was solid. He was staunch and he was loyal. Being loyal—don't we miss that in today's politics?

One of them mentioned that there was the other side of Ron—Ron the matchmaker, which I'd never heard much of. He was always keen to connect young Nats or young people with each other, and there is more than one happy marriage to this day that was sorted out by Ron. He not only connected business and fixed problems but also connected people. I'll also drop that Cate, who told me this story, said that she was always a task too hard for Ron, even, and that she didn't manage to get there. They always thought he had a tendency to be a romantic at heart, and they thought that there.

But what came through in a number of stories is that he seriously fought for people and how serious he was about his pastries. He was very serious about his pastries. He was not casually interested but seriously, seriously interested in assessing small towns by the quality of their bakery. For him, the standout was, I'm told, the Blackbutt Bakery in Queensland. It was the gold standard he would use to judge. In 2009, when he stepped in to oversee the electorate of Hinkler while Paul Neville was representing Australia in the United Nations, Paul knew Ron had been there, not because of a memo and not because of a handover document—none of that. It was all the pastry flakes on his seat in his office that gave it away. That was Ron—always fully committed, always fully engaged and always very committed to a quality pastry.

The staff tell me—and I again acknowledge the staff members—that one of his proudest achievements was actually working with Labor across the aisle and working with Senator Chris Schacht to amend the Trade Practices Act to stop the mergers that would substantially increase the cost dimension. To this day, that was one of the proudest things that his staff were telling me that he quite loved to do, because it was always about that. It was always about getting the outcome. It didn't matter if it got press. It didn't matter if it got news. It was about helping someone. Just that fact of helping someone removed barriers to do that. We're hitting an era when politics has firmly moved towards optics. He was always about impact. He was always about the outcome, not the story, and that's such a great thing.

So I regret I did not have more time with a person that is viewed so positively by so many that have been close to him. I regret that I wasn't always the recipient of more advice, as I was in 2016, from Ron. I thank him for his comfort in 2024 when I was doing something that was scary for a first-timer in doing it like that—but he thought it was right. Queensland is better for his service. The Nationals have been better for his service. Thank you to his family for sharing him with us for so long, and may he rest in peace.

First, can I acknowledge the contributions of my friends from the National Party. I thought they were just outstanding, and you really did justice on this occasion, so you should really be proud of those contributions. Also, I associate my remarks with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Before I say anything else, I just want to acknowledge the presence of Cathy and also of Sophie.

I'm going to give you the perspective of a member of the Young Liberals in Queensland during the course of much of Senator Ron Boswell AO's career. I was reading his valedictory speech, and a few things stuck out to me. The first was the extraordinary length of service—31 years and 118 days. It is just phenomenal—absolutely phenomenal.

The second is that my good friend Senator Richard Colbeck, who is sitting next to me, actually got a mention in Senator Boswell's valedictory speech, where he said:

Prior to the September election, I worked closely with professional and recreational fishing groups, especially the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation and its CEO, Allan Hansard. Guided also by my colleague Senator Richard Colbeck, the Liberal-National coalition developed a policy to keep the marine parks but remove the fishing bans till scientists could take a sensible look at how these parks should be managed. In government, we kept our promise and have removed the fishing bans. I am enormously proud of that achievement.

Of course, Ron Boswell was absolutely passionate about Queensland fishers and the fisheries industry in general.

Then there is the other point he made in his speech, and this was a great inspiration to me at the time as a member of the Young Liberals. He said in his valedictory speech:

Politics is an honourable calling but will remain so only if politicians have the courage of their convictions. In 1988, I tackled the League of Rights, a far-right-wing, anti-Semitic organisation I saw as trying to exert influence over the churches and other areas of society.

At that time, I was 19 and in the Young Liberals, and I and my family and so many Liberal Party supporters were so thankful for the work that Senator Ron Boswell did in that regard. He got so much admiration from people all over Queensland, across all political philosophies for the work he did holding the line against those vile extremists, who believe—I think Senator McKenzie referred to the 'lunar right'—everything from the Holocaust being a hoax through to other extraordinarily vile ideas.

He continued in his valedictory speech:

For me, this was a defining moment: to be taken seriously, you have to stand for something. In the fight of my life, against Pauline Hanson, I risked everything to stand up against her aggressive, narrow view of Australia. Defeating Pauline Hanson and One Nation in 2001 has been my greatest political achievement.

In 2001, I was in Papua New Guinea. I was a young professional lawyer—maybe not so young—in Papua New Guinea. Many of us on the non-Labor side of politics saw the immense importance of that campaign. And, whilst the Liberal National Party did not combine until 2008, I can tell you from personal experience that many members of the Liberal Party voted strategically in that Senate election. Many supporters of the Liberal Party voted strategically in that Senate election to give Ron Boswell their first preference. I remember seeing him at Sydney airport in December 2001 when I had to come to Sydney for business, and he was sitting down waiting to be picked up. I went up, shook his hand and said I was proud to vote for him. 'I was proud to vote for you.' I wasn't the only one. A lot of us realised the importance of that battle, which he won.

I want to say a few words about that campaign. I will quote from a story in the Financial Review on 2 November 2001 by Sam Strutt. It reads:

Although traditionally the National Party is not the natural constituency of the ethnic community, about one-third of the 300-plus audience at yesterday's official launch—

this was at the National Party's 2001 Senate campaign launch—

of the Queensland party's Senate campaign were from the Chinese, Vietnamese or Taiwanese communities—

one-third of the people at the National Party Queensland Senate campaign launch—

Queensland National Party Senator Ron Boswell conceded that he would not receive enough votes from the party's traditional support base rural and regional voters to get him across the line on November 10.

"The vote's got to come in from all of Queensland," he said yesterday.

"I need every vote I can get."

Senator Boswell said the ethnic community was supporting him because of his strong stand against One Nation and Ms Hanson.

"I think the Chinese, Vietnamese and Taiwanese support is there with me to stop Pauline Hanson," Senator Boswell said.

"They see me as the best way to do that, so they are supporting me," he said.

They did support him in overwhelming numbers, and he was successful. He defeated Senator Hanson for that Senate spot. It didn't just end there, though. He maintained that relationship with those communities, in particular the Vietnamese community. I've had the privilege since being elected to this place of establishing a relationship with that wonderful Vietnamese community—50 years last year, the anniversary of their coming to Australia after the fall of Saigon.

On 21 June 2012, he actually presented a petition signed by 55,000 signatories urging the Australian government to push Vietnam to improve its human rights record. That was 11 years after, with the support of that community, he achieved that remarkable success against Pauline Hanson. He was still working for the Vietnamese community and presented that petition. In 2013, I was working on a booth in Queensland—Queenslanders will get this—in a place called Acacia Ridge in Brisbane for my dear friend Malcolm Cole, a candidate in the 2013 election. Ron actually came to the booth to see how his booth workers from the Vietnamese Queensland community were going. He was still mobilising booth workers from that community.

Then, following the drought in 2018 in Queensland, he actually worked with the Vietnamese community to raise money for people in need in western Queensland. I quote from a speech which the Hon. Amanda Stoker gave on 16 October 2019 in this place:

Past president of the VCA Viet Tran first got the idea to hold a fundraiser after his friends who run a business at Miles told him about how the drought situation was crippling them.

…   …   …

He set about organising a drought appeal dinner and dance. He contacted former Senator Ron Boswell—

to organise that.

The Vietnamese community of Queensland raised $25,480 for the farmers in need in western Queensland. Still he maintained that relationship with the Vietnamese Queensland community.

So, in giving last words in this contribution to this debate, I want to give my last words to the Vietnamese community of Queensland and put their words on record. I want to quote to you from a letter from a very dear friend of mine called Viet Tran:

IN 2001, the Vietnamese community in Queensland unanimously decided to support Ron Boswell in his bid for re-election to the Senate. It was the first and only time that the community by-passed its non-partisan policy to support a parliamentary candidate because of his stand against Pauline Hanson.

In June this year, Boswell spoke in parliament about the human rights situation in Vietnam—

This letter was dated 24 September 2012. It goes on:

With Labor's Mark Furner, he sponsored a petition in the Vietnamese community raising concerns about the human rights dialogues between the Australian and Vietnamese governments.

Our community will lose a strong representative voice in parliament in 2014. However, our friendship with Ron Boswell will last forever. I will always cherish his "He's not pretty but he's pretty effective" T-shirt that he gave me during the 2001 campaign.

We thank him …

That's from Viet Tran of the Queensland Vietnamese community in tribute to the late Ron Boswell AO.

My contribution will be as short as Senator Boswell's contribution was long to this place, because many fine words have been said and many fine stories have told, and there are some stories that may get told afterwards. But I would like to associate myself particularly with the words of my National Party colleagues from Queensland and around the country and of my leader. I speak also as a former Young Liberal from Queensland—not quite of Paul's generation. I was in high school in 1988! I was at Innisfail high, actually.

I'm going to cherrypick a word that, actually, Senator Canavan used in relation to the National Party and in relation to Senator Boswell, and it's the word 'small'. Even though Senator Boswell, or Bozzie, was larger than life, his vow when he entered this place was to be the voice for small businesses, for families, for the smaller end of our society, and he upheld that vow.

When you travel around Queensland, as the LNP senators do, the two Liberals and two Nationals here, it's when you go to the north and the banana farmers, when you go up to Mareeba and the former tobacco growers and when you go to Hervey Bay, which used to have the best seafood festival in the country, where Ron Boswell was seen as a living deity because of the work he did for the fishers—that's the person who made this chamber a better place, made Queensland a better place and made Australia a better place.

As an LNP senator for Queensland, I would like to thank Senator Boswell, Bozzie, for the service. I'd like to thank his family for lending him to us for such a long period of time, and our thoughts and prayers go to all of you. May Ron's life mission continue not just with the National Party senators and not just with the Liberal Party senators in this place but with all of us—to stand up for what is right and for what is good. Vale, Bozzie.

I rise to associate myself with the words of my colleagues in relation to the life of the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell AO—and I acknowledge his daughter, Cathy, here in the chamber, and Sophie as well; I know they've gone—and the service he gave to this place for more than 31 years. I was not a member of the National Party; I was a member of the coalition, alongside Ron. By the time I arrived here after the 2001 election, at the beginning of 2002, Bozzie was a very experienced player in this place. I arrived at the same time that he'd been victorious after that 2001 campaign that so many of our colleagues have talked about and one that was really important for us all at that point in time. It was an important fight to be had, and it was symptomatic of Boz. It demonstrated Bozzie's capacity for fight, his strength of conviction which he showed all through his career, his principles in the way he conducted himself and also, as Senator Wong indicated, his respect. He would have the fight, but it would be done respectfully. I think that reflecting back on Ron's service is something that would be of service to the way this chamber operates now, as has been indicated by a number of others.

Bozzie was always very self-deprecating. He talked about himself as being a paintbrush salesman. But he was a successful small-business operator, and he brought that small-business success and common sense into the way he operated in the chamber. When we were working on committees together, he always conducted his questioning of witnesses or officials of agencies keeping in mind the people who were his constituents and the issues he was interested in.

I first met Boz when he was Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Regional Services. He was a Queenslander, yes, but he loved coming to Tassie on an annual basis for a holiday and stayed at Bicheno on the east coast. One particular day in January 2002, Bozzie was supposed to be in Devonport to do a sod turning for a new highway overpass. We were all there at the appointed hour, or a little bit before, waiting for Boz to turn up, but there was no sign of Boz. For about two hours, Bozzie was '20 minutes away'—'Yeah, I'm only 20 minutes away; I'm only 20 minutes away!' As I found out later, talking to Boz when we went for a walk up the mall and a cup of coffee, Bozzie had the wrong day; he thought the sod turning was the next day. But, once he realised what was going on, he hopped in the car and took off, and we happily conducted the sod turning for the new overpass. He did introduce me as 'Senator-elect Robert Corbett', so he hadn't had time to read his notes all that well! But we went on to get on exceptionally well over a long period of time.

We served on a number of committees together. Senator Cash reminded me this morning that we served together on the Select Committee on Climate Change. That was quite a ride, I can tell you: Senator Cash, myself, former Senator Macdonald and Bozzie on our side, and I was chairing the committee, with then senator Christine Milne as deputy chair. If you, in any way, happened to threaten a pineapple farmer or a cannery as a part of the process of implementing the new policy that was being proposed—heaven forbid. Bozzie would erupt, and his line of questioning would follow very intensely the impact on his pineapple farmers or the canneries that supported the pineapple farmers.

He was like that with all of the issues that he worked on—bananas, the importation of ginger. The number of inquiries and discussions that we had in those days—Senator Sterle, who sat around the table for many of those, would remember the Senate inquiries into biosecurity and importation of ginger into Australia, bananas, pineapples and all of those sorts of things. Bozzie was always there to defend the industries and the local communities in Queensland, and he would do it earnestly. He would make sure that they all understood what was going on. And, of course, as has been mentioned by so many people, he supported small business. A proper system of competition policy was always something that was very important to Boz. His seafood barbecue that he organised with his friends in the fishing industry at Christmas was legendary and something that we all wanted to be a part of.

He did have the odd mishap, poor old Boz. He was a larger-than-life character in more than many ways. One morning, at a House committee meeting, Boz stood up, and his trousers stayed in the chair. Boz sat straight back down again, and I never saw him without braces after that day. They became part of his persona—Bozzie with his braces. He was never without them after that particular morning.

I mentioned his frequent trips to Tasmania and his love of some things Tasmanian. In Tassie, there is a very rare delicacy that we—some of us—enjoy, and that is a food called mutton bird. It's a short-tailed shearwater. They are for people with a particular taste. My mum and dad love mutton birds. They'll have an annual feed of mutton birds. Dad calls it his 'annual grease and oil change'. They are very greasy birds. They're known by the Indigenous community in Tasmania as yolla. It's a customary Indigenous practice, but other people like mutton birds as well, and so did Boz.

Bozzie hadn't been to Tassie for a while. He'd been talking to me about how much he loved mutton birds. One day, on the way back from the Wynyard Show, I saw a sign out saying 'Mutton birds for sale', so I said to Gaylene: 'Let's stop in. We'll grab some mutton birds, and I'll take them up to Boz. He'll be delighted.' I went into the shop, got four mutton birds, brought them up and gave them to Boz. He was delighted. He said, 'I'll go up to the dining room and I'll get them cooked.' For those who aren't initiated in the cooking of mutton birds, you need to take great care. They are extremely pungent. My mum cooks them outside in the carport—wrapped in tinfoil—in a little barbecue so that the smell doesn't get in the house.

Bozzie gave no such warning to the kitchen staff up in the members' dining room. When he turned up two hours later to pick up his mutton birds, they were undertaking a full industrial clean of the entire kitchen in the members' dining room because the mutton birds had stunk the place out—not that it worried Boz. Boz collected his mutton birds, took them back to his office and enjoyed mutton bird sandwiches for lunch. He thanked me at question time later that day, and we were regaled of the story of the staff in the dining room. They told him, 'Don't ever bring that stuff back here again into our dining room, because we're not cooking it for you.' But Bozzie was not concerned about it at all. All he was worried about was that he'd had a very good feed of mutton birds and mutton bird sandwiches for lunch.

Bozzie, as has been mentioned, when he wanted something or had something on his mind, was an irrepressible force. It was one of his values. If he wanted to ask a question at question time, he was going to ask a question at question time. There was no point in arguing with him. The tactics committee would give Bozzie his question, and he would duly ask it, and he would run the issue from there.

But he was great to work with. He was really great to work with. As Senator Scarr mentioned, during the period between 2008 and 2013, there was a proposal from the then government to close huge swathes of the ocean around Australia, which put at threat the fishing industry not just in Queensland but right around the country. Bozzie, I and a couple of others worked extremely hard on this, and the number of people who we managed to engage on that particular issue was significant. Brett Mason said to me, after the 2010 election, that it got him re-elected. In 2013, we took a policy to the Australian people which kept the marine parks but took away the closures and left capacity for the industry to stay there while we had a proper process and a good review by scientists. Then, in 2017, the marine parks were proclaimed with the same boundaries but with a hugely reduced impact on the fishing industry. That was a huge success, I think, for us all and something that I was delighted to work on with Bozzie.

I have to say, as a Liberal, I am extremely proud to have received a mention in his book, because there weren't many of us that did. Bossie was a Nat. That's the way it was. We all accept that and we respect that. But, as Senator Scarr mentioned, it was part of his last speech, and it was mentioned in his book. I'm very proud of the fact that we were able to work on an issue of that nature—a very practical issue that was to the benefit of our communities around the country, particularly in the fishing industry, as it was at that point in time.

That's what personified Boz. It is that sort of thing that personified who he was. He was a person of conviction. His family was extremely important to him, as so many have already said. He worked hard for his communities, and, while I didn't always agree with him on some issues, his strength of faith showed through, and that was a key part of who he was and what he did. He's right that he wasn't all that pretty, but I think he was more than pretty effective; he was very effective. But the way he played his politics was with respect. It was about achieving things for his communities and doing the things that he promised he would do, loyally and with respect.

I believe that this country is better for that significant service of Senator Ron Boswell. I am proud to have worked with him and proud to call him a friend and colleague. I extend my sincerest condolences to his family and to his other colleagues who miss him, I know. He was a great servant of the parliament, his state and the country. He deserved the recognition he got through his AO. I very sincerely extend my condolences to his family. Rest in peace, Boz.

I also rise to associate myself with the remarks that have already been made and to honour the life and service of former senator Ron Boswell AO, a man known affectionately to his colleagues and friends as Bossie. Of course, I never called him Bossie in the time that we were here together. But his passing marks the end of a remarkable chapter in the history of this chamber and the federal parliament.

Senator Boswell served this nation for more than three decades from his election to the Senate of Queensland in 1983 until his retirement in 2014. In that time he became one of the longest serving members of this chamber, the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate for many years and ultimately the father of the Senate. His was a career defined not by titles alone but by conviction, loyalty and an unwavering commitment to the people he represented.

Although he came to represent Queensland, it is worth remembering that Ron Boswell's story began in Western Australia, where he was born in Perth in 1940. That connection was something that I always quietly appreciated. Western Australians who head east often carry with them a certain independence of mind, and Ron Boswell certainly did. Of course, leaving Western Australia was also an astute political move, noting that the National Party has not had a senator elected from Western Australia since 1975.

While our time serving together in this chamber was brief, it was long enough to observe the deep respect he commanded across party lines. He was a parliamentarian who understood the institution, respected its traditions and believed profoundly in the responsibility entrusted to those elected to serve. Ron Boswell entered politics from small business, and he never lost sight of those roots. In his first speech he promised to be a voice for small business, primary industry and family values, and, by any fair assessment, he kept that promise. He understood that farming, fishing and small enterprises were not abstractions in an economic model but the lived reality of Australians working hard, often in difficult conditions, to build a future for their families.

That lived experience shaped his politics and gave authenticity to his advocacy. Over his career, he fought many battles, some policy driven, others political, but always guided by what he believed was right. He was proud of his work improving telecommunications in rural and regional Australia, ensuring communities in the bush have access to services many in our cities take for granted. He championed primary industries, stood up for regional jobs and advocated strongly for competition policies that protected small operators against concentrated market power. These were not fashionable causes in every political season, but he pursued them with persistence and determination.

To echo the remarks of Senator Scarr—importantly, Senator Boswell also demonstrated moral courage in confronting extremism when he saw it. I came to know a man called Ron Boswell, the political person, in the 1980s, as a young Liberal not in Queensland but in Western Australia. In 1988 he took on the League of Rights, a far-right antisemitic organisation attempting to exert influence within sections of the community at a time when doing so carried real political risk. He later reflected that this was the defining moment in his career because, to be taken seriously in public life, you must stand for something. This willingness to draw a clear line against intolerance speaks to his character and his understanding that democratic institutions must be defended not only through policy but through principle.

As we've heard today from many, those who worked closely with him speak of not only his strength but also his warmth, honour and loyalty. Ron Boswell was effective because he worked hard, built relationships and understood that lasting outcomes often require persistence rather than headlines. He mentored younger colleagues, contributed more than 1,100 times in this Senate chamber and never lost his sense that serving in parliament was both a privilege and a responsibility.

Beyond politics, Ron Boswell was a man of faith, family and resilience. The personal dimensions of his life remind us that behind every public figure is a private life marked by love, hardship, perseverance and loss. In 2020, he was appointed an officer of the Order of Australia—as Senator Colbeck has said, fitting recognition of a career dedicated to public service and to the communities that he represented. Yet I suspect that, for Ron Boswell, the greatest honour always was the trust placed in him by the voters who returned him to this parliament time and time again over seven elections. Ron Boswell once quoted the words of St Paul in reflecting on his own career—that he had fought the good fight, finished the race and kept the faith. Few could dispute that assessment. He served with conviction, he stood by his principles and he left this parliament having made a lasting contribution to the nation.

On behalf of Western Australians, particularly those who take pride in one of our own making such a significant mark on national life, I extend my deepest condolences to his family, his friends and his former colleagues in the Nationals. May he rest in peace.

I would also like to associate myself with the incredible remarks of many of my colleagues in here today. I think every single one of them told their own personal story about how a great man impacted our lives. It's been a fun afternoon to hear them all. I rise to make my own personal contribution on the condolence motion for the late Senator Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell AO. As everybody has mentioned, to most of us he was just Bozzie.

I was deeply saddened to learn of Bozzie's passing, at the age of 85, because, as many have said before me, it marked loss of a generation of politicians in this place—a generation of politicians that, in the eyes of many of us who are still here, were absolute legends. He was one of the most fierce and faithful champions for what's right and was prepared to go to the wall to make sure that what was right was defended.

Bozzie was an old-fashioned Nat who never shied away from a fight, and for more than three decades he became known not just as a representative of Queensland but as a tireless representative and advocate for rural and regional Australian communities right across the country, not just in his home state of Queensland. He understood instinctively the strength that the nation must place on our rural and regional communities. He was a tireless voice for people who work in the bush, who work hard every day to catch and grow our food, and for the communities that support our farmers. From the local pharmacist and the GP to the post office or the pub owner, Bozzie was always there supporting them. He never wavered from standing up for the little guy, and no issue was too small to fight for.

In this chamber, he never, ever wavered from being a steady hand—principled, practical and grounded. He brought a deep sense of loyalty to his party, to his constituency and to this place. But, above all else, the thing that I will remember of Bozzie is that he had incredible integrity. Even for those that disagreed with him—and there were many—they always knew exactly where they stood with him, and you could only respect somebody for their absolute commitment to honesty. He was committed to his values, he was committed to his faith and he was committed to the people that he represented. As I say, he was determined that rural and regional Australia would never play second fiddle or be disadvantaged by the actions of those of us in this place—a determination that I think is shared by many of us.

One of my favourite Ron Boswell memories epitomises his persistence when it came to an issue that he was really passionate about. Above all else, Bozzie hated hypocrisy and, in his own words, 'those virtue-signalling greenies'. When those greenies threatened the kangaroo industry in Australia, Bozzie went in to bat. Back in 2013-14, Bozzie decided he was going to take on the Californian government after they banned the import of kangaroo meat based on the argument that kangaroos in Australia were about to become extinct. Bozzie was so incensed by this thought that he decided to start his crusade against the Californian legislature. It was a completely futile task; one senator from Queensland taking on the entire Californian government and legislature was probably never going to end up in great success. But Bozzie never, ever gave up. He advocated against California on just about any issue he could get his hands on until the day he left this parliament, and I can assure you that, even after he left this parliament, he would make regular calls to me to make sure that I was still taking it up with the Californian government, because by that time I was assistant minister for agriculture and apparently it was my job to represent the roo shooters of Australia in his absence!

But Bozzie believed in service. He believed that representing people in this place was an honour and a responsibility, and something he never ever took lightly. He worked hard, he listened carefully and he fought passionately for the issues that matter most particularly to regional Australians. Those who, like me for a very short time, had the privilege of working alongside him know of his determination but also his incredible warmth, his humour and his sense of mateship.

I'm not going to disappoint and be the only person in this place not to mention his slogan and the title of his memoirs, Not pretty, but pretty effective, because Bozzie was effective. He was effective as a politician. He was effective as a parliamentarian. He was very effective as a representative of the National Party and of rural and regional Australians. And he was always on the lookout for a new recruit.

I became the subject of his recruitment drive when I came first to this place. I was sitting up the other end, immediately adjacent to the National Party, because I was the last person in, so I immediately abutted the National Party seats on this side of the chamber, because we were opposition back in 2012. I gave my first speech, and Bozzie was sitting with 'Wacka' Williams. They turned around and they said to me straight after the thing that my speech clearly indicated that I actually was a closet Nat. I assured them that wasn't the case. I came from a state, South Australia, where being a Nat was, in conclusion, probably something akin to being a kangaroo in California—close to being extinct. But that didn't stop Bozzie, because when I arrived at my desk the next day there was a National Party membership form sitting on my desk.

It's still there, Annie! The offer's still there.

Some days, Bridget! But, seriously, his contribution to public life leaves an incredibly lasting legacy, and I don't think there'd be anybody in this place who, when they leave here, wouldn't be proud to go out with the legacy that Bozzie left. The policies that he developed shaped the debates that influence regional and rural communities to this day, and they will continue to be a part of the strengthening of our rural and regional communities and the fabric of modern Australia because of the actions of Bozzie in this place.

I extend my deepest condolences to Cathy and to Sophie and Tom and Will, his great-grandchildren and his family and friends and all of those who had the privilege of working alongside Bozzie throughout his long and distinguished career. Today we don't honour just a long-serving senator but a man of conviction, a man of loyalty, a man of deep commitment and a man that so many of us proudly can call a friend. Vale Bozzie, my friend.

Very quickly, I'd like to pay my respects to Bozzie and contribute, in a couple of minutes, some fond memories I have of Ron Boswell. When I first came here in 2005, sitting right opposite there was Bozzie, right in the corner like a happy Buddha. He owned that corner, and he owned everyone around him, and I must say it was a pleasure to serve with Bozzie for nine years, until he pulled up stumps in 2014.

But I have two very quick memories of Bozzie. When I was brand new and we all got the call, you had to go to Government House—remember when you were brand new and you dutifully got in the car and you all piled over there, thinking, 'What the hell am I doing here?' But I did it, and as I pulled up out the front, I got out of the car with former senator Hutchins, another dear friend, and he said, 'Follow me.' We walked in and there were some lovely young people in Army uniforms and Navy uniforms and Air Force uniforms. They were serving little bits of food—

Hors d'oeuvres?

Hors d'oeuvres—thank you, President. There's Bozzie, this mountain of a man—this was suspender-and-braces days—standing in the room, and in this hand he had a sausage roll and in this other hand he had a party pie. There's this tiny little lady standing there with a plate of spring rolls, and—I kid you not—Bozzie went, 'Huh!' He looked at the sausage roll. He looked at the party pie. In went the party pie as he grabbed the spring roll. I thought, 'Only Bozzie could do that.' And that was Bozzie.

Another very, very fond memory is Senate estimates in the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, which I had the pleasure of chairing for six years in government from 2007 to 2013. Bozzie would always come in the back way, and you knew, like clockwork, Bozzie was going to turn up to ask questions around AFMA and fishing. That was his forte. He'd walk passed everyone, bumping chairs as he was coming down the skinny stretch where the staff sit, and he'd go straight to the bickie room with a cup of tea, and he'd get a handful of bickies. Bozzie would come back, and he'd bang every seat as he was on his way back down. He'd fall back into the seat. You would hear this thud, and then you would hear 'ugh!', and he'd say at the top of his voice, while people were asking questions, 'Sterlo'—he couldn't sit next to me and ask; he had to scream from the other end—'have we done fisheries yet?' And I'd say, 'Jeez, Bozzie, you've missed it again,' and the word was similar to 'ugh!', and then there would be a flurry of biscuits flying—he was like the Cookie Monster—and there would be crumbs and everything flying. I'd sit there—every year for six years!—and I'd say: 'Bozzie, I'm only winding you up, mate. They're coming on next.' And he'd say, 'Good.' But I'm saying that there are some very dear and fond memories of Bozzie.

Bozzie was an absolute legend. I'm not going to repeat what everyone else has said. What a man. What a unit. What a leader. What a politician. I just tell you what—if I were in Queensland when Bozzie was on the hunt, you might have got me in the Nats! Might have! Might have got me in the Nats! But it was only Bozzie or my very dear friend—

We're listening!

I said 'might have' if I were a young bloke in Queensland back then in '83. My very, very dear friend former senator Barry O'Sullivan. My last memory of Bozzie—I had the privilege of sitting down at that Brisbane institution the Breakfast Creek Hotel, because Bozzie had just lost his wife, and Sully had knocked up a catch up for three good amigos. We spent a Saturday afternoon in the Breakfast Creek Hotel with Bozzie and with Barry O'Sullivan and myself, and—I tell you what—it was a lasting memory. Bozzie, thank you for the memories, mate. Vale.

I just wish to add a few words. I didn't have the honour of serving in this place with Senator Ron Boswell. I did luckily encounter Senator Boswell—and he will, to me, always be Senator Boswell, Senator McDonald, as a staff member for Senator Mathias Cormann. I think it's worth reflecting that, in that period—I'm talking about the 2010 to 2013 period, a time when Senator Boswell had already served 27 years in this place—he served on the scrutiny of new taxes committee which was the committee of the Senate that looked at the carbon tax and the mining tax. I think it's fair to say that that committee was one of the key avenues for prosecuting the arguments that did, in the end, see the Liberal-National coalition return to government. And there was Senator Boswell, after having served 27 years—I think it's fair to say he was getting towards the end of his career—in those communities, prosecuting the case, and, always, when Senator Boswell was in there prosecuting the case, it was about the impact on small business and about the impact on individuals. I suspect Senator Canavan may have actually written quite a few of those questions in a former role as well. But Senator Boswell was always there standing up his community and standing up for the constituency that he saw as sending him here. He will be remembered. He played such an important role in this institution, to his family and to his friends. May he rest in peace.

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

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

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

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Decommissioning of the National Research Cyclotron Facility, Camperdown.

I table a statement of the work.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That, pursuant to standing order 44, the Senate authorises the loan of the petitioning document presented by Senator Spindler on 2 April 1992 to the Museum of Australian Democracy for a period of 2 years from June 2026, subject to any conditions set by the Clerk of the Senate.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 6 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and intended to be used by its officials for their 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 Walsh, to general business notice of motion No. 349 standing in the name of Senator Smith be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 349 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith be agreed to.

On behalf of Senator Dean Smith I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 6 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and intended to be used by its officials for their 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 moved by Senator Walsh to general business notice of motion No. 350 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 350, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 6 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Defence and intended to be used by its officials for their 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 Walsh to general business notice of motion No. 351, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 351 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith and moved by Senator Askew be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Trade and Tourism, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 6 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and intended to be used by its officials for their 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 general business notice of motion No. 352, as amended by Senator Walsh, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 352, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 6 March 2026, all final versions of the hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including all attachments) prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and intended to be used by its officials for their 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 McAllister to general business notice of motion No. 353 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 353, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Faruqi, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for International Development, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 23 March 2026, all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages and/or correspondence relating to the National Anti-Racism Framework from 26 November 2024 to 4 February 2026, between the minister (Dr Aly) and/or her office and the Race Discrimination Commissioner and/or the Australian Human Rights Commissioner.

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 McAllister to Senator Faruqi's 354 general business motion be agreed to.

I will now put the motion. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 354, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Faruqi, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 23 March 2026, all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages and/or correspondence relating to the National Anti-Racism Framework from 26 November 2024 to 4 February 2026, between the minister (Mr Burke) and/or his office and the Race Discrimination Commissioner and/or the Australian Human Rights Commissioner.

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 McAllister to general business notice of motion No. 355 be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 355 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

It being almost 6:30 pm, with the indulgence of the Senate, the remaining motions where divisions are required will be deferred.

At the request of Senator Faruqi, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 23 March 2026, all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages and/or correspondence relating to the National Anti-Racism Framework from 26 November 2024 to 4 February 2026, between the Prime Minister and/or his office, and the Race Discrimination Commissioner and/or the Australian Human Rights Commissioner.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 356.

Leave granted.

I move an amendment to the motion:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) orders for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers, and should be used 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 McAllister to general business notice of motion no. 356 be agreed to.

The question now is that general business notice of motion no. 356 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required; that will be deferred.

At the request of Senator Faruqi, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 23 March 2026, all correspondence relating to the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 from 14 December 2025 to 4 February 2026, between the Prime Minister's office and the Race Discrimination Commissioner.

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 Green to general business notice of motion no. 357 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required. That'll be a deferred vote.

I move:

(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on Tuesday, 10 March 2026, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) assessment and risk advice provided to the Commonwealth in relation to the security risks associated with 26 January 2026 events in every state and territory jurisdiction.

(2) If the full assessment or report cannot be released, the Minister representing Minister for Home Affairs is to table, at a minimum, a statement setting out:

(a) what information and intelligence was held in relation to potential threats of extremist or terrorist violence connected to 26 January 2026 events;

(b) when that information was received;

(c) what risk assessments were made; and

(d) what actions were taken in response, including any advice provided to state and territory authorities.

by leave—I move:

Paragraph (2), omit all words after "Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs", substitute "is not required to comply with this order".

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We're sympathetic to Senator Thorpe's desire for more information and transparency about incidents and risks now associated with Australia Day events. However, the opposition will not be supporting this OPD, as there would be significant risks and dangers to exposing ASIO intelligence in this way. To the best of our knowledge, and for very good reasons in respect of national security, there has not been a single motion passed in the parliament that has ordered ASIO documents in the entirety of that organisation's existence, going back to 1949, and it should not happen here today or when the vote is happening.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 358, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to. A division is required. That will be deferred.

The amendment is deferred, but what about my motion?

It can't continue, because we don't have a definitive vote on the amendment.

Okay, thank you.

At the request of Senator McGrath, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, the final versions of all hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including any attachments) prepared by the Department of the Treasury (Housing Group) and used by its officials for their appearance at the 2025-26 supplementary Budget estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 4 December 2025.

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 Green to general business notice of motion No. 361, standing in the name of Senator McGrath, be agreed to. A division is required. That will be deferred.

At the request of Senator McGrath, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 March 2026, the final versions of all hot issues/Senate estimates briefs (including any attachments) prepared by the Department of Finance relating to the responsibilities of the Special Minister of State, and used by its officials for their appearance at the 2025-26 supplementary Budget estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on 1 December 2025.

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 the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 362, standing in the name of Senator McGrath, be agreed to. A division is required—another deferred motion.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 23 March 2026, all correspondence, including briefing notes, between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development in relation to the New and Redeveloping International Ports Framework Review between 1 and 31 January 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 all 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 Green to general business notice of motion No. 363, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to. A division is required. I will defer that.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories, by no later than midday on 23 March 2026, all correspondence including briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting notes and meeting minutes with dates for those requests between the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sports and the Arts and the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories in relation to assistance and relief available to fire affected areas in Victoria that occurred in January 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 all 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 Green to general business notice of motion No. 364, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to. A division is required. I will defer that.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education by no later than midday on 23 March 2026, all correspondence including briefing notes, meeting agenda, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes and meeting minutes between the Department of Education and the Minister for Education in relation to the 'Changing the date? Australia Day, reconciliation and the politics of division' project.

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 all 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 Green to general business notice of motion No. 365, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to. A division is required. It's a deferred division.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on 10 March 2026, information relating to the date that drafting instructions were provided by the Government to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in relation to the drafting of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 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 all other processes have been exhausted; and

(b) senators can seek information through questions without notice, questions on notice and through Senate estimates.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 366, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to. A division being required, it is deferred until another day.

I move, and I hope the government complies with it:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than midday on 10 March 2026, a list of who and when the Department of Home Affairs consulted with national and state shooting associations and shooting clubs in relation to the development of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 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 all other processes have been exhausted; and

(b) senators can seek information through questions without notice, questions on notice and through Senate estimates.

Order! Senator McKim, I have called for order. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 367, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to. A division being required, we will defer that until another day.

I seek leave to use the Senate's power to postpone general business notice of motion No. 368 until tomorrow.

Leave granted.

I did indicate to the chamber at half past six that I would deal with all of the motions and then I would go to the bills et cetera.

I'm just seeking some direction, President. We are happy to deal with all of the motions in order, because there are no divisions tonight. I think that would be the best way to proceed.

I had indicated to the chamber that I would deal with the motions first and then deal with the other matters. So the question is that of general business notice of motion No. 371, standing in the name of Senator Bragg.

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:

(a) any documents relating to the results and findings of the two most recent staff surveys conducted within Housing Australia, working back from 2 March 2026; and

(b) the rectification plan in response to these staff survey results, which went to the Board and was discussed at the Housing Australia Board meeting on Tuesday, 10 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 all other processes have been exhausted; and

(b) Senator Bragg has been offered a briefing by the Minister for Housing.

Senator O'Sullivan?

Point of order on 196, tedious repetition. We're hearing tedious repetition from the government on all of these motions.

That was a question raised last week about reading the amendments. It is the senator's prerogative to read the amendments, and that is what she is choosing to do.

I just make the point for the senator's benefit that that amendment is different from the last one. Thank you for noticing. Thanks for listening!

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 371 agreed to. Division required? We will defer that one.

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 Thursday, 5 March 2026, aggregate data of users accessing the Home Guarantee Scheme after 1 October 2024, including:

(a) the user's age bracket, income decile, household income and occupation group;

(b) the purchase price of the property;

(c) whether the user was a single or joint borrower; and

(d) the user's loan-to-value ratio.

by leave—I move an amendment as follows:

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 all other processes have been exhausted; and

(b) Senator Bragg has been offered a briefing by the Minister for Housing.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Green to general business notice of motion No. 372, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to. Is a division required? We will defer that until tomorrow.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 25 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 Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and/or her office, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Administrator of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), Mr Mark Irving KC, and/or his office in relation to the report prepared by Mr Geoffrey Watson SC on allegations of corruption and criminality within the CFMEU, entitled 'Rotting from the top', and Mr Irving's decision to remove two sections from that report.

by leave—I move an amendment as follows:

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 all 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 Green to general business notice of motion No. 374 be agreed to. Is a division required? We will defer that one.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 26 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 Treasurer and/or his office, the Department of the Treasury and the Australian Taxation Office in relation to any proposals to adjust the capital gains tax discount or negative gearing for the 2026-27 Budget.

by leave—I move an amendment as follows:

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 all 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 Senator Green moved, to general business notice of motion No. 375, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to. A division being required, we'll defer that.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 30 March 2026, all briefings, reports, notes, memos, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, notes of meetings, letters or any other correspondence including emails, and any other like documents to or from the Attorney-General's Department relating to the release of documents pursuant or incidental to the United States Epstein Files Transparency Act (Epstein files) including any briefings or other information provided to the Australian Government by any foreign nation or foreign national with respect to any Australian individuals named within the Epstein files.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 378, standing in the name of Senator Antic, be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. Against? I believe the—

An honourable senator interjecting—

I'm going to put that again. People need to be clear. The question is that general business notice of motion 378, standing in the name of Senator Antic, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 30 March 2026, all briefings, reports, notes, memos, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, notes of meetings, letters or any other correspondence including emails, and any other like documents to or from the Department of Home Affairs relating to the release of documents pursuant or incidental to the United States Epstein Files Transparency Act (Epstein files) including any briefings or other information provided to the Australian Government by any foreign nation or foreign national with respect to any Australian individuals named within the Epstein files.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Antic, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 9.30 am on Monday, 30 March 2026, all briefings, reports, notes, memos, meeting agendas, meeting minutes, notes of meetings, letters or any other correspondence including emails, and any other like documents to or from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet relating to the release of documents pursuant or incidental to the United States Epstein Files Transparency Act (Epstein files) including any briefings or other information provided to the Australian Government by any foreign nation or foreign national with respect to any Australian individuals named within the Epstein files.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 119, relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025,

(ii) on 2 September 2025, the Minster representing the Treasurer provided an interim response from the Treasurer asking for more time to comply with the order,

(iii) on 28 October 2025, the Senate agreed to a further order requiring the minister to comply with the original order by midday on Wednesday, 29 October 2025,

(iv) on 29 October 2025, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing provided an interim response from the Minister for Housing, again requesting more time to comply with the order,

(v) on 23 December 2025, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing provided two documents with redactions and raised a public interest immunity claim on the grounds that some information within the scope of the order discloses Cabinet deliberations,

(vi) on 4 February 2026, the Senate agreed to a motion rejecting the public interest immunity claim and requiring the minister to comply with the order by 9 am on 5 February 2026, and

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

(b) requires that the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attend the Senate immediately after the consideration of private senators' bills on Wednesday, 4 March 2026 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

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

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

by leave—I move:

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

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

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

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Green, to general business notice of motion No. 382, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to. A division being required, we will defer that one.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Historically, the Internet had been somewhere minds were opened and horizons were broadened. A place where academics from the world's universities discussed developments in their respective fields. People were civil. Posts were made to inform, not to enrage. Yesterday's Internet is nothing like the Internet we have today.

Bygone is any notion, or even comprehension, of netiquette. Day in and day out, we see calls to hate, to be disgusted, to retreat further into our algorithmic bubbles. All this is designed to keep us glued to our feeds, to increase the profitability of the social media giants. Yet, as the Prime Minister has said, social media has a social responsibility. No one I have spoken to believes that these companies will fulfill this responsibility out of the goodness of their hearts.

I know better than most what it is like to be a woman with a public profile in Australia today. Nearly two years ago, I had the courage of my convictions and walked across the Senate chamber floor, but that decision has not been without cost.

After standing up for what I believed in, I had cast myself into the piranha-infested waters of the public eye and, relevantly, online debate. I made a controversial decision, and this made some people very angry.

Every day, words of hatred are used against me. After a while, you get used to it. What you don't get used to are the threats against yourself, your family and your staff or the frequent correspondence with the Australian Federal Police about the latest person threatening to shoot and kill me or my husband.

As I said in the Senate in October 2025, this is an issue that disproportionately affects women. I began work on this bill after meeting with Perth activist, Caitlin Roper. Through the meeting, I also became aware of the impact this abuse had on Lyn Kennedy and other members of Collective Shout, the advocacy group campaigning against offensive video games, including those that simulate rape.

Following a recent campaign push, Caitlin and Lyn were subjected to what was described as a tsunami of cyber abuse.

As the West Australian reported: "The threatening messages included: "you f...ed with garners, now we are going to rape you" and "my bat gonna fit nicely in your skull". "I'll cut off your heads and f... your corpses," said another, with a doctored image showing a gun pointed at Ms Roper's face.

Some of the activists were doxxed. Others had deepfake pornography of Collective Shout members.

When they went to the regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, they were bewildered by the level of inaction. The level of heinousness necessary for the regulator to take action is too high.

Caitlin told my office that "eSafety dismissed material because it refers to an organisation rather than an individual. This included threats to murder us, tagging an individual team member."

The Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026 makes a simple change to the Online Safety Act 2021.

It amends that Act to lower the threshold for material to be considered by eSafety under the adult cyber abuse scheme and empower eSafety to take action against abusive conduct online.

This comes from recommendation 18 of the statutory review of the Online Safety Act, a report which was provided to the Government in October 2024. The Government has not moved quickly to implement these changes, but it is important that we do.

As the report states: "The new threshold should require that an ordinary reasonable person would conclude that 'it is likely the material was intended to have an effect on a particular Australian adult', and that an ordinary reasonable person would 'regard the material as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or seriously offensive."'

Australians have been waiting for more than a year for the Government to tum its commitment to a digital duty of care into a reality. For the women who find themselves targeted by hateful chuds (for whom online abuse is a form of amusement, no different to the news of Clavicular getting brutally framemogged by the ASU frat leader), they cannot wait any longer.

If we want to protect our women and girls online, we need a regulator that has the legislative authority to go out there and fight for them.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.

I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 373 to the next sitting day.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Opposition, to introduce the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026.

This Bill is very specifically focused on one key aim: namely, inserting into Australian law that it will be the national government (and no one else) who decides when and how people associated with terrorist organisations potentially return to Australia.

It is about restoring at least some scintilla of ministerial responsibility under the hapless Albanese Government. It is about closing a dangerous loophole. It is about better protecting Australia's national security and our way of life—a concept seemingly entirely foreign (in more ways than one) to the Labor Party.

Under the Albanese Government, we have seen the emergence of what has come to be described as a policy of self-managed returns.

On Labor's watch, individuals who willingly travelled to terrorist hotspots; who entered areas controlled by Islamic State; who aligned themselves with extremist ideology; and/or, in a number of cases, who directly supported or committed terrorist offences, have been able to return to Australia when and how they choose, assisted not by the Commonwealth, but by third parties.

The great John Howard famously—and accurately—said that "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come". But the bumbling Labor government of today has somehow managed to turn that eminently successful and sensible approach entirely on its head.

Staggeringly, we now have people devoted to a barbaric and bloodthirsty terrorist cult deciding to come to this country. And working out among themselves and with the help of third parties the circumstances in which they will come.

We keep being told that the Government has "no role" in any of this. We keep being told that 'there is nothing they can do' to stop any of this. As the overwhelming majority of Australians know, this is not only untrue but nowhere near good enough.

Australians expect that, when it comes to people who travelled to declared terrorist areas (areas formally designated under our Criminal Code), the Commonwealth Government is in control. They expect the elected government of the day to make those decisions transparently and also to take responsibility for them.

Instead, Labor has allowed a situation to develop where non-government actors can organise or facilitate the return of individuals associated with terrorist organisations, without any formal requirement for prior ministerial approval.

That is a very problematic loophole. And today, in the absence of any work from the Government to do this, we are moving to close it.

This Bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995. Most importantly, it inserts a new offence (proposed section 119.3A) that makes it a crime to organise or facilitate the entry into Australia of a person who has entered or remained in a declared area, or a person who has committed any other terrorism offence, or a person who is a member of a terrorist organisation, unless that assistance is authorised by the Commonwealth.

The penalty is up to 10 years' imprisonment. That penalty aligns with existing terrorism-related offences in the Criminal Code. It reflects the seriousness of the conduct, because these are not trivial matters. These are decisions with profound national security consequences.

If someone seeks to assist the repatriation of a person who entered or remained in a terrorist Declared Area, who is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation, or who has committed a terrorism-related offence, they must first obtain the prior written permission of both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Without that permission, organising or facilitating their entry becomes a criminal offence.

This Bill does not prevent Australians from returning home. It does not strip citizenship. It does not retrospectively criminalise past actions.

What it does is regulate third party assistance. It ensures that no one can freelance in bringing potentially dangerous individuals into this country without the express approval of the Commonwealth Government.

The Coalition is resolute in the belief that decisions of this gravity must sit squarely with the elected Government.

If a Home Affairs Minister believes a particular individual should return, they should sign off on it. If a Foreign Affairs Minister believes the national interest is served, they should sign off on it. But they cannot wash their hands of responsibility and allow others to carry the burden while distancing themselves from the outcome.

Members will recall that the Declared Areas regime was introduced by a Coalition Government in 2014 in response to Australians travelling to join Islamic State and other extremist groups. Entering or remaining in a declared area without legitimate purpose is itself a criminal offence under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code.

This Bill extends the sunset date for that regime from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030, ensuring that these vital protections remain in force. The threat environment has not disappeared simply because the so-called Caliphate has collapsed territorially. Extremist ideology persists. Networks persist. Radicalisation persists. The Commonwealth must retain robust tools to manage those and associated risks.

This debate is ultimately about accountability.

If the Government believes that particular individuals associated with terrorist organisations should return to Australia, then it should be prepared to own that decision. It should not be lazily, recklessly and unaccountably outsourcing the moral and political responsibility to charities, intermediaries or private individuals.

Our Bill ensures that any repatriation involving this high-risk cohort can only occur with the explicit authorisation of both relevant Ministers. That is not extreme. That is responsible.

Let me also address some of the criticisms that will inevitably be raised by people looking for any way they can of criticising what is sensible and responsible policy making in the interest of the overwhelming majority of Australians.

This Bill does not prevent citizens from entering Australia. It does not extinguish any right of return insofar as one exists. It criminalises the unauthorised act of organising or facilitating that entry. The Commonwealth is well within its constitutional powers to regulate how people enter Australia and to legislate with respect to national security and external affairs.

Nothing in this Bill prevents humanitarian repatriation. It simply requires that such repatriation be authorised by the Ministers responsible for Australia's security and foreign policy. If a case is compelling, if minors are involved, if the security agencies advise that return is manageable, Ministers can authorise it. But it must be done transparently, lawfully and with accountability.

This Bill will not criminalise past repatriations. It applies prospectively. Once enacted, future assistance without approval will constitute an offence.

When in government, the Coalition authorised the repatriation of eight orphaned minors in 2019. That operation was conducted by Commonwealth agencies, in a controlled manner, at a time determined by the Government. It was not outsourced. It was not disguised. It was not disowned. Other individuals were assessed at that time as too high risk to return.

Australians are generous and compassionate, but they are not naïve. They expect their government to put national security first, ensure transparency in decision-making, and close loopholes when they are identified.

This Bill closes a loophole that currently allows non-government third parties to organise the return of individuals associated with terrorist activity without formal Commonwealth approval.

It restores clarity. It restores ministerial accountability. And it strengthens Australia's counter-terrorism framework at a time when complacency would be extremely dangerous—particularly in the aftermath of the Bondi massacre.

The safety of Australians must always be paramount. The Opposition does not bring this Bill forward lightly. We bring it forward because we believe the current arrangements are inadequate, because we believe ministerial responsibility must be clear, and because we believe the Parliament has a duty to act when national security frameworks are shown to have gaps.

This legislation is measured. It is targeted. Despite Labor's petulant attempts to claim the contrary, it is constitutionally sound. And it is necessary.

We stand ready to work constructively with the Government if it is serious about strengthening our laws. Unfortunately, however, they have left us in the position now of having to proactively introduce legislation ourselves.

I strongly commend this Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

That the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 be considered during private senators' time on Thursday, 5 March 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 377, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to. There will be a deferred vote.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

DEFENCE AND VETERANS' SERVICE COMMISSIONER BILL 2025

Introduction

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide delivered its Final Report in September last year. It contained 122 recommendations.

Recommendation 122 was that the Government establish a new statutory entity to oversee system reform across the whole Defence ecosystem. The Royal Commission said that this was its most important recommendation. It went on to say that it considered that this recommendation would 'underpin all the recommendations that precede it' and to be 'the most significant action the Australian Government can take to address defence and veteran suicide'.

In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of this recommendation, in February 2025 the Albanese Labor Government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, and it has been up and running since the end of September.

The current enactment within Part VIIIE of the Defence Act 1903, by way of Schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, passed in February 2025, and ensured that the Commission could be up and running by September and not be subject to the vagaries of an intervening Federal Election.

The role of this new statutory oversight entity, is to provide independent oversight and evidence-based advice to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for the Defence and veteran community. The Commission will have a dedicated and sustained focus on suicide prevention.

It will ensure agencies implementing Royal Commission recommendations will be held to account by promoting long-term change and driving the system reforms needed to reduce the rates of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members.

Importantly, the Commission will be publicly reporting on the

Government's progress on implementing the Government's response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the third and sixth anniversaries of the Government's response; by 2 December 2027 and 2030.

To meet these objectives, the Commission must have the independence, functions and powers necessary to meet these objectives and maintain the trust of the defence and veteran community.

This Bill delivers on the full implementation of this by enshrining the legislative establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner and Commission into its own stand alone legislation as always intended.

Senate Committee recommendations addressed

This is also why the Government was happy for there to be a review of that legislation by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, with a view to its recommendations being included in this Bill.

The Committee reported on 29 August 2025 and I thank all those who contributed submissions and provided evidence to the Committee. The submissions, evidence and the Committee's report have informed the development of this Bill.

Recommendation 1: Standalone legislation for the Commission

On 4 September this year, I updated the House on the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. In that statement, I indicated that the Government would implement standalone legislation for the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission to reflect its independence.

This is also the first recommendation of the Senate Committee Report on the current enabling legislation in Part VIIIE of the Defence Act.

This Bill delivers on that commitment.

Recommendation 2: Commissioner functions include reference to

veterans' families

The Senate Committee review into Schedule 9 provided an opportunity for stakeholders to raise their concerns with the VETS Act enabling legislation. These submissions were reviewed and considered in the development of this legislation. Key themes included strengthening the independence of the Commissioner, ensuring families were formally recognised, and ensuring that the Commissioner has the necessary powers to conduct inquiries effectively.

There is no doubt that families of veterans play a vital role in the health and wellbeing of veterans but also face unique challenges themselves. I'm pleased that through this legislation we're able to acknowledge the significance of veteran families, in line with the recommendations of the Senate Committee by expressly referencing families in the functions of the Commissioner.

Recommendation 3: Commission functions and powers reviewed

At the beginning of this year, the Government appointed Michael Manthorpe PSM as the interim head of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, to commence work on getting the Commission up and running, as well as advising the Government on any improvements to the legislation that may be required. Mr Manthorpe made a comprehensive submission to the Senate Committee review suggesting amendments to the functions and powers of the Commission. In line with recommendation three of the Senate Committee Inquiry Report, the Government has reviewed these proposals in detail and adopted these amendments.

Strengthens Commissioner independence

This Bill strengthens the independence of the Commissioner by ensuring the role is appointed by the Governor-General after a merit-based and public recruitment process. A person will not be eligible for appointment as Commissioner if they have served in any capacity in the ADF within the past five years.

In addition, the Commissioner is not to be subject to direction in relation to the conduct of an inquiry, with the exception of a Minister-directed inquiry where the Minister may set the terms of reference, timeframe, and select the individual to run the inquiry based on advice from the Commissioner. A Minister-directed inquiry function is consistent with the functions set out by the Royal Commission.

Additional parameters have been placed around the Minister's power to direct an inquiry, such that the Minister must have regard to the objects of the legislation, the resources of the Commission and its planned inquiries.

Strengthens the Commissioner's powers

The Bill also strengthens the powers of the Commissioner in the following key ways:

Strengthens witness protections

It is critical to the success of the Commission that those with relevant information feel supported and protected in providing information to an inquiry by the Commissioner. This will ensure the Commissioner is fully informed. To assist with this, the Bill has expanded the scope of witness protections to ensure that a person does not suffer detriment due to providing this information. Protections from criminal and civil penalties which may arise where a person gives information to the Commissioner have also been expanded to include where that information is provided voluntarily.

Strengthens transparency of the Commission's work

Lastly, a number of the new measures in the Bill will improve the transparency of the work of the Commission and ensure accountability of both the Commission and those persons or bodies subject to oversight. These measures include:

Government has listened and acted

The Government has listened to feedback from stakeholders and has taken action. These changes to the Bill will ensure that the Commissioner has the tools necessary to ensure the Defence and

Veterans' Service Commission is enabled to drive system reform to improve suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for serving and ex-serving Australian Defence Force members.

This will mean agencies are held accountable to consider and respond to the Commissioner's recommendations. The enduring nature of the Commission will ensure that the voices of our veterans continue to be heard and systemic issues that contribute to suicide in our veteran community are continually reviewed and addressed.

Conclusion

As I said in Parliament on 4 September, it is our nation's duty to empower and support the mental health and wellbeing of our Defence and veteran community, with a view to reducing the elevated rates of suicide and suicidality.

The Commission will be a powerful force for change, overseeing sustained improvement in how we protect the lives of those who protect us.

This Bill provides the foundation for what the Royal Commission deemed to be the most significant action the Australian Government can take to address defence and veteran suicide—an independent Commissioner and Commission.

I commend the Bills to the House.

DEFENCE AND VETERANS' SERVICE COMMISSIONER (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2025

The Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 is part of a package of two bills which together will enshrine the legislative establishment of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner and commission in their own standalone legislation as was always intended.

This bill makes consequential amendments necessary to implement the measures in the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, which I have just introduced. In particular, the bill makes minor consequential amendments to the Archives Act 1983 and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986, arising from the movement of the provision establishing the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner from the Defence Act 1903 into its own standalone legislation. The details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the primary bill. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE BILL 2026

I am honoured to bring to Parliament the Bill to legislate the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People.

This Bill delivers a permanent, independent statutory agency, led by a National Commissioner, with the necessary powers to improve the lives of Indigenous children and young people today and into the future.

Experts and advocates have been calling for these reforms since the 1980s.

SNAICC the peak body for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children in their 1991 State of Denial report asked for "legislation to recognise the unique rights of Indigenous children. "

And in 2019 over 70 organisations, Children's Commissioners and Guardians came together to call for a national Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commissioner to hold systems and services accountable.

They described the levels of discrimination and disadvantage being faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children at the time as "widespread, systemic, and intergenerational. "

Sadly, these sobering assessments have continued, but so too has the tireless advocacy to change them.

Today I want to commend the countless Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders whose sustained work and unwavering commitment has led to this moment.

I especially want to acknowledge the Safe and Supported Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Leadership Group, and all the incredible Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander state and territory children's Commissioners, Guardians and Advocates for the important role they've played in developing this Bill.

And the voices of a group of 12 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people who shared advice on what the Commissioner can do to make a difference.

They highlighted:

I thank them all for the role they've played in bringing this to fruition.

This was truly collaborative process, and I am deeply grateful to everyone involved.

I would also like to thank Lil Gordon, an experienced public servant and effective advocate, for her service as acting commissioner, the National Children's Commissioner Deb Tsorbaris, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner Katie Kiss.

And of course, Sue-Anne Hunter, who is now the permanent National Commissioner of the body we're legislating today.

Ms Hunter is an inspiring, highly qualified and highly respected leader.

When taking up this role, she said:

"The work is urgent and the .statistics are grim. But our children are not statistics, they are our future [and] they will be at the centre of everything I do."

I have no doubt that under her leadership, we will reach our shared goal of ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people have equal access to the opportunities our nation has to offer.

To reach that aim, this Bill enables the National Commissioner to:

We know that Closing the Gap targets relating to development, child protection, safety and justice are off track.

We know there is more to do, both at the Commonwealth and state and territory levels.

Just as we know that to meet Closing the Gap targets, we must deal with systematic issues.

This Bill gives the National Commissioner powers to identify and call out the persistent disadvantage demonstrated by these alarming figures.

All too often, the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people are not heard in decisions that affect their lives.

The measures in this Bill will change that, by listening to their experiences.

The National Commissioner will have the power to speak directly with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people, and their families on matters impacting their lives, their hopes, and their futures.

This might mean sitting down with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Darebin in Naarm (Melbourne), or in Redfern in Gadigal Country (Sydney), Mer Island in the Torres Strait, or Yuendumu in Warlpiri Country (Northern Territory).

Acknowledging and recognising their opinions and perspectives is fundamental for lasting change.

This Bill ensures the best interests of children and young people are at the centre of the Commissioner's work—which will be characterised by collaboration and strengthened national coordination.

Where necessary, the Commissioner will work with state, territory and commonwealth agencies to identify and recommend solutions on systemic issues.

The National Commissioner will make sure governments take responsibility for how their policies impact Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people, while working to improve outcomes.

This Bill also gives the Commissioner discretion and independence to conduct inquiries into matters affecting the rights, interests, development, safety or wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.

Powers that the Commissioner will exercise while upholding Australia's international human rights commitments, with respect to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.

Where appropriate, Ministers may request the Commissioner inquire into a particular matter.

The Commissioner can publish reports and submit them to the Minister, to be followed by tabling in Parliament within 15 sitting days.

Further, the Bill gives the Commissioner information gathering capabilities, including the option to require information or ask people and organisations to . respond to written requests.

Powers that mean governments are held publicly accountable should they fail to respond to such requests for information and documentation.

We know that knowledge is power.

And that children and young people need to understand their rights to be able to exercise them.

This Bill supports the Commissioner to help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people understand their rights, while also ensuring their views, needs and experiences inform decision-making.

In introducing this Bill, I can't help but reflect on the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people I have met with and been inspired by over the years.

It makes me think of the young people in Redfern who wake up at 6am three times a week to attend Clean Slate Without Prejudice—a program that instils a sense of pride and community through group activities and mentoring.

They are making good choices every day. They are disciplined, they are committed and each time they show up, they are learning lifelong skills.

I also think of Jasmine Yunupingu, who created the Girl Power Group in 2021—which saw her using her own money to cook and share a meal with victim-survivors of sexual violence, so they felt safe enough to tell their stories.

I reflect on the young Indigenous rangers in Murujuga who are protecting and managing the now world heritage listed site, and its two million petroglyphs. These Rangers shared with me the importance of learning from their Elders, managing their cultural heritage and protecting their Country for future generations. This has been a common story for an young Indigenous rangers I have met.

And, of course, I think often about the young people in the Youth Advisory Group for Create Foundation-who are drawing on their own experiences in out-of-home care to try and change the system. ·

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are heirs to over 65,000 years of continuous culture.

They have a right to learn their culture and language, just as they have a right to stay connected to their country, family and community.

And of course, they have a right to a safe home; a right to health; and an education that allows them to find their purpose and meet their potential.

Too often though, government policy has damaged and disrupted their lives.

It was a Labor Government that said sorry for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that created these harms.

It was a Labor government that apologised for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.

And today, it is a Labor government that is promoting and protecting the cultural identity and development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people with this Bill.

To get there, we will ensure this legislated National Commission is resourced properly.

Our government is investing a total of $33.5 million over 4 years from 2025-26 and $8.4 million per year ongoing to support the Commission's operation.

This funding will ensure that the National Commission has the staff, capabilities and capacity to deliver on and comply with its intended statutory functions and obligations.

What parents and families want for their children is the opportunity to succeed, both now and into the future.

When we get it right for children and young people, the entire nation moves forward.

Every child deserves to grow up connected to their family, community and culture. They deserve to be heard, to be protected, and of course to be loved.

They should expect that with hard work, no job, dream or opportunity will be off limits.

This Bill will drive meaningful change for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people that can be sustained throughout their life, benefiting each one of them, and of course, all of Australia.

_____

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

The National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2026 is part of a package of two bills which together will create the statutory office of the National Commissioner for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People and the Commission as a statutory agency.

This Bill provides for the transition of the executive agency, established in January 2025, and the incumbent National Commissioner to the permanent statutory agency and statutory office.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

UNIVERSITIES ACCORD (AUSTRALIAN TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION) BILL

Mr Speaker, this is a Bill to establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission. The ATEC.

It is a key recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord.

Before I set out the details of the Bill, let me remind the House what the Accord is all about.

Three years ago I appointed six eminent Australians to develop a blueprint for how we reform our higher education system.

Professor Mary O'Kane as Chair. A former Chief Scientist and Engineer of NSW, and former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide.

Professor Barney Glover, now Commissioner of Jobs and Skills Australia and former Vice-Chancellor and President of Western Sydney University.

Distinguished Professor Larissa Behrendt, Laureate Fellow at the Jumbunna Institute of Indigenous Education and Research at the University of Technology Sydney.

The Honourable Fiona Nash, the Australian Regional Education Commissioner, and former Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Regional Communications.

The Honourable Jenny Macklin, former Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Minister for Disability Reform.

And Ms Shemara Wikramanayake, Chief Executive Officer at Macquarie Group and member of the former Coalition government's University Research Commercialisation Expert Panel.

I asked them to look at seven priority areas:

I released the final report of the Accord in February last year.

In short, what it says is that in the years ahead, more jobs are going to require more skills.

That 60 percent of Australians working today have a certificate or a diploma or a degree.

And that by 2050, that will need to increase to about 80 percent.

That's a big jump.

It means more people at TAFE. More people at university. More doing a bit of both.

And what the Accord says is the only way this is going to happen is if we break down two big barriers.

The first is the artificial barrier we have created and built up between vocational and higher education. And replace it with a system that is more joined up.

The second is the invisible barrier that stops too many young people from poor families, from our outer suburbs and from the regions and the bush from getting to university at all.

And to give you an idea what the Accord is talking about, 69 percent of young Australians from wealthy families have a university degree today, but only 19 percent from very poor families do.

And this is not just a barrier to university.

The Accord peels away any misconception that it's okay if kids from poor families don't go to uni, because they go to TAFE.

87 percent of young people from wealthy families have a TAFE qualification or a uni degree. Only 59 percent of young people from poor families are in that boat.

In other words, more than 40 percent of people from poor families don't have the sort of qualifications that so many people are going to need in the years ahead.

We have now implemented every recommendation of the Accord Interim Report.

And we have started the work of implementing the Final Report.

In last year's budget we bit off a big chunk.

31 out of 47, in full or in part.

Let me remind the House of what some of those are.

It includes more than doubling the number of university study hubs in the regions, in the bush and, for the first time, in our outer suburbs.

These are the places that bring university closer to where a lot of people live.

They are part of breaking down that invisible barrier.

Most of them are now open, and the rest will open in the next few months.

We are also increasing funding for the bridging courses that help prepare you to start a university degree.

They are like a bridge between school and university.

Over the next 10 years we will invest an extra one billion dollars to help tens of thousands of Australians do one of these courses, for free.

We have also introduced Paid Prac. This is financial support for teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students while they do their practical training.

It's means tested and targeted at people who need it the most.

So far more than 67,000 students have applied. More than 80 percent of those applications have been processed, and more than 80 percent of those have been approved.

The Accord also recommended we allocate more medical Commonwealth supported places to address the shortage of doctors, and we are doing that too.

Next year, we'll train more doctors than ever before. Earlier this week the Minister for Health and I announced more medical places to train more doctors at 10 universities across the country.

Over the last 3 years, we have announced more than 350 new commencing medical places.

We have also announced 8 new medical schools.

When fully rolled out, it will mean we are supporting around 1,790 more medical students studying each year.

We have also scrapped the 50 percent pass rate rule.

This was an unfair rule that significantly and disproportionately affected Indigenous students, students from poor families and students from the regions and the bush.

We have also reformed Student Services and Amenities Fees, setting a minimum amount of 40 percent to be provided to student-led organisations.

We have also introduced a demand-driven system for Indigenous students, wherever they live.

Previously this was only available for Indigenous students living in regional and remote Australia.

This means if you are an Indigenous student and you get the marks for the course you want to do, you will now get a place at university.

It's already having an impact.

Last year the number of Indigenous students starting a degree increased by 5 percent.

This year it increased by a further 3 percent.

The Department of Education estimates that over the next decade this could double the number of Indigenous students at university.

We have also introduced a National Student Ombudsman that started work this year, and a National Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence that starts on the first of January and will give the Ombudsman's recommendations real teeth.

This year we also established an Expert Council on University Governance.

And it delivered its final report a few weeks ago.

This includes a set of principles that we will put into law and require universities to report annually on an 'if not, why not?' basis.

On the recommendations of the current Senate Inquiry into University Governance, we will also get the Remuneration Tribunal to help set salaries for Vice-Chancellors, and require universities to publish decisions of Council meetings, spending on consultants, Vice-Chancellors' external roles, and any conflicts of interest.

We are also making major changes to reduce student debt.

Last year we capped the indexation of student debt to the lower of the Consumer Price Index and the Wage Price Index.

This wiped $3 billion off student debt.

This week and next week we will wipe a further $16 billion off student debt.

Cutting student debt by 20 percent.

Tomorrow, one and a half million Australians will have their debt cut by 20 percent.

And another one and a half million will have their debt cut next week.

It's the biggest cut in student debt in Australian history.

We promised it.

Australians voted for it.

And now it's happening.

We have also made major structural changes to the way the student debt repayment system works.

The way the system used to work was the amount you repaid every year was based on your entire wage.

Once you earned above the minimum threshold you paid a percentage of your entire wage as a repayment.

That's now changed. Now, you only pay a percentage of your wage above the minimum repayment threshold.

What that means in practice is if you earn $70,000 a year you now have to repay about $1,300 a year less than you used to.

It is real cost of living help, when you need it.

It is another recommendation of the Accord.

It is also a recommendation of the architect of HECS, Professor Bruce Chapman, who said this is:

" … the most important thing that's happened to the system in 35 years. It's a marginal collection, it's much gentler and much fairer than previously we should have done it years ago."

All of this is just the start.

If we are going to hit that 80 percent target in the Accord we need more people to go to TAFE and university.

That means we have to fund more places at university.

And that starts next year.

Next year we will allocate 9,500 more commencing places to universities across the country than in 2025.

That's about 4 percent more than this year, and means more Australians will start uni next year than ever before.

And even more will start a uni degree the year after that.

In 2027, we will allocate an extra 16,000 fully funded Commonwealth supported places.

And another 16,000 in 2028.

And another 16,000 the year after that.

In 2030, this increases to 19,000 additional fully funded Commonwealth supported places.

All up, over the next decade we expect to fund an extra 200,000 commencing places at university.

It means the number of Australian students in our universities will grow by about 27 percent over the next 10 years.

That's a big jump.

Part of this also involves making sure all of these places become fully funded. And the ATEC will play a critical role in implementing it.

As part of that over the next 12 months we will implement and legislate two big changes to the way we fund universities.

The first is what the Accord calls 'demand driven equity'.

We currently provide universities with a capped amount of funding for Australian students.

The Accord recommends that we uncap that for all students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Like we have done for Indigenous students.

In other words, if you get the marks for the course you want to do, you will get a place at university.

This is all about breaking down that invisible barrier the Accord talks about. Prizing open the doors of universities to more people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

It starts in just over 12 months.

The second big reform is needs based funding.

Funding to help these same students who get in, to get through.

Think Gonski for universities.

The school funding system provides schools with extra funding based on where they are located and the needs of the students they educate.

Students who come from economically disadvantaged families receive additional support.

So do schools in the regions and the bush.

The Accord recommends we do the same for universities.

It means extra academic and other support services to help students make it through university.

It's demand driven.

The money follows the student.

The more students a university has that meet the criteria the more funding they will receive.

The more students there are at regional universities, the more funding those universities will receive as well.

And it starts in January. Just a couple of weeks away.

It will be the job of the ATEC to help drive and steer both of these big reforms.

And that brings me to what this Bill is all about.

Of all the recommendations in the Accord this might be the most important.

As someone said to me the other day, the ATEC is the Accord.

The Accord is big. It is a blueprint for the next decade and the one after that.

And it will take more than one Minister and more than one government to make real.

It is a national project and it needs a steward that is there for the long haul.

To craft compacts with individual universities.

To help improve policy, administration and coordination of the sector.

To get the sector to work more like a system.

To get the vocational education system and higher education system to work more closely together. More joined up.

To provide expert, independent advice.

And to help drive real and lasting reform.

That's what the ATEC is about.

Like Jobs and Skills Australia, it will be independent.

It will report directly to Ministers.

It will be guided by a Ministerial Statement of Expectations.

Key performance indicators will be established in consultation with the Minister.

It will publish its work plan.

It will provide advice to Government and publish reports.

It will be able to undertake its own research.

Its staff will be directed by the ATEC Commissioners, governed by a service level agreement with the Department of Education.

Its operations will be transparent.

It will be required to consult.

An independent review of the ATEC, its role, its functions and its operations is also built in after two years and after five years. And these reviews will be tabled in the House and in the Senate.

It will be led by three Commissioners—a full-time Chief Commissioner, a full-time First Nations Commissioner, and a part-time Commissioner.

Collectively, they will be required to have expertise in higher education and vocational education.

The First Nations Commissioner must be an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person with significant understanding of issues affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The ATEC will have its own decision-making powers.

It will take on responsibility for new mission-based compacts with individual universities, setting out the number of domestic and international students in line with the Government's strategic direction.

This will be set out in more detail in the legislation I will introduce next year.

It will take over responsibility for the Higher Education Standards Framework from the current Higher Education Standards Panel and provide advice on it to the Minister for Education and the sector regulator.

The Minister for Education and Minister for Skills and Training will also be able to request advice from the ATEC on a range of matters.

This includes:

The ATEC will also be required to produce and publish a State of the Tertiary Education System report, every year, with the first report to cover the period starting 1 January 2026.

This report will set out:

The ATEC will also publish a work plan and statement of its strategic priorities for the tertiary education system every two years, starting 1 January 2027.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank everyone who has been involved in the development of this important Bill.

That includes University Vice Chancellors, peak bodies including Universities Australia, State and Territory Ministers, my Department and the Accord Implementation Advisory Committee.

I also want to thank the Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles, Assistant Minister for International Education, Julian Hill, and my former colleague and great mate, the former Minister for Skills and Training, the Honourable Brendan O'Connor.

I also want to especially thank the Interim Commissioners of the ATEC, Mary O'Kane, Larissa Behrendt and Barney Glover.

They helped write the Accord, and now they are helping to lift those words off the page and bring them to life.

Mr Speaker, this Bill represents the next step in a long story of reform.

The first Universities Commission was established in 1943 by the Curtin Labor Government.

Over the next four decades, that Commission, and its successors, oversaw significant reform of our higher education system.

It's important to remember that John Curtin may have started this, but Sir Robert Menzies continued it and in 1959 his government introduced the Australian Universities Commission Act which, for the first time, embedded the Commission under its own stand-alone legislation.

This was a key moment in the history of higher education.

Labor supported Menzies in this pursuit, with Doc Evatt declaring his 'enthusiastic support'.

We have a similar opportunity in front of us now.

To build the sort of foundations that set us up for the future.

To help build the sort of skills we are going to need over the next decade and the one after that.

To help open the doors of opportunity wider than they are today.

To help build a better and a fairer education system.

And in doing that.

A better and fairer country.

I commend the Bill to the House.

_____

UNIVERSITIES ACCORD (AUSTRALIAN TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION)

(CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

This bill is part of a package of two bills which together will establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission.

This bill makes consequential amendments necessary to implement the measures in the main bill, which I just introduced. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2025

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation performs an essential role in protecting Australia and Australians from threats to their security. ASIO's compulsory questioning powers contained in Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 provide ASIO with a unique and necessary tool to investigate the most significant threats confronting Australia today.

In his 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, the Director-General of Security outlined ASIO's outlook to 2030, which assessed that over the next five years Australia's security environment will become more dynamic, more diverse, and more degraded. Australia is facing multifaceted, merging, intersecting, concurrent and cascading threats, and if we are to ensure that Australians are safe, and feel safe, ASIO must be properly equipped to respond.

Today, I am introducing the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, which amends ASIO's compulsory questioning powers to reflect changes in Australia's security environment and further strengthen the safeguards and oversight mechanisms in the framework.

ASIO's compulsory questioning powers were first introduced in 2003 in response to the growing threat of terrorism following the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States. After more than 20 years, Australia's security landscape has evolved considerably, and so have the powers.

This Bill acknowledges that ASIO's compulsory questioning powers remain a valuable intelligence collection tool, and makes amendments to ensure that ASIO has the powers it needs to operate effectively in an increasingly complex and challenging security environment. I now turn to the key amendments in the Bill.

The Bill repeals the sunset date in Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act and makes the questioning powers permanent. Since its introduction, the framework has been subject to five Parliamentary reviews and two independent reviews, causing the Parliament to extend the sunset date five times. Removing the sunset provision reflects the Government's view that these powers form an essential part of ASIO's intelligence collection powers, particularly in light of the threat environment. ASIO has used these powers judiciously in circumstances where ASIO's other powers were not appropriate for the circumstances.

The Bill also expands the security matters for which ASIO may seek an adult questioning warrant. This will enable ASIO to obtain an adult questioning warrant in relation to sabotage, attacks on Australia's defence systems, the promotion of communal violence, and serious threats to Australia's territorial and border integrity, in addition to terrorism, espionage and foreign interference. The Director-General's 2025 Annual Threat Assessment made it clear that ASIO anticipates multiple threats will intensify over the next five years:

"The most confronting thing about the new security environment—the prevailing security environment and the future security environment—is there is no single security concern."

These amendments ensure ASIO's questioning powers reflect this reality.

Importantly, the Bill makes targeted amendments to further strengthen existing safeguards and oversight mechanisms to protect individual rights. These include amendments to ensure the independence and impartiality of prescribed authorities, additional safeguards for questioning a person who is or will imminently be charged with a criminal offence, and additional reporting requirements to ensure the Attorney-General is made aware of any non-compliance with, or contraventions of, the requirements of a warrant. These amendments will strengthen key safeguards in the existing legislative framework to promote fairness, uphold human rights and the right to a fair trial, and enhance transparency and accountability.

Finally, the Bill amends the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to permit the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to undertake a further review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the framework three years after the commencement of this Bill.

Closing remarks

The measures I have outlined in this Bill deliver important reforms to ensure ASIO has the powers it needs to respond to emerging challenges and deliver on its mission to counter threats to Australia's security and ensure that all Australians can be safe and feel safe. The Bill reflects this Government's commitment to ensuring Australia's national security laws continually evolve to protect the Australian community, while ensuring strong safeguards remain firmly in place.

_____

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PASSIVE IMMUNOLOGICAL PRODUCTS) BILL 2026

I am pleased to introduce the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026.

This Bill expands the definition of vaccine in the National Health Act 1953 to enable new and emerging therapies to be listed on the National Immunisation Program.

The government is committed to ensuring that Australians can access the most clinically effective products through the National Immunisation Program. This includes the provision of new and emerging therapies, such as immunising monoclonal antibodies.

One example is Beyfortus, which protects children and babies from respiratory syncytial virus, also known as RSV. In 2025, there were 78,000 cases of RSV in young children. The virus can lead to serious chest infections in babies and also lead to long-term respiratory problems such as asthma that persist into adulthood. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee has deferred a positive recommendation for Beyfortus because they are unable to recommend this product for inclusion under the NIP until the definition of a vaccine under the Act is amended.

Currently, new therapies are unable to be listed on the National Immunisation Program as they do not meet the current vaccine definition. Not listing new and emerging therapies will make it harder for Australians to access the healthcare they need.

Australians may miss out on innovative immunisation products that are readily available in other countries. Furthermore, not being able to list new and emerging therapies on the National Immunisation Program may lead to a fragmented approach in accessing these products nationwide.

The Bill will also contribute to the priority goals of the National Immunisation Strategy for Australia 2025-2030 which was released in June last year. Most notably, expanding the definition of vaccine will make a positive contribution to the Strategy's priority areas of improving access to immunisation, and to harnessing new therapies to respond to the evolving disease and vaccine landscape.

A flexible National Immunisation Program that is fit for purpose in a rapidly evolving healthcare environment is important for all Australians. As new and emerging therapies are developed, steps must be taken to ensure that the program remains as effective as possible.

The Bill demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting Australians against preventable diseases by enabling access to the latest therapies nationwide and providing these products free of charge to eligible people in Australia.

_____

SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TECHNICAL CHANGES NO. 1) BILL 2026

Since the Albanese Labor government was first elected, we have been hard at work restoring trust in Australia's social security system.

This is one of the critical tasks of government, because without the trust of Australian taxpayers and income support recipients, the social security system loses legitimacy in the eyes of the community.

This was the legacy of the Coalition government and of Robodebt.

Across consecutive budget cycles and record funding, the Government has restored fairness and adequacy for many income suppqrt recipients by:

Parents who have a child today can receive almost $12,000 more through the Paid Parental Leave scheme than when we came to government.

And from 20 March 2026, the Government will increase the small debt waiver threshold to $250, to be indexed annually, with around 1.2 million debts expected to be waived or no longer needing to be raised in 2025-26 as a result [Note: this includes debts in the income apportionment backlog.]

Access to special circumstances debt waivers was also expanded for more victims of financial abuse and coercion, specifically those coerced into providing false information to the government by their abusers.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026 marks another important milestone in strengthening the legal framework of Australia's social security system.

It is a largely technical bill and reflects the need for social security legislation to be dynamic and to evolve with the policy intent of government and as external challenges demand.

The bill also responds to priorities identified through the Legal Compliance and Remediation Program in Services Australia.

Many are being resolved simply by policy or system change in Services Australia. Others require legislation.

Again, the Robodebt era saw too many of these hidden away, put in the too-hard basket and left for someone else to·fix.

Minister Gallagher and I are responding to these issues as they arise.

This bill gives legal clarity to long-established practice and policy intent across four key areas:

• clarifying the commencement date of child support periods when the Child Support Registrar receives information about a parent's tax assessment

The bill amends the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (Assessment Act)

to allow a child support period to start a month later than currently provided for, if a new child support assessment is made after the fifteenth day of the month.

This ensures parents have sufficient time to adjust to a new child support assessment before it comes into effect.

Currently, where a new tax assessment is received by the Child Support Registrar after the fifteenth day of the month and a new child support assessment is made in the same month, the legislation requires a new child support period to commence from the start of the next month.

This would mean parents may have as little as one day to adjust to the new child support assessment.

The amendments will ensure that where a new child support assessment is made after the fifteenth day of a calendar month, the new child support period will begin from the first day of the second month following the assessment.

The practical effect here is that where a new assessment is made requiring a higher or lower child support payment, we ensure parents have the following month to prepare for the change, instead of potentially just one or two days.

The bill also amends the Assessment Act to fix legislative anomalies that could allow parents with less than 35 per cent care of a child to be entitled to child support.

It is a long-standing principle of the system that a parent or carer who has less than 35 per cent care ofa child is not eligible to receive child support for that child, as they do not bear a significant enough burden of the direct costs of care.

In most cases, the existing legislation ensures a parent with more than 65 per cent care is not required to pay child support. This ensures parents who provide the clear majority of care have sufficient resources to financially support their children.

These amendments ensure a parent with less than 35 per cent care is not entitled to receive child support, and validates decisions made since 2008 with that effect.

These amendments are necessary as amendments made in 2008 and 2018 to child support law had the unintended consequence of technically allowing some parents with less than 35 per cent care to be eligible for child support.

It was never the intention of parliament to make such a change, and these amendments correct this technicality.

The amendments will also validate previous decisions which have been made on this basis, to provide certainty for parents and carers.

And the changes uphold the objects, principles and policy intent of the child support scheme and reflect consistent practice over decades.

While these two measures clarify technical legal aspects of the current operation of the child support scheme, I'd like the House to note that there is more to be done to ensure the scheme delivers children the financial support they are owed and is safe for women at risk of violence or abuse. I expect to have more to say on further improvements to the child support scheme later this year.

The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to strengthen the legislative basis for making urgent payments to people experiencing financial difficulties in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances.

Urgent payments are a long-standing and important part of the social security system, providing immediate financial assistance to vulnerable people in emergency situations.

An urgent payment is not an additional payment but enables a person to receive a portion of their usual fortnightly entitlement early.

Currently, a person can generally only receive two urgent payments in a 12-month period. This limit will be removed.

Instead, other safeguards will be implemented to ensure people still have enough funds on their usual payment delivery day to cover their regular expenses.

These safeguards will include limiting the payment amount to a maximum of between $20 to $200, and up to 50% of the person's accrued entitlement (whichever is lower) after any deductions (such as Centrepay) or repayments have been accounted for.

People who access a high number of urgent payments will also be offered personalised support. This could include referrals to financial counselling services and social work services, as well as alternative payment arrangements like weekly payments and Centrepay.

The Government has increased funding for frontline emergency relief and financial wellbeing services by 25%. These services are a lifeline when people are doing it tough.

And we've expanded our No Interest Loans Scheme, with more than $48 million over five years supporting people and families on low incomes. This gives them access to safe, fair Joans with no interest, no fees, and no charges. Every year, around 25,000 of these loans help Australians cover essential expenses without falling into debt traps.

Finally, the bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to clarify the legal basis for the operation of employment income attribution provisions, which support the determination of a person's rate of social security payment.

In particular, these amendments will clarify that these provisions apply to the employment income of a social security recipient's partner, for the purposes of income testing that recipient, and that the provisions apply at any time employment income is being assessed for the purposes of working out a recipient's rate of pension or benefit.

These amendments will uphold long-established policy intent and practice. They will ensure there is no ambiguity around how employment income, particularly partner income, should be assessed when determining a recipient's rate of payment.

Together, the amendments in this bill improve the fairness and effectiveness of our social security safety net and ensure there is legislative clarity in how the social security system supports people when they need it most.

_____

VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES NO 2) BILL

I move: That this bill be now read a second time

I am pleased to introduce the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No 2) Bill.

This Bill continues our government's response to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and furthers the implementation of a simpler veterans entitlement system. The Bill before us today complements the amendments made in the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No 1) Bill that was introduced to Parliament on 29 October 2025.

Positioning

In September, I came to the house to give an update on the important work underway to enact the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

The passage of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 (the VETS Act) earlier this year, is one part of the Albanese Government's response to these recommendations in indeed in response to the Royal Commission's Interim Report.

The VETS Act will simplify veteran legislation from 1 July 2026 and do away with the current tri-Act system. From 1 July 2026 all veterans' rehabilitation and compensation claims will be dealt with under a single piece of legislation, the new and improved Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004, also known as the MRCA.

To be ready for 1 July 2026 and to ensure all the great work that is coming out of the VETS Act is in place in time, there are some minor technical amendments that are required.

What is it?

This Bill proposes number of minor technical amendments to veterans' legislation.

These amendments will help to ensure the smooth implementation of these reforms and the transition from the complicated tri-Act arrangement to the single ongoing Act.

These changes do not change the key settings agreed to with the passage of the VETS Act.

This Bill is about good government and effective implementation.

Overview of the bill

Each amendment has been carefully considered to ensure the original policy intent from the VETS Act is enacted. There are no surprises in this Bill.

The Bill will make amendments to require the Veterans' Review Board (VRB) to notify the Chief of Defence Force (CDF) when a serving member makes an application for a review and the outcome of a review.

It will also make amendments to remove any requirement that applications for VRB-related travel expenses be communicated to the VRB.

The Bill will amend recovery provisions to provide legal authority to subtract any amount already paid under the VEA from any MRCA arrears payable to a dependant for the equivalent benefits for the same period.

The Bill clarifies the circumstances under which a partner may receive additional lump sum compensation for service-related death claimed on or after 1 July 2026, and ensures that this amount is available in respect of all service-related deaths on or after this date.

The Bill will clarify that the high rate (maximum $14,990) of funeral compensation under MRCA is available to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria, even if they also meet the criteria for the low rate ($3,000), and that combined total compensation cannot exceed the maximum payable.

The Bill will ensure that veterans who meet the criteria for Additional Disablement Amount (ADA) or Special Rate Disability Pension (SRDP) do not need to meet additional criteria to enable their eligible children to access education assistance through the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (MRCAETS).

Likewise, the Bill Clarify that Gold Cards are provided to ADA-eligible veterans without requiring them to meet additional criteria, and amend the Service Pension criteria so that the partners of ADA-eligible veterans (after 1 July 2026) are eligible for Partner Service Pension from age 50, to harmonise with the current eligibility/age requirements available to partners of Extreme Disablement Amount (EDA) veterans under the current framework.

The Bill will make amendments to continue to exclude the Victoria Cross Allowance and Decoration Allowance from income test arrangements.

The Bill makes clear the coverage for conditions resulting from unintended consequences of treatment provided or paid for by Defence during service, or later by DVA.

Lastly, the Bill makes amendments to ensure existing access to Non-Liability Health Care (NLHC) arrangements for serving members are maintained when transferred from VEA to MRCA, and maintain the current ability to notify the CDF when a serving member claims for or is accessing NLHC.

I want to reiterate mine and the Department of Veterans' Affairs commitment that no veterans or veteran family members will experience a reduction in the payments they are already receiving.

These technical amendments ensure that all the legislative requirements are in place so that the shift to the improved MRCA is seamless for veterans and their families receiving services. The exceptional treatment, payments and benefits they receive will continue, interrupted, from 1 July 2026 onwards.

Conclusion

The VETS Act is the most significant reform to how we support veterans in a century.

These amendments are evidence we want to get this right.

This Bill will continue to make it easier for veterans and families to know what they are entitled to and faster for the Department of Veterans' Affairs to process claims.

Whilst the amendments contained in this Bill are minor, they are critical to ensuring the intent of the VETS Act and the smooth delivery of services continues and is ready for 1 July 2026. We are committed to getting this right for veterans and veteran families.

Further details are included in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

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

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING CHOICE IN SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2025

This Bill introduces a number of important reforms to the superannuation and tax laws to implement our election commitments, streamline systems and processes and reduce compliance costs for taxpayers.

Schedule 1 to the Bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during employee onboarding.

Australians deserve to make an informed choice about their superannuation fund when they start a new job.

'Stapling' was introduced to ensure employers pay super contributions to an employee's existing super fund if they do not make a choice. If an employee does not make a choice of fund, their employer can request stapled fund details from the ATO to pay contributions to. This prevents employees unintentionally opening new superannuation accounts every time they start a new job.

This amendment provides greater flexibility for employers, or their agents, to request an employee's existing stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. That way, if a stapled fund exists, the employer can provide those details to the employee during onboarding to help inform their choice of fund.

This amendment supports the Government's commitment to empower employees to make informed choices by making it easier to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job, if they choose to do so. As under existing choice of fund rules, employees will still be able to choose any available super fund.

This amendment supports the Government's commitment to reduce unintended duplicate accounts, which can erode retirement savings through duplicate fees and insurance premiums. It will also give employers more timely and accurate superannuation details, supporting their readiness for the Government's Payday Super reforms.

Schedule 2 to the Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exceptions.

Australians deserve protection from inappropriate advertising when they provide their superannuation details to an employer during onboarding.

A review of the Your Future, Your Super laws uncovered inappropriate behaviour where software providers are undermining stapling and directing employees towards advertised products, including those associated with the software provider. The Government committed to stop this inappropriate behaviour.

This amendment introduces a ban on advertising superannuation products to an employee, specifically at the point of employee onboarding when starting a new job. This is a key moment when employees engage with their superannuation and should be able to do so in an informed and safe way.

The following exceptions will apply so that only certain types of superannuation products can be shown or advertised to employees:

MySuper products are default superannuation products which are subject to strict regulation and the annual performance test. And the condition to show an employee their stapled fund is an important consumer protection that will provide the necessary information and context to make a better-informed decision.

The ban also does not apply to a person advertising in the ordinary course of business.

The Government has consulted with stakeholders on this amendment and there was broad support for the changes and an understanding of the benefits that superannuation stapling brings to reducing unintended duplicate accounts.

By requiring stapling as a condition of advertising a MySuper product during onboarding, the Bill strikes the right balance in giving employees as much transparency as possible while providing flexibility for service providers to ensure their systems are ready, and aligns with the implementation of Payday Super. This amendment reinforces the Government's commitment to supporting Australians to make an informed choice about their superannuation while providing strong consumer protections. It will protect employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, open inappropriate products and unintentionally create duplicate accounts. As under existing choice of fund rules, employees will still be able to choose any available super fund.

Schedule 3 provides targeted tax exemptions to help Australia host the men's and women's Rugby World Cup in 2027 and 2029.

These games aren't just two events on a calendar.

They're part of a long national tradition of hosting sports that brings people together.

World Rugby chose Australia in 2022 for a good reason.

We're a country that competes.

The men's and women's World Cups will draw hundreds of thousands of international visitors, fill hotels, put bums on seats in our pubs and restaurants, pack out stadiums, and showcase Australia on the world stage in the lead-in to Brisbane 2032.

The amendments provide income-tax exemptions for event delivery companies and joint-venture partners, and a withholding-tax exemption for certain payments to foreign entities through to 30 June 2031.

These settings align with what we've put in place for other major global sporting events hosted here, including the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC T20 World Cup. They're critical to ensuring Australia remains a competitive and attractive destination for global events.

Schedule 4 puts Australia's new tax treaty with Portugal into law, adding to the attractiveness of Australia as an investment destination.

This is the first agreement of its kind between our countries. It opens the door to deeper commercial, investment and innovation links by cutting withholding-tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties. That means fewer tax barriers, cheaper access to foreign capital and stronger incentives for Australian and Portuguese businesses to invest.

It also strengthens tax integrity. The treaty reinforces the Albanese Government's agenda to ensure multinationals pay their fair share by enabling information-sharing between tax authorities and improving cooperation on debt collection. That reduces opportunities for evasion and avoidance and helps protect the Australian tax base.

Schedule 5 to the Bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the following entities as deductible gift recipients:

Specifically listing an organisation encourages philanthropic giving and supports the not-for-profit sector as donors may claim income tax deductions for donations to organisations with DGR status.

To maintain trust and integrity in the DGR system, the schedule also removes entities that have either voluntarily requested removal or no longer operate for the purpose for which they were originally provided DGR status.

Mr Speaker, I finish with a topic close to my heart.

Wine.

When we introduced legislation last month to freeze draught beer excise increases, we wanted the rest of the alcohol industry to know there was a place in our hearts and our bellies for them too.

Schedule 6 delivers on the Albanese Government's 2025-26 Budget commitment to provide tax relief for Australia's wine producers.

Currently, all eligible wine producers can receive a rebate of Wine Equalisation Tax up to a cap of $350,000. These changes will increase the cap to $400,000 per financial year, from 1 July 2026.

And we didn't stop at wine.

Through regulations, we're making matching changes for brewers and distillers too. From 1 July 2026, the excise remission cap for eligible alcohol manufacturers will also rise from 350,000 dollars to 400,000 dollars a year for beer and spirits entered for home consumption. That keeps support for wine, beer and spirits in step.

Together, these changes back local producers, keep money flowing through regional towns, and support investment and jobs.

In the spirit of these changes, I welcome recommendations of your favourite drop.

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

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 4 March 2026.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

by leave—I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE   IN THE 2026 AUTUMN SITTINGS

ROYAL COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT (PROTECTIONS FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill will provide protections for persons—including current and former officials—who wish to provide information to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. It will also clarify the authority for Commonwealth agencies to produce information to assist the Royal Commission, despite the operation of other laws.

Reasons for Urgency

Passage of the Bill in the 2026 Autumn sittings is required to ensure that all relevant information is available to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, including for the purposes of its interim report, which is due to the Governor-General by 30 April 2026.

(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Royal Commissions are the highest form of independent inquiry in Australia, and as such, it is important they have strong powers and immunities available to complete their work.

Accordingly, this Bill will establish a framework for Royal Commissions to receive and handle operationally sensitive and intelligence information.

The framework will be an enduring one and will be available to Royal Commissions prescribed by regulations.

Right now, the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion is examining critical matters related to national security, intelligence operations, and law enforcement.

To investigate and report on these matters of national importance, it is necessary for the Royal Commission to have access to complete and candid information.

Potential witnesses who wish to voluntarily provide relevant information to the Royal Commission should be supported to do so within an appropriate framework—without the concern that they may be breaking other laws by cooperating.

The Parliament needs to support them to tell the Royal Commission what it needs to know.

The Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 strengthens this essential flow of information.

It ensures that people can assist this and future Royal Commissions with clarity and confidence, and without fear of penalty.

Current challenges

Secrecy offences play an important role in protecting our national security and other critical national interests.

But currently, secrecy provisions across Commonwealth legislation, especially those relating to intelligence and law enforcement, may deter people from sharing information that is essential to the Royal Commission's work.

Uncertainty about the application of secrecy offences—which can carry significant criminal penalties—can deter potential witnesses and have a chilling effect on evidence.

There is a clear and pressing need to ensure that all people, including current and former officials and members of the community, can assist a Royal Commission freely and without fear of prosecution.

The framework in the Bill delivers that certainty.

This Bill is in two parts. Firstly, the Bill amends the Royal Commissions Act to:

The Bill also amends the Criminal Code to introduce a new defence to general Commonwealth secrecy offences, where the person provided the information to a Royal Commission. This new defence will apply to this current and all future Royal Commissions.

Protection from liability

The Billcreates a clear, safe pathway for the disclosure of intelligence information and operationally sensitive information to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

The amendments to the Royal Commissions Act provide immunity from secrecy offences where a person discloses intelligence information or operationally sensitive information, in accordance with an approved arrangement.

The relevant arrangements will be agreed between the Royal Commission and the Commonwealth. They will govern how information is obtained, stored, used and disclosed, and will be publicly available. Where a person follows the processes set out in these arrangements, the immunity will be available.

This ensures intelligence and operationally sensitive information is handled safely, while enabling the Commission to carry out its statutory functions.

In addition to the immunity from secrecy offences, the Bill provides further safeguards for someone who brings information forward.

The Bill prevents both the information itself, and the fact that a person provided it, from being admitted as evidence against that person in civil or criminal proceedings relating to secrecy offences.

This complements existing protections in the Act for witnesses, and reiterates the important principle that people should not face prosecution for coming forward to a Royal Commission.

Reasonable excuse

At present, some individuals may rely on secrecy provisions to decline to provide documents or information where a Royal Commission requires it.

The Bill amends the Royal Commissions Act to ensure secrecy provisions cannot be used as a reason to refuse to comply with a requirement to provide evidence from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.

This new rule will apply to intelligence and operationally sensitive information subject to an arrangement between the Royal Commission and the Commonwealth.

Defence in the Criminal Code Act 1995

The Bill also makes complementary amendments to the Criminal Code, which will apply to this and future Royal Commissions.

The Bill creates a defence to general secrecy offences, where a person communicates or deals with relevant information for the purpose of communicating it to a Royal Commission.

This amendment implements recommendation 6 of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and part of recommendation 7 of the Attorney-General's Department's 2023 Review of Commonwealth Secrecy Provisions.

This amendment also treats Royal Commissions in the same way as courts, tribunals and integrity agencies, which attract similar defences in the Criminal Code.

Purpose of the protections

These new protections are carefully calibrated.

They do not shield individuals from liability for other criminal conduct, nor do they enable improper disclosure of sensitive information outside the Royal Commission's remit, or outside of mutually agreed processes for that information to be provided.

The amendments are balanced to ensure that those who come forward to share information in good faith and in accordance with established processes, whether voluntarily or under compulsion, are not exposed to criminal liability for doing so.

Conclusion

The Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 establishes an important framework for Royal Commissions to receive and handle operationally sensitive and intelligence information.

It will provide certainty for people who hold such information about the process for providing it to support the Royal Commission's important work, and extend clear protections and immunities to them.

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which is shown at item 15 of today's Order of Business:

That the US and Israeli attack on Iran is contrary to international law, that Australia is in breach of international law both by supporting this war and permitting US bases in Australia to support this war, and that as a middle power Australia must work with like minded countries around the world to uphold international law.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

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

That the US and Israeli attack on Iran is contrary to international law, that Australia is in breach of international law both by supporting this war and permitting US bases in Australia to support this war, and that as a middle power Australia must work with like minded countries around the world to uphold international law.

We hear a lot from the Albanese government and from Foreign Minister Wong about international law and breaches of international law when it's countries other than the United States and Israel breaching the law. You can go back barely a week ago and Minister Wong clearly called out Russia's attacks on Ukraine and pointed out that, for four years now, Russia has been in breach of international law in its attacks on Ukraine. She's right when she says that. But, astoundingly, when it comes to the illegal war by Trump and Netanyahu on Iran, we have Minister Wong—the same minister who can call out the illegality of Russia's invasion—say, 'The legal basis of this is for the United States and Israel to explain.' What a duck and cover! What an avoidance strategy that is from the Albanese Labor government! They obviously would never say that about Russia, because that would be an obscenity to say. Are you going to let Russia decide whether or not its attack on Ukraine is in breach of international law? We don't. We say it loudly. We say it clearly. But the Albanese government is so scared of their so-called ally Donald Trump and so scared to offend Benjamin Netanyahu that they won't even engage in it.

All the while, we see the US making it clear that this war is illegal. Not even 24 hours ago, the US Secretary of War said in relation to their illegal war on Iran:

No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win, and we don't waste time or lives.

He's saying it clearly. The war is being engaged in illegally. We know it's based on a lie—the so-called threat to the US and the lies about the imminent nuclear threat. It's the most blatant lie, and, unlike with the war in Iraq, there's not even been a vague effort from Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu to try and pretend this is legal.

Then we get told that Australia has no part in it. We know Australia has hundreds of ADF troops stationed with the US right now across different US commands. There's not a single word from the defence minister about instructions being given that they're to be pulled out of the line and that they're not to be used in this US war. We also note—because the Albanese government has been trumpeting it—that there are scores of Australians currently serving in frontline duties on US nuclear submarines, including ones that are engaged in missile strikes in Iran. Why will the government not tell us the truth? Because it is embarrassing and inconvenient for them to point out it's an illegal war and Australia is in it up to its neck.

Then we get the doublespeak on Pine Gap. The constant refrain from the Albanese government, like the coalition and One Nation, is that the Australian public should know nothing; they should be mushrooms when it comes to finding out what happens in Pine Gap. We get this specious line of argument that Australian troops are not directly involved in the war through Pine Gap. But Australian troops and personnel keep Pine Gap running. Pine Gap runs as an integral part of the US's global war-making machine, and Pine Gap is being used right now to target bombs and killing in Iran. Anything the government says to the contrary of that is a plain, bold faced lie. Be honest with the Australian people.

The Albanese government should say they don't care whether the war is illegal or not and don't care if the rules of law and engagement are being breached, because Donald Trump has told them to do it, and they're just going to meekly follow. What a disgrace—what a betrayal of the national interest.

I rise to briefly put on the record again the coalition's position in relation to this issue. I understand the Greens have a principled and consistent position which is antiwar. Nonetheless, I thought a significant omission from Senator Shoebridge's five-minute speech was that he didn't even attempt to wrestle with the difficult choices required when making decisions about whether to go to war or not and didn't even contemplate for a second on the public record the crimes of the Iranian regime.

The crimes of the Iranian regime are significant. They are crimes they have committed against their own people, crimes they have committed against their neighbours and crimes they have committed against Australia. Let's start with Australia because this is the Australian Senate and we're concerned with Australia's national interest. We now know, courtesy of assessments of our own intelligence agencies, that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Iranian regime is responsible for at least two acts of state sponsored terror on Australian soil targeting our Jewish community. The firebombing of the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne plus the attack on the Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney have been assessed to be the responsibility of Iran. Our intelligence agencies say that at least those two attacks were masterminded, paid for and coordinated by the Iranian regime but that many of the other attacks over the last two years in this country targeting the Jewish community might have also been the responsibility of the Iranian regime. That's one reason why Australia should be supportive of the US and Israel's action against Iran.

Of course, Iran is a destabilising actor, particularly in the Middle East. It is the world's largest state sponsor of terror. It has used proxies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to do incredible damage across the Middle East, including to civilian targets. It is responsible for countless civilian deaths across the Middle East carried out by its terror proxies, which it arms, equips, trains and directs. This is a significant crime of the Iranian regime.

But perhaps the worst crimes of the Iranian regime are the crimes they perpetrated against their own people. In their 47 years of history they have engaged in horrific repression of their own people—horrific repression of ethnic and religious minorities, horrific repression of political dissidents and horrific repression of women. It is very significant that much of the protests in recent years in Iran have been under the banner of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement, which was started in response to the horrific killing of Mahsa Amini, a woman who refused to be veiled, contrary to the Islamic dictates of the ayatollah's regime. She was brutally and violently murdered for the crime of refusing to wear a headscarf, and thousands if not millions of Iranians have marched in her name ever since.

We know that, in recent months, tens of thousands of those people have been, according to credible media reports and human rights organisations, cruelly and coldly murdered by that regime, the IRGC in particular, and by other religious enforcers of that regime. This is a despicable regime and one that does not deserve any sympathy at all from any Australian, much less from the Senate, and I would have thought that, in a contribution about international law and the rights and wrongs in this war, Senator Shoebridge would at least mention that, as some of his Greens colleagues have in the past, recognising the horrific crimes that have been perpetrated against the Iranian people.

I think it's also significant, if you look at the reaction from the Iranian diaspora in Australia—it is not uniform, but it is almost uniform, almost unanimous—that they have reacted with unprecedented joy and celebration at the Israeli-US strikes against this regime. Look at the protests in the streets. Any senator who's received any correspondence from the Iranian community in Australia would know that overwhelmingly they welcome the strikes on the regime. They are very clear. These are the people who've had to live under this regime. These are the people who have had to flee this regime. These are people who've had to find a home in our country. And they that say it is a good thing that the United States and Israel have taken this action, that it is a good thing that the Ayatollah and his henchmen have been removed from power.

I think we have an obligation to listen carefully to that community, to listen carefully to those voices, particularly when they are so unanimous and so overwhelming. There are difficult choices to be made by nation states in times like this. I think it is the right thing—and that is even before we get to the degradation of the nuclear and ballistics program of this regime.

The armed conflict underway in the Middle East and in Iran creates a number of matters of urgency, both in that region and around the world. It is our hope that the people of Iran are able to reclaim their country and begin the process of rebuilding and recovery from the monstrous reign of Ayatollah Khamenei, who was part of an Iranian regime that engaged in oppression, atrocities and murder around the world.

Ayatollah Khamenei brutalised the people of Iran for decades. The brutality of that regime was evident in the systemic mass killing of protestors in the early part of 2026, with estimates of tens of thousands of people killed by that regime. Those crimes were broadcast all over the world, and they shocked the world. But they were emblematic of what this regime was willing to do to its own people in order to stay in power. Unlawful and mass killings were a common tool of the regime. It was a regime that killed protestors during the Woman, Life, Freedom protests in 2022, with reports of hundreds killed. The regime had used live ammunition against protestors before. In November 2019 it cracked down on protestors who were seeking their own freedom, seeking relief from the oppressions of the regime itself, and the estimated death toll on that occasion was more than 300.

In addition to the use of violence, the regime has cut off communications and internet access to millions in Iran to try to hide their atrocities and try to limit the ability of people to protest against the regime itself. The regime has tortured and abused prisoners, including political prisoners. It has deliberately blinded and maimed Iranian citizens and has routinely executed those it regarded as its opponents, those it took into custody as political prisoners, and an array of others who were arbitrarily selected for violence by this regime.

The regime has created a culture of fear within Iran, and its citizens have not known freedom for generations. The regime has also sponsored and fomented terrorism and violence around the world, including here in Australia. Senator Paterson referred to the two attacks, including that terrible attack on the Adass synagogue in Melbourne, a result of the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who were implicated in that attack, an antisemitic attack and an act of state sponsored terrorism.

As Prime Minister Albanese has said, the Iranian regime has shown in recent days why it remains a threat to peace and stability in the region. It has engaged in a series of almost endless attacks, including against residential areas, areas frequented by tourists, and airports, which reduced the ability of people to leave those areas. We've seen it on the news. It's almost unthinkable, the extent to which they are arbitrarily and indiscriminately firing on different parts of the country and a range of different countries in the region.

The strikes against Iran were initiated and conducted by the United States and Israel, and the government supports acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and from continuing to threaten international peace and security in the region. The world has long recognised that Iran's nuclear program poses a threat to international peace and security and that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. That would be a disastrous outcome from a humanitarian and security perspective. We know that Iran has contravened its nuclear non-proliferation and safeguards obligations a number of times.

The government's priority is to keep the 115,000 or so Australians currently in the region safe. That is what the government's focus is. That's from the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade and the ministry down. We do not want to see a further regional escalation, and we condemn the attacks on civilians that the Iranian government has undertaken. As a good and active middle power, Australia is in contact with our international partners, including in the region, and is using every effort to help Australians who are stranded get back home.

We stand with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against an oppressive regime. Our thoughts are with all Australians impacted by those events, particularly those who have family and loved ones in the region, including me. We say that there are matters of urgency at stake here. Peace in the region is a matter of urgency. The end of a tyrant and the end of a repressive regime is a matter of urgency, and so is improving prospects for peace around the world.

I move:

That the question be put.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge be put. There being a division required, we'll defer that vote.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Duniam, as shown at item No. 15 on today's Order of Business:

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

The need for clarity and accountability regarding the Government's dangerous approach to the management of ISIS brides and their children, particularly in light of misleading public statements and the ill-advised adoption of a policy of self-managed returns.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

This is really a very important issue, and I'm pleased that I'm in the Senate to be able to make this contribution at this hour, despite the day that it has been. It is important to deal with this issue, and it's one we've been asking a lot of questions about but receiving no answers whatsoever from the government, who are doing the whole nothing-to-see-here trick about this very important matter that goes to the heart of national security and the heart of the integrity of our immigration and border protection system in this country.

The urgency motion that I have moved with the support of my colleagues is as follows:

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

The need for clarity and accountability regarding the Government's dangerous approach to the management of ISIS brides and their children, particularly in light of misleading public statements and the ill-advised adoption of a policy of self-managed returns.

Can I say that this is the big problem with the government's approach to these matters, the 'it's not our problem' approach. The fact is that they say that citizens have a right to a passport but then, by the same token, no measures are put in place to protect our country from any risk that may occur or appear on the part of an individual who's been to a declared area. For those listening at home, a declared area is a terrorist hotspot. Syria is a declared area, to which these so-called ISIS brides travelled. The fact that there is this hands-off approach to the security risk that these individuals may pose to our country is the problem.

This is why we have called on the government to not only answer questions—and we'll come to those a bit later on in my contribution—but also to adopt the legislation that we have proposed, which is to close the loophole around self-managed returns. Of course, there have been repatriations undertaken by governments of both colours, both the coalition when in government and the Labor Party in government. In 2019, we repatriated, as a coalition government, a group of orphans from this very area. It was a process that went through all of the appropriate intelligence processes. Security assessments were undertaken, and decisions were made based on full advice and information available to those authorities that provide government advice.

In 2022, similarly, the government repatriated adults and some children of this cohort to Australia. That was a decision by government. Now we have a situation where the government are saying, 'No, we're not going to assist, but we're happy for others to do so—for private individuals to repatriate people from a part of the world'—

The time for the debate has expired. I put the question. There being a division required, that will be deferred until a future date.

I'm a little bit out of breath. I ran from another meeting to get here. I was quite the sight, running across the courtyard in heels! On a more serious matter, I want to talk about community safety and confronting the environment in which hatred grows. Violence doesn't begin with a weapon. It begins with words. It begins with choosing to focus on what makes us different from each other rather than looking for our shared humanity. It begins with the normalisation of othering, the quiet everyday act of reducing a person to a single attribute, whether the colour of their skin, their faith or any other marker, and then assigning value or judgement on an entire group on that basis.

Racism grows when division is normalised. In the last week, we have seen distressing acts of racism reported by players of the Fitzroy Stars Football and Netball Club. We've seen Senator Hanson make abhorrent comments against Muslims. Her comments were outrageous, and they must not be normalised. Yet, just yesterday, the coalition refused to support the censure motion that named Senator Hanson explicitly.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Sure—not all of it, just the part that called her out.

Not all of us.

Not all of you. That is true. Thank you, Senator Scarr and Senator McLachlan. I want to acknowledge you both. It was disgraceful that this parliament couldn't come together in calling out Senator Hanson. Words absolutely matter. When people in positions of power speak in ways that exclude or target whole communities, it affects how people treat each other out in the community. We all have responsibility to call out racism and to build a culture of respect and inclusion, and, as parliamentarians trusted with shaping the country we live in, we cannot shirk away from that responsibility. When leaders lack the courage to draw a line, it sends another message—that this type of rhetoric is okay in our country. But we, this government, do not tolerate racism. It is never ever acceptable.

I am a First Nations woman. I know what happens when dehumanising language goes unchecked. When identity itself becomes grounds for suspicion or exclusion, the consequences are not abstract; they are real and they are generational. Community safety means more than responding to acts of violence after they occur. It means preventing the conditions that allow extremism to flourish. It means challenging vilification early, before it escalates from slur to threat, from threat to harm. Hatred does not start at the point of violence. It starts small—a stereotype repeated, a community scapegoated or a public figure amplifying fear for political gain. If we're serious about keeping all Australians safe—Jewish Australians, Muslim Australians, First Nations Australians, migrant communities—every single one, then antiracism work must be central to our national agenda. That includes education, strong community partnerships, countering online radicalisation, and leadership that is unambiguous in its defence of dignity and equality.

To every community that has felt targeted, you deserve to be safe. You deserve to feel safe. You deserve to be respected in this country that we all love. And, to this parliament, our responsibility is clear—not only to condemn hatred when it erupts but to prevent it from taking root and to call it out when we see it, without hesitation and even when it occurs in this building. We must stand for respect, dignity and inclusion. That's how we strengthen community safety, and that is absolutely how we strengthen our nation.

The Sturt River is a 27-kilometre-long stream that starts in the Adelaide Hills, breaks out of the escarpment and flows across the south-western Adelaide alluvial planes towards the Gulf St Vincent. With normal flows, it is a diminutive stream, not much more than a creek, but it carves its way through an ancient landscape that is the remnant of a once large mountain range.

The waterway is famous, at least to the geologist community, because the landscape offered early evidence of global glacial events. Long before engineers thought to tame its flow, this waterway carried deep meaning for the Kaurna people, who know it as Warripari, the windy place by the river. Today, the Warriparinga Living Kaurna Cultural Centre sits on a bend where the stream emerges from the hills and spills onto the plains.

This is the last point where it can still be recognised in its natural course, for, in the 1960s and 70s, misguided engineering saw its flows diverted into a concrete channel. The serpentine path of the river was buried and built over as if it never existed. In the process, ancient river redgums were destroyed along with Aboriginal cultural places and an entire river ecosystem. A flood dam was also built in the Sturt Gorge to protect the downstream urbanisation of the old floodplain.

The foolishness of our failed engineering solutions was eventually understood and acknowledged by the state government. Less than 20 years after this system had been built, in 1991, the state government strategic planning document for Adelaide, entitled Vision 2020, was accompanied by plans to reverse engineer the system and help bring the river back to life. It was a bold plan driven by a sense of contrition and cautiously advised that it may take 30 years to implement. In the end, an off-stream wetland or two were built, but, disappointingly, nothing much else has happened since.

Now in 2026, we have a problem of continued urban flooding, a channel that is starting to structurally fail and polluted water still flushing into the sea. Intergenerational investment is needed to bring the stream back to life. While it may be too late to restore the river to its former natural beauty, we can still aspire to set it free, to revive its flows, to renew its spirit and to protect the flora and fauna that have survived. The community goodwill is there, but that will not be enough. We need a succession of ambitious governments to rise to the challenge and pursue the restoration.

I thank community leaders Corey Turner and Des Fowles for sharing with me their dream of releasing these waters from their concrete prison. As Corey rightly says: "The river needs room to breathe and to live. We have imprisoned her and made her and ourselves unhealthy." It is an incredibly ambitious project at a time when our society only talks of growth and not about the cost of such growth to our natural world. Warripari, the Sturt River, is an example of what unrestrained development inevitably delivers. Where nature is not at the heart of the decision-making, you bequeath your communities not a sustainable future but a pitiless dystopian landscape.

The potential sale of Army's Warradale Barracks, which sits alongside the river, offers the perfect opportunity to take the first step in reclaiming land for nature. I acknowledge that encouraging conversations across Adelaide are beginning. Corey and Des are at the forefront of them. It's time for nature to come first . It's time for us to right the wrongs of the past.

There is growing expert consensus around the world that the Trump-Netanyahu attack on Iran is illegal. The Greens condemn the illegal, abhorrent and unilateral attacks in Iran. It is clearly contrary to international law, and Australia is in breach of international law both in supporting this war and in permitting US bases in Australia to support it. We are an important middle power. We have a responsibility to work with other countries around the world to uphold international law. International law does not uphold itself. It does not withstand the bullying of US presidents unless countries like ours stand up against them.

History shows that we cannot bomb our way to peace. No-one can bomb their way to peace. We cannot bomb our way to democracy. How many times do we have to prove it? Like in every other war based on lies and contempt, it is citizens who pay the price of mad, militaristic kings, drunk on their own power, attempting to distract from their own domestic disasters. We've seen these lies before, just as we've seen the rubble before, just as we have seen the bodies before. We remember Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Millions of people died in these invasions, also based on falsehoods and false information. In each of those wars, we were 'all the way with the USA', and here we are again—and this time we're following Trump, who is at least honest in his contempt for international law or even for his own constitution. To claim that he is fighting for democracy in Iran when he holds democracy in such contempt in his own country defies belief. If you do not learn from history, you are bound to repeat it—and here we are, repeating the murder of innocent civilians based on lies and a failure to join with other countries to uphold international law.

It is truly incredible to me that this Australian Labor government was the first in the world to support Trump's illegal attacks. Like so many others, I listened in disbelief to the weasel words from Labor and the untruths about a nuclear threat. In Trump's State of the Union address, as we've heard many times in this place, he claimed that last year's strikes completely wiped out—obliterated—Iran's nuclear program. Yet Minister Wong said that these attacks were justified because they would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon—a false, fake shield that Minister Wong projects and constructs. What this means in reality is that powerful thugs are waging war on a false pretext while civilian women, kids, men and children pay the price. We've already seen hundreds of people killed in the bombings of primary schools, hospitals and more each day in this illegal war.

The Greens have consistently and clearly condemned the Iranian regime's violent response to recent protests and the long, murderous history of a brutal regime. We've backed the Women, Life, Freedom movement. But we know that the people of Iran, who have been the victims of this brutal regime, will be the same people who are right now being killed, injured and driven into further poverty and fear by US and Israeli bombing. The Labor government must immediately rule out Australian support for Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war—no resources, no intelligence, no more cover. We must work with like-minded countries to promote peace in the region and for the people of Iran. The Greens are the only anti-war party standing in this parliament against the parties of Labor, the coalition and One Nation. We will not shift from that stance against a war that is illegal, against a war that repeats history and makes civilians pay the price for people who are trampling on international law.

I rise to pay tribute to a beloved son, friend and young schoolboy, 16-year-old Chris Rua Antony, who was killed while walking home from school on 13 February. Chris was a year 11 student at Mazenod College in Mulgrave Victoria. He was the younger brother to his sister Auxilia and the only son to his grief stricken parents, Antony Francis and Agal, both teachers. He was so loved and respected for his 16 years that a memorial service held at his school on 23 February attracted over 1,200 people, many of whom had never met him. Not many grown-ups would attract such a crowd at their passing, but Chris did.

On the day of the accident, he was a mere 10-minute walk from home. Having come off the bus after his school's athletics carnival, he was struck from behind by a car driven by a 48-year-old woman. The car crossed two lanes of traffic on Pound Road, Narre Warren South, mounted the grassy verge, crossed a ditch and struck him before crashing into a large tree. Notably, the traffic travels down this road at 70 kilometres per hour and the footpath is only a few metres from the edge of the road, with no barrier to separate the two. When I walked this path myself, I felt vulnerable, too exposed to cars travelling at speed.

The tree where the incident occurred is now a shrine swathed in flowers, bearing witness to a tragedy, with plastic debris from the vehicle at its feet. With his last words to his father—'I'm close to home'—he was gone. His parents, driving past, saw the commotion and stopped to a harrowing scene: their son being resuscitated by a couple of tradies. The ambulance arrived soon after, and Chris was airlifted to the Alfred hospital, my former workplace, where he died some seven days later. Like a bolt of lightning on a sunny summer's day, this accident has left a family, community, friends and teachers shattered, an unimaginable grief that feels all-consuming. We are unable to process the senselessness of it all.

As parents, we raise our kids the best we can. We protect them, nurture them and mitigate risks as much as possible. But, when tragedy strikes, it feels unnatural because it is. The passing of a child feels like the laws of the universe, the laws of physics, the very laws of nature have been violated. Trying to process this takes me down a dead end of despair, so I instead choose to focus on Chris's life, characterised by engagement underpinned by an unshakable Catholic faith that ran like a golden thread through his life.

Chris loved rap music, artists like J Cole and Kanye—but, importantly, only Kanye's old stuff from 'back when he was good', Chris used to say. He played tennis for years at Hampton Park Tennis Club before recently moving over to play basketball with the Berwick Saints. Since receiving his communion, he dutifully served as an altar boy at Our Lady Help of Christians church, and he prayed the rosary every day since he was two years old—remarkable. During COVID, he took up the Rubik's Cube, teaching himself to solve it by watching YouTube videos. As a quick learner instilled with determination, Chris was able to get his solve time down from one minute 30 to just 30 seconds.

At school he excelled, studying most nights to 11 pm, saving his parents tutoring fees. Chris had aspirations to become an engineer, a desire reflected in his intricate and impressive Lego creations. Driven, kind and intelligent—these are the words Chris's father used to describe his son. A photo of Chris shows that he stands smiling in front of a photo and small statue of the youngest saint, Carlo Acutis, who died at 15 from leukaemia. The poignancy of this image is not lost on me. Chris was one year older to the youngest saint in the Catholic religion. He now has a friend in heaven, the best kind—God's pick, no less.

What is left now is unimaginable grief and loss, a void nothing can fill. Chris's parents have set up a GoFundMe page to support pedestrian safety and to aid in immortalising Chris's name through an educational scholarship. I ask our Victorian and, indeed, Australian community to wrap your arms around this family and his friends. Say his name: Chris Rua Antony. It will help recall his full humanity every time it is uttered. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. He rests now in the warm embrace of God.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, thank you for your beautiful tribute to Chris.

I rise to speak today on two matters—first on the Lakemba branch of the New South Wales division of the Liberal Party. I have been to Lakemba many times, and it is a vibrant part of Sydney. I am not afraid of going to Lakemba—in fact, I quite like going there—and I love the Lakemba branch of the Liberal Party. For the fourth consecutive year last week, I was a guest at their annual iftar dinner. It was a wonderful occasion filled with many members of the local community and elected representatives. These people came together from many different backgrounds and many different faiths. It was a great celebration of such a vibrant and important part of the multicultural tapestry that is Australia—multicultural Australia. I want to pay particular tribute to Mohammad Zaman, the president of the Lakemba branch; and his branch executive for their leadership in bringing people together. Mohammad is a hardworking and committed leader of the Bangladeshi Australian community.

This dinner reinforced for me the importance of respecting and understanding our differences and celebrating the things that unite us: a love of our country and its values, a fair go and, particularly, the freedom to practise our own faith. Just because something is different to what we know or understand does not mean that it is bad. We are a young country that has been built on the aspiration and hard work of those who have come here to create a better life, much like my own family, and that is something good. That is something to be proud of, and it is something to be protected.

I now turn to the CFMEU. Recently, Australians have rightly been shocked and disturbed by the further allegations about the CFMEU's corrupt and criminal conduct. In particular, what we have seen in Victoria is mind-boggling. Disturbing revelations of up to $15 billion of taxpayer funds being funnelled into corrupt and criminal enterprises rightly raise significant questions about just how much of a blind eye this government is turning to what is occurring right in front of them. This deliberate cover-up of cartel corruption demanded answers from the Albanese Labor government, but all we have seen is silence and equivocation, not just from the federal Labor government but from the Victorian state government as well.

This Labor government isn't interested in the truth, because their mates in the CFMEU are up to their eyeballs in what is going on here, and we all know that. Twice last year, I called on the Senate to establish an inquiry into the CFMEU. Twice, the Labor Party and the Greens teamed up to block any inquiry.

It's a protection racket.

Exactly. Why? Is it a coincidence that the two parties that blocked the Senate inquiry both receive financial contributions or donations from the CFMEU? I don't think it's a coincidence, but it's up to you to make up your own minds. Guess what? Australians have made up their minds. Just over a week ago, I launched a petition calling on Labor and the Greens to support a Senate inquiry into the CFMEU, because, if we can't convince them in this chamber, perhaps Australians can convince them, and guess what? In just over a week, we've received over 8,000 signatures, and that number is growing by the day.

The Australian people are fed up with this, and the Labor government should stop turning a blind eye to what is happening here. This is costing Australians more for the construction of homes in the housing shortage that we are seeing. This needs to stop, and the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds being funnelled into these rotten enterprises also needs to end.

Something that doesn't dominate national headlines but quietly shapes the future of our country is the transition of young Australians into adulthood. Across Tasmania—and, increasingly, across the nation—we are seeing pressures facing young people increase 10-fold: the rising cost of living, unrealistic housing markets, financial stress, mental health challenges and, for more than we care to admit, no lessons in independence.

For six years, one incredible Tasmanian has been working to do something practical about it. Through her organisation, Upturned Tasmania, Alyssia Kennedy has been delivering a life-after-school program that equips young people with the real-world skills they need to step into adulthood—not theory and not abstract advice but practical, scenario based learning about budgeting, taxes, super, responsibilities, employment and independence. It is a program built on a simple but powerful premise: if we prepare young people properly for adult life we can reduce financial stress, improve mental health outcomes and increase long-term employment and wellbeing. And it works. The proof is in the pudding and in the national recognition this program and its founder have received. In 2025, Alyssia became an ABC Trailblazer winner, finally recognised for the goals kicked over the last six years. This year—and I feel immense pride in saying this because she's a friend—she was deservedly announced as the 2026 Young Australian of the Year for Tasmania.

Those awards are simply a bonus to her. Alyssia tells me that the real success is felt through the people she helps. Recently a parent stopped to say thank you. His son had gone through the program and, for the very first time, understood the real cost of moving out of home and how to navigate that challenge. That realisation is invaluable, as it is the basis of living as an adult. He understood he could not rely indefinitely on the bank of mum and dad. He began planning, taking responsibility, thinking ahead. On another occasion, two young women approached her at the end of a session. They thanked Alyssia for giving them scenarios to think about—budgeting and problem solving. They left not just informed but empowered to take control of their lives and make the best of it. These stories are not isolated. The program has now been running for six years, and it continues to gain traction. Schools and communities are engaging. There is growing interest from Queensland, Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. This is grassroots impact with national potential.

Yet, despite its proven impact, this program operates without secure funding. To properly run and expand the program across Tasmania for the next two years, Upturned has asked for a modest funding amount of $600,000. That funding would not only help secure its delivery locally but also allow the potential for a structured trial interstate, laying the groundwork for national expansion. Let me be clear. This is not for a pilot program; it has been running successfully for six years. It is not asking whether there is demand; there is already interest interstate. It's not asking whether there is a need; the data on youth financial stress and mental health speaks for that. What it is asking for is backing.

Currently this work is done in the little spare time Alyssia has on the side of her full-time job. With appropriate support it could become a full-time gig with paid staff and continuity. Imagine the impact of having consistent, practical early intervention education for young people across Australia. Think of the benefits of equipping them before they fall into debt traps or disengage from education or employment and before financial stress spirals drive them into mental health crisis. Prevention is always more cost effective than response. If we're serious about reducing youth mental health challenges, increasing employment participation and improving long-term wellbeing, then we must support initiatives that intervene early and practically. Upturned Tasmania does exactly that. It's proven, it's community driven, and it is already inspiring young Australians to take responsibility for their futures.

I call on those in this chamber and those watching to not take this work for granted and instead support it and ensure its future as it ensures our young people's future, because, when we invest in young people's future, we are not just funding a program; we are investing in resilience, we're investing in independence, and we're investing Australia's future.

Australian schools are facing a growing crisis in principal recruitment and retention. Stress, burn-out and escalating workloads are driving inexperienced leaders out of the system and discouraging others from stepping up. One crucial yet under-recognised part of this pressure is the role that principals play in holding their school communities together, creating safe socially connected environments and supporting students with increasingly complex needs.

Just last week I had the absolute pleasure of meeting with researchers involved in an important national study examining this hidden reality: the emotional labour carried by government school principals. Led by the fantastic Professor Jane Wilkinson and Fiona Longmuir, the study undertaken by Monash University in collaboration with Deakin University and the University of Sydney reveals how principals are increasingly expected to manage physical threats, gendered violence and systemic neglect, often without adequate support or recognition. This is a really important study. Principals from 256 government schools shared their experiences as part of the study, and I thank all of those who participated.

What the researchers found will come as no surprise to the teaching community. Principals are no longer just seen as educational leaders. Increasingly, they and their teachers have become first responders. Managing violence, threats and abuse is becoming a normalised feature of school leadership, unfortunately. A 2022 analysis of workers' compensation claims found that educators claim for assault related injuries at a rate 74 per cent higher than the average and that their rate of mental health claims is 33 per cent higher. Over 64 per cent of principals described critical incidents involving physical violence, threats of violence, gendered violence, sexual harassment or sexual abuse. These incidents stem not only from students but from parents, staff and community members, and principals are left to manage not only the crisis but the aftermath on top of all of the other important work they do leading their schools.

The study also exposes clear gendered impacts. Female principals face disproportionate levels of harassment and gendered violence compounded by societal expectations of care and self-blame. Male principles meanwhile reported pressure to suppress vulnerability, reinforcing harmful norms that leadership must also appear stoic. This research matters because it makes visible what has too often been minimised or ignored. It provides an evidence base for change and a clear warning that, without better support, we risk losing the very leaders holding our public schools together.

Importantly, this study and their work are not finished. The research team will deliver a fourth report in 2026, looking at how our school systems can better recognise, support and protect principals and create thriving school communities through policy, legislation and funding. If we want strong, safe and connected public schools we must ensure the leaders at their centres are properly supported not just in policy but in practice.

This is why the government's investment in public education matters so deeply. The Albanese Labor government has reached agreements with every state and territory to put all public schools on a path to full and fair funding under the schooling resource standard. Investment in schools is not just about buildings, the curriculum or class sizes. It's about supporting the people who hold our school communities together every day. So I want to thank Jane and Fiona for their important work.

With my last remaining minute I want to briefly mention healthcare access in the electorate of La Trobe, in my home state of Victoria. Having two preteen sons, I am often made well aware that I can miss most of the up-to-date cultural references. Wuthering Heights and Heated Rivalryare all the rage now, apparently, but the thing that I'm genuinely excited about is the opening of the Pakenham Medical Urgent Care Clinic. It's at 17 John Street, just behind the Pakenham Marketplace, and is open seven days a week with extended hours. No appointment is required—just your Medicare card. This clinic is one of 137 Medicare urgent care clinics nationwide that provide free walk-in care for non-life-threatening injuries and illnesses, easing the pressure on our hospital emergency departments. As you've heard before, having more urgent care clinics means that four in five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of a Medicare urgent care clinic.

As Australians, we live in the greatest country in the world, and I'm lucky enough to live in the best place in this incredible country: South Australia. Last week I had the pleasure of visiting South Australia's Mid North, travelling to the regional towns of Whyalla, Port Augusta, Port Pirie and Clare. These towns are small, but they are the lifeblood of South Australia's economy and a critical cog in the engine of the national economy, with grain production, livestock, viticulture, mining, manufacturing, transport, logistics, tourism and so much more. Resilience often defines them but so does belief in a fair go, and that is not what they are feeling. The message to me, to this parliament and to the Albanese Labor government was clear: Labor's poor economic risk management is being felt deeply. People are reaching further into their pockets and working harder for less. Indeed, in question time today, the Labor Party told us today that wages had grown 3.4 per cent—noting that latest inflation figures hit 3.8 per cent. South Australia's gross state product for 2024-25 had grown only one per cent. The battle to get ahead, well, it's clear it's not for those Australians but it's not clear, clearly, for this government.

Along with the cost of everything going up under Labor, so too is the number of new insolvencies in South Australia. Insolvency increased year on year from 245 in 2022 to 691 in 2025. The numbers do not lie. It is an economic disgrace and the reality follows that fewer employers result in fewer employees, less competition, less choice for South Australians, so stop ignoring it. Large- and small-business owners said they worry about the ever-increasing costs, more red tape and challenges of fewer people wanting to work on terms that suit their operations yet they forge on under Labor's failing economic plan.

Labor talks about flexibility but the reality is that it is not always workable, with more employees working fewer hours to make up a full shift means higher costs and more administration, making profit less achievable and reward for hard work harder. Aged-care costs, access to services, ageing infrastructure in need of investment and workforce issues were raised so often that it leaves you wondering: 'Labor, who are you listening to?' South Australia now has the highest average hourly rate for personal care in the nation at $113, and it costs more under Labor.

Since Labor's aged-care reforms took effect in 2025, older Australians have faced price increases of up to 40 per cent for some basic services. Advertised fees have included $180 an hour for a shower, $290 for a gardening and $320 for a registered nurse. Older Australians are being forced to make unreasonable choices: Can I afford a shower? Can I afford nutritious food or that medical appointment or that allied health response? These are terrible choices for already vulnerable people.

Aged-care package provision is worse under Labor. As of 31 December 2025, more than 131,000 older Australians were waiting for a Support at Home package. That is resounding demand and unmet need for better services or, in some cases, any service at all. Instead, Labor—state and federally—is prioritising sporting events, high-speed rail and it is funding programs with little evidence or demonstration of outcomes that have improved.

At the other end of the live spectrum, one of the best visits I had on that trip was seeing a partnership between the Adelaide Crows and Workskill Australia through the Kuwa Circles Program, empowering young locals to pursue STEM through mentoring workshops and job-ready training. In Port Augusta there were 13 graduates, with some choosing not to go to graduation because they were at their new jobs. I applaud you for choosing work over welfare and I wish you well on your workforce journey. I thank workers at Iron Duke mine, aged-care providers right across the mid-north, Umeewarra Media, Bungala Aboriginal Corporation, regional business in Port Augusta and Regional Development Australia for taking the time to speak to me and for your honesty about where you are at.

The coalition is focused on protecting our way of life and restoring living standards. We will continue focusing on ensuring our regions get the investment, attention and respect they deserve because a stronger regional Australia means a stronger Australia.

I'd like to speak tonight about a young Australian man whose life ended far too soon and about a silent killer that too few Australians know about. This young man was also named Matthew James Canavan. He shared my name, but he's not related to me. Matthew was just 26 years old when he died suddenly in his sleep in August last year. He was young and active, he had a job, he was loved, and he had his whole life ahead of him. Matthew died from severe atherosclerosis, caused by elevated lipoprotein(a), known as Lp(a). It's a largely genetic and often undetected cardiovascular risk factor. I became aware of Matthew's story through a deeply personal letter from his father, Bernard. Bernard wrote to me not only because Matthew and I share the same name but also because he does not want another family to experience the devastation his family now lives with every day.

Most Australians have never heard of Lp(a). I suspect many in this chamber have not heard of it. Yet elevated Lp(a) is estimated to affect around one in five people worldwide, and many millions of Australians may carry this risk. It is inherited. It is not caused by lifestyle, it cannot be lowered by diet or exercise, and, in most cases, it is never tested for. A simple blood test can identify elevated Lp(a). In most people, it only needs to be tested once in their lifetime, as levels are genetically determined. Yet Lp(a) testing is not routinely included in standard cholesterol screening in Australia.

Matthew appeared healthy. Like many young Australians, he had no reason to believe that he was at risk of advanced cardiovascular disease. Traditional cholesterol tests can appear normal even when Lp(a) levels are dangerously high. A person can do everything right—they can eat well, exercise and avoid smoking—and still carry this hidden genetic risk. Elevated Lp(a) significantly increases the likelihood of permanent heart disease, stroke and aortic valve disease. It accelerates plaque build-up in arteries, sometimes at a very young age. While there is currently no approved therapy in Australia for Lp(a), promising treatments are in advanced clinical trials internationally. More importantly, early identification allows doctors to manage overall cardiovascular risk more aggressively through monitoring, preventive medications and tailored medical care.

This is not about creating unnecessary alarm, but it is about providing Australians with information about risk factors that many simply do not know exist. We promote awareness around skin cancer, breast cancer and bowel cancer. We have strong public health campaigns around the dangers of heart disease, diabetes and smoking. Yet a condition affecting approximately one in five Australians remains largely invisible.

There are a number of practical steps that Bernard suggested in his letter to me: first, reviewing the current cardiovascular screening guidelines to assess whether Lp(a) testing should be incorporated into standard lipid panels at least once in adulthood, particularly for those with a family history of early heart disease; second, increasing public awareness so Australians can have informed discussions with their GPs; third, ensuring that, as emerging therapies become available, Australia is prepared to evaluate and adopt them promptly and equitably.

Cardiovascular disease remains one of the leading causes of death in our country. Prevention must remain a priority. Preventive health care is not only humane; it is economically responsible. The cost of a single blood test is minor compared to the cost of emergency cardiac care, long-term treatment and lives cut tragically short. In cases like Matthew's, the heartbreaking reality is that, unless someone knew to test for Lp(a), chances are there was just no warning.

I want to thank Bernard for writing to me. By sharing his son's story, he has given this parliament and me an opportunity to consider with a greater awareness how early testing could prevent similar tragedies. I have written to the Minister for Health and Ageing asking him to consider Bernard's practical suggestions that may help save lives. We can't prevent every loss, but, where there is a simple test available and where awareness is low, we do have a responsibility to examine whether our system is doing enough. I honour Matthew's memory by ensuring his name is spoken in this chamber. He was a son, he was a friend, and he was a young man with a future that should have been long and full. If increased awareness of Lp(a) leads to even one Australian seeking to test, discover and take preventive care in time, then Matthew's story will have made a difference. Thank you again, Bernard, and my sincerest condolences to you and your family for the tragic loss of your son.

I rise to speak about the Albanese Labor government's ongoing collusion with activists and fundamentalists to offer a welcome mat to terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. The first duty of any government—its most basic responsibility—is to protect its people and protect its country, not to manage headlines or appease activists. A government must, first and foremost, keep Australians safe. Everything else is secondary.

This government needs to stop treating those Australians who travelled overseas to join ISIS as just a political issue or another humanitarian dilemma. These are women who made a choice: to side with terrorists over their fellow Australians. They weren't dragged out of Australia in chains or tricked into going on a holiday. They consciously chose to repudiate Australia and its values and join a terrorist organisation hell-bent on subjecting everyone to their particularly nasty brand of religious fundamentalism. In doing so, these women supported an organisation that beheaded civilians, enslaved women and glorified mass murder. By making that choice, they didn't just travel overseas; these women rejected Australia. They rejected our laws, they rejected our values, and they rejected the idea that disputes are settled through democratic processes rather than through violence.

Australian citizenship should not be a one-way transaction. It is not something you can opt in and out of depending on convenience. Citizenship is a commitment. It is an agreement that says, 'We might disagree, we might argue, but we accept the same basic rules: the rule of law, democracy and equality before the law, including equality between men and women.' If you fundamentally reject those principles, then you're rejecting the foundation of society itself.

We keep hearing from Labor's activist friends that Australia has an obligation to bring these people back so that they can be dealt with here, and I understand that argument. But I don't accept that it overrides the government's responsibility to protect the public. This isn't about punishment or revenge; it's about risk—real risk. No amount of screening or monitoring can eliminate it. No-one can honestly guarantee that someone who once embraced a violent extremism has truly abandoned it. Hope is not a security policy, and good intentions are not a safeguard.

This debate raises an even broader issue we've been avoiding for too long. Australia works as a diverse society because we insist on a shared civic culture—not a shared ancestry and not a shared religion. We share values: democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and equality. Those values are the glue that holds everything together. Acceptance of those values should be the non-negotiable requirement for anyone seeking Australian citizenship or seeking to keep the full protections of it—not vague statements or carefully worded promises made under pressure but genuine acceptance. If someone rejects democracy, they should not expect to benefit from it. If they reject the rule of law, they should not demand its protection.

This is not about race, and it is not about peaceful religious belief. Millions of Australians of all faiths live within our laws, respect our institutions and contribute enormously to this country. They are not the problem; the problem is Islamic extremism and the refusal to accept the basic rules of a liberal democracy.

This is where the government need to stop fooling themselves. Social harmony doesn't come from pandering to fundamentalists who openly reject Australian values. It doesn't come from endless concessions or pretending that all belief systems are compatible with a democratic society. It comes from clarity, firmness and a willingness to say no. If this government is serious about cohesion, it needs to put Australians' interests first without apology; it needs to defend our values clearly, not nervously; and it needs to accept that protecting a society sometimes means drawing hard lines. Australia can be fair without being foolish, and it can be compassionate without being reckless. That's not extremism; that's responsibility, and we expect to see that from this Labor government.

I rise to speak about the remarkable achievements of the Brain Institute in Brisbane. This institute stands at the forefront of brain health research, setting new standards in discovery and innovation not only within Australia but globally.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with a team of researchers in Brisbane, and it was such a revealing and engaging experience to talk about dementia, stress, anxiety, depression, MND, Parkinson's and other brain related diseases. The institute's vision and dedication have placed it among the top research centres globally, driving breakthroughs that shape the future of neuroscience. Under the stewardship of the passionate researchers and clinicians, the institute remains steadfast in its mission to improve brain health for all Australians and beyond.

I was most fortunate to meet with so many passionate scientists and researchers. One of the institute's greatest strengths lies in its spirit of collaboration. By forging partnerships with universities, hospitals and research organisations throughout Australia and across the globe, the Queensland Brain Institute brings experts from diverse fields—neurologists, psychologists, biologists and engineers. These collaborations foster rich knowledge exchange and accelerate the translation of research findings into real-world outcomes. At the heart of the institute's work is a very deep curiosity and drive to answer fundamental questions about the brain—questions that hold the key to tackling devastating conditions like dementia, anxiety, depression, motor neurone disease or MND, Parkinson's and brain tumours. And who knows what other brain diseases and injuries will benefit from this research?

Innovative studies using model organisms such as worms, sheep and mice underpin much of the institute's research. These models provide crucial insight into neuron functions, disease progression and potential interventions. Of particular note are the groundbreaking experiments that have succeeded in removing harmful plaque from the brains of mice with dementia. This gives people who have been diagnosed with dementia and their families hope for the future. This work not only sheds light on the mechanisms of neurodegeneration but also opens the door to future treatments that may one day halt or reverse the course of Alzheimer's disease in humans. People have the mistaken belief that dementia and Alzheimer's only affect older people and are just part of getting old. That is not true. We need to educate the community. Children die from dementia. Early-onset dementia has an amazing impact not only on the person that is on that journey but on their family and on our economy.

The institute's focus extends to other critical challenges. Researchers are advancing our understanding of anxiety and depression—two conditions that affect millions of people and carry a heavy burden for individuals, families and our communities. In fact, they carry a heavy burden in our schools—in our primary schools, in our high schools and in our colleges. Through particular studies, the team is uncovering biological underpinnings of these disorders and identifying new strategies for early detection, intervention and support. Similarly, the institute's commitment to research into motor neurone disease and brain tumours is paving the way for hope.

These researchers are doing fundamental research that is so critical for them in going to the next level. It's inspiring to see these people's commitment and dedication. By exploring the genetic, cellular and environmental factors that contribute to these conditions, researchers are working tirelessly to develop treatments that extend and improve the quality of life. The institute is renowned for its innovative spirit and creativity. It's constantly pushing the boundaries of what is possible. One area of exciting progress is research into re-energising of the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell, by exploring ways to restore mitochondrial function to brain cells. Associate Professor Steven Zuryn is working with researchers and identifying methods to slow, prevent and even reverse neurodegenerative processes. I was actually able to view this remarkable work, and I never knew that worms have so much in common with human cells. They are the same. The research that he's doing is remarkable. To be able to marvel at the fluorescent worms that were there under the microscope that's being used in the institute—this was a scientist who actually did his PhD in looking at what happens in terms of the sprays and things that we use in agriculture, and now he's actually looking into ways to be able to reverse these types of diseases. It's remarkable.

Further to this is some very interesting gene therapy, including the idea and ability to turn cells on and off. It's truly mind-blowing research and development—cutting-edge science in Brisbane with the wonderful Professor Pankaj Sah, who is so passionate about his work.

Another area of promise lies in neuromodulation technology. The development and deployment of advanced neuromodulation machines allows scientists to stimulate and regulate brain activity with unprecedented precision. These tools offer new avenues for treating conditions ranging from depression to epilepsy, providing hope where traditional therapies may have fallen short. I was able to speak to the institute's leader in this field, Professor Jurgen Gotz. I was actually able to see this equipment in action, and what this technology can accomplish and will accomplish in the future is really amazing. To actually see the ultrasound machine and what it can do with the hope of reversing the symptoms of dementia and other brain diseases is inspiring.

The scanning ultrasound device is the outcome of years of research led by the CJCADR's director, Professor Jurgen Gotz, and his team. The trial device was co-designed with Tiller Design. In 2024, the QBI team completed the first human clinical safety trials. In 2025, the University of Queensland licensed the ultrasound pilot technology to Ceretas, a private country that intends to develop it to treat Alzheimer's disease. QBI continues to collaborate closely with Ceretas, providing scientific guidance and expertise to ensure research findings are translated safely and effectively.

In 2026, the QBI ultrasound research team will continue to progress its pivotal study, testing feasibility and efficacy, under the guidance of the professor and that team. The hope for Alzheimer patients means so much. When that machine goes into production—they're on the second version of it—it will mean that that will be affordable for hospitals and specialists so that we hopefully will be able, with early diagnosis, to turn back many of those symptoms. The clinical trial is supported by $4.5 million in funding from the Queensland government. The trial will elevate Ceretas's device for behavioural and psychological symptoms in Alzheimer's.

This work is so critically important because we know that dementia is now the leading cause of death in this country. There is so much work to do here. The help that it can, hopefully, give to children who are diagnosed with early-onset dementia—this sort of research is so critical and deserves the funding, and I wanted to give a big shout-out to the team. It was a bit like speed dating, going from one professor and one lab to another, and there was so much to learn. It's a shout-out to Australians' innovation and the global respect that is felt by Australian researchers.

I must say I was never any good at speed dating. I'm probably too longwinded. But I do admire Senator Polley's passion for this area and her consistent advocacy in relation to a whole range of matters dealing with brain health. I knew nothing about juvenile dementia until Senator Polley actually gave a presentation in the Senate, so I do warmly acknowledge her contribution in that regard.

I would like to congratulate the Crisafulli LNP government for delivering on their promises for the people of Ipswich. My office is located in the greater Ipswich region, and at the last state election the Crisafulli LNP government made a number of promises to the people of Ipswich, including to fund the business case for the second river crossing across the Bremer River in Ipswich. Notwithstanding the fact that the LNP was not successful in winning any seats in Ipswich, the Crisafulli LNP government is still delivering on its election promises for the people of Ipswich, including delivering on that important business case. So thank you to Premier David Crisafulli and the LNP team for delivering for the people of Ipswich.

We are currently in Ramadan. This is a month of fasting, communal prayer, reflection and community for our Australian Muslim community. I have attended a number of iftar dinners over the last week and a half. I'd like to acknowledge the Islamic College of Brisbane for their wonderful unity iftar dinner, which was hosted by the college and its CEO, Mr Ali Kadri. I'd like to acknowledge the school captains, who always inspire me. The students at the Islamic College of Brisbane always inspire me, so I want to give a big shout-out to them for the wonderful job that they did and to all of the school community for putting on a beautiful iftar dinner.

I'd also like to thank Her Excellency the Governor-General of Australia for hosting a wonderful iftar dinner at Admiralty House in Sydney, which I was delighted to attend in my capacity as co-chair of the Friends of SBS. I'd also like to acknowledge my fellow Queenslander Imam Akram Buks of the Slacks Creek Masjid, who was also in attendance from Queensland at that wonderful event. It was attended by faith leaders across all faiths, across all religions, and by community leaders from the Muslim community.

I also attended an iftar dinner hosted by the Bangladesh Association of Brisbane. The Bangladesh community is a wonderful community, and they provide medical personnel, doctors, nurses, IT specialists and engineers and contribute to Queensland and Australia in so many wonderful days. After that iftar dinner, I went to visit my friends at Algester mosque in Brisbane, who put on one of their wonderful community barbecues open to the whole community. The Algester mosque reaches out to the whole community and invites them to their iftar dinner, and they put on another magnificent barbecue, so I thank them.

What did you eat?

I ate too much, Senator Shoebridge! It was all good.

One of the iftar dinners I attended was hosted by the Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc. It was a very moving occasion, especially given the divisive comments which have been made by some over the course of the last month. The Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc was established by a wonderful Queenslander called Dr Mohammed Hussain. Dr Hussain studied as a doctor in Bangladesh. For many years, he worked in refugee camps, providing medical services to those most in need around the world. His professional conduct and the standard of his medical services so impressed the dean of the medical faculty in Newcastle that that professor invited him to come to Australia and Newcastle to work. He then served as a doctor in Newcastle, in Launceston and also in regional Queensland. The fact of the matter is that regional Queensland has benefited from many health practitioners who have the Muslim faith, and he served in Blackall for many years as a doctor. When he became a citizen he and his brothers and sisters got together and thought, 'How can we give back to this country?' He took that oath of citizenship, and his first act after taking that oath was to sit down with migrants who shared the Muslim faith and work out how they could get back to our beautiful country.

He established and is a co-founder of the Islamic Practice and Dawah Circle Inc, which provides extraordinary assistance to communities in need in Australia. They were there when the bushfires occurred. They were there during the COVID pandemic. They're there to give blood. They're there to provide training and assistance so people are given a hand up to enter the workforce. They're there in terms of recreation and sport. They're there to mentor the young and to assist the next generation.

One of the most moving events at that Iftar dinner was a contribution made by my dear friend Dr Zakaria Amin, who is a leader of a wonderful organisation called Multicultural Mailer. Multicultural Mailer organises job fairs for people in the multicultural community and the wider community to get jobs. They also host a wonderful Eid For All festival following Ramadan. Dr Zakaria, who gives so much to the Queensland community, spoke about how IPDC supported him and his family when they first came to Australia. Now Dr Zakaria Amin is giving back to the Australian community, and that's the way it is.

So, when I took the position yesterday to support the censure motion of Senator Pauline Hanson, I was thinking of all those wonderful members of our Queensland Muslim community and of the broader Muslim community whom I'd met over the course of the last two weeks and during the course of my service in the Australian Senate. I had no option but to support that censure motion against the divisive language of Senator Pauline Hanson. I note that, at that Iftar dinner, which was run by IPDC, they had their slogan, 'Better together', up in flashing lights. At each and every one of those Iftar dinners, they talked about Australian values and how important Australian values are. Better together—no truer words have ever been spoken.

Our Sudanese community in Australia is suffering greatly at the moment. Sudan is undergoing a humanitarian catastrophe. I had a meeting with members of the Sudanese community last week and I undertook to talk about the situation in Sudan here this evening. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has recently given another presentation about the acts of genocide that are occurring in Sudan. Millions of people are suffering from starvation and hunger in Sudan. The situation is very, very difficult, and it's taking its toll on our Sudanese community.

Many members of the community are working more than one job because they're not only trying to feed their families and provide for their families in Australia in a cost-of-living crisis but also trying to help out relatives overseas. One of the issues that was raised with me during that meeting, which I will raise with the Minister for Home Affairs and with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, is the plight of those refugees in Egypt at the moment, many of whom have family connections here in Australia. Notwithstanding the fact that they've been recognised as refugees by the United Nations, they are suffering at the moment in Egypt. There's a lot of pressure on them in Egypt with respect to their safety and wellbeing. So I ask the Australian government to reach out to the Egyptian government and seek assistance for those refugees from the horrific situation in Sudan. Australia should do everything that it can to help our Sudanese diaspora and those in need.

Lastly, I was delighted to attend the opening of the Matu Community Hub Centre in Logan. This is a huge milestone for the community. I want to quote from two of the pictures that were up in the community centre. This is from the community leader, Lawm Cangmah: 'Don't just serve your community. Design its future and lead by example.' And this is from Wahn Liu: 'Walk humbly with God, serve people wholeheartedly and love your community intentionally'—a great example for all Australians.

There's been a lot of discussion about support for Iran in the last few days. But I'll tell you what Australia can do as an act of real solidarity with the Iranian diaspora and with those struggling in Iran. We can start by offering a fair migration and political asylum system. There is a wealth of skills and knowledge from Iran that Australia is already lucky to have. I know that there are people from Iran who have come here to complete their PhDs. There are those on a pathway to a 191 visa who have been contributing in our region. They've been promised permanency, and they've yet to get it—waiting and waiting for an unfair system to process their claim.

To all of those who are looking to bring their loved ones, their skills and their knowledge to our country to make our community brighter, smarter and better off, I say, on behalf of my party, the Greens: thank you. Don't let the increasingly divisive rhetoric put you off from trying. We know that our country is better when people are here contributing collectively to our future from across this wonderful diverse planet.

For our Iranian friends who are here, the No. 1 thing I used to hear when I talked to the community—and we still hear it clearly—is that they want to get their mums and their dads out of Iran. They want to bring their partners here and their children. We know that this government, like the one before, caps the number of family visas being processed each year, despite it being against the law, and the backlog for family visas has exploded. Unprocessed partner applications have grown by 72 per cent under this government and are at the highest point ever, with nearly 100,000 people waiting to see if their loved one can join them here. It takes on average two years to get a dependant child visa processed. It takes 74 months, or six years, for an orphan relative visa to be processed. Think about that—a child waiting six years to join their remaining family.

If we genuinely care about people in war-torn countries or living under oppressive regimes, we need a fair immigration system—one that treats people as humans who can become a wonderful part of our community. Right now, the people of Iran need that humanity. Perhaps the most dehumanising immigration policy targeted at people from Iran is the one that targets those who have come here seeking asylum by sea. For over a decade, the Liberal and Labor governments, cheered on by One Nation, have prevented people seeking asylum from finding a permanent home in Australia. There are some 2,000 people from Iran in this country who have been here for a decade and who do not have a permanent home here because of those unfair policies. If you want to know what solidarity with the people of Iran looks like, remove those unfair policies. Surely, the government's position cannot be that they return. Surely, that can't seriously be the position of the coalition or One Nation. And, surely, after a decade, we can welcome them into our community, where they have already been a wonderful contributing part of for over a decade.

We receive so many emails to our office, and I know that you read them, and some just express the moment that we're living in. I want to share with the chamber this email from a constituent, who has given her permission for it to be shared:

Dear David,

I am writing to you not just as a constituent, but as a heartbroken Australian citizen of Indian origin, struggling to understand where I now stand in the country I have called home for almost two decades.

When I hear statements such as, "We welcome all who share Australian values, but the door must be shut to those who reject our beliefs and way of life," I understand the principle behind them. I agree that immigration should always be based on shared values, respect for the law, and responsibility.

But I am left asking: where do Australian citizens like me fit into this conversation?

Are we now being silently categorised as people who do not share Australian values—simply because of the colour of our skin?

Australia gave us opportunities, and in return, we gave this country 19 years of our lives, our labour, our loyalty, and our children's futures.

I ask you plainly: what does it mean to be Australian?

I believed it meant respecting one another, standing together, and treating each other fairly. But increasingly, it feels as though being Australian now comes with an unspoken condition—to be white.

If tomorrow my child, my husband, or I am attacked, who will be responsible?

The perpetrators?

The media that fuels fear?

Or the silence that allows this hatred to grow?

I am writing to you not in anger, but in fear, pain, and hope—hope that our leaders will remember that Australia belongs to all of us who call it home, who live by its laws, and who believe in its values.

I am not asking for special treatment.

I am asking for safety, dignity, and reassurance—for my children, for my family, and for others like us.

Please ensure that no Australian is made to feel unsafe because of who they are, or more precisely, because their colour.

I want to thank that constituent, that extraordinary member of our community, and I hear that plea, and this parliament needs to hear it too and welcome diversity, welcome migrants and celebrate our wonderful multicultural community.

I know that, over recent months, the Kurdish community in Australia has been watching in horror as war has swept the region. I want them to know that their plight has not been forgotten. It has not been ignored or overlooked. Right now, there's a continuing and unacceptable siege in Kobani, a city in northern Syria. It's been cut off for months. It's a Kurdish-majority city with other displaced peoples in it. We've heard from people about the humanitarian catastrophe occurring there—the lack of medicine, food is scarce, power is cut off, communications are broken. People in Australia from the community are desperately trying to find out whether their loved ones and friends are safe. Only a decade ago, Kobani was the turning point in the fight against ISIS, when the people of Kobani held firm and, against thousands of ISIS fighters, broke the back of that toxic organisation, and they started the long march to push it back. That history is still fresh in the minds of the people in Kobani and their relatives here. The graves marking the 2,000 who lost their lives are still new. Both the military and humanitarian sieges on Kobani are happening now, so let's be honest to that history—that bravery of fighting ISIS. Let's not wash it out. Let's not abandon those who fought for the values we would want to fight for. Let's demand access to food, the lifting of the siege and the respect of the community there.

I also see that the Kurdish communities in Iran are being targeted, and the wicked regime in Iran is using the cover of US and Israeli bombings to do that. That follows an historic agreement from five major organisations representing Kurds in Iran to form a coalition to resist the regime in Tehran that has oppressed them and their communities for decades and to secure basic rights for Kurdish people within a decentralised and democratic Iran. One of the leaders of that alliance said this—they said it very recently:

We see from the experiences of the wars occurring in the Middle East that the politics of external powers do not serve the people and are only in the interest of their own authority. Because of that self-interested politics, the people of the region, and especially the people of Kurdistan, experienced very heavy suffering.

Let's hear more of those voices calling for bravery, I might say, across the region. Whether it's in Turkiye or Assyria or Iran, Kurdish people can continue to struggle for identity, for freedom and for cultural survival, and, now more than ever, they deserve our solidarity.

Australia is in the middle of a some global arms race on data centres. We're already the top five locations in the world and one of the fastest-growing, and it's unregulated and it's dangerous and it's designed to profit billionaires but potentially beggar communities, strip-out our assets and see Australians struggle to pay their power bills. A report by Baringa consultants for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation finds that, by 2035—and that's not that far away—data centre growth could increase wholesale electricity prices by 26 per cent in my home state of New South Wales or even by almost a quarter in Victoria, primarily driven by a need for more expensive gas beacon generation. We need a plan to deal with this. Who should we be prioritising for access to cheap power—multibillionaires and foreign corporations or people in Australia who desperately need electricity at a price that they can accept? Data centre demand in Sydney alone is forecast to have a massive call on our city's water supplies—some 250 megalitres a day, just for the data centres in Sydney by 2035. That's roughly the equivalent of Canberra's entire drinking water supply. These data centres are sucking up our power, they're sucking up our land, and they're sucking up our water to feed and fuel billionaire profits. It's about time we had a policy to control them, to regulate them and to make sure they're built in the national interest, not in the interest of some offshore bloodsucking billionaire.

I use this first parliamentary opportunity to rise in response to the arrest of a 20-year-old Western Australian man who now stands charged with preparing for a terrorist attack. This was not idle online rhetoric. It is alleged the individual drafted a manifesto outlining plans for a racist, nationalist act of violence extremism designed to cause mass casualties. The targets, authorities will allege, included mosques in Western Australia, WA police headquarters and Parliament House—places of worship; public servants; the very institution at the heart of our democracy in my home state; many communities; many faiths.

White supremacist ideology and violent extremism are abhorrent and have no place in Western Australia or in Australia, and nor does anything seeking to divide, to intimidate and to instil fear. I commend, like others have, the swift and coordinated work of WA police, the Australian Federal Police and ASIO. Their actions have ensured that there is no ongoing threat to the community and have protected Western Australians from what could have been devastating results. Whatever our differences of faith, background or political belief, every Australian has the right to live, to worship and to work, free from fear. We must stand united, always, in defence about democracy, our freedoms and the rule of law.

This evening, I would like to acknowledge the outstanding service of Councillor Karen Chappel AM, JP, as she steps down as President of the Western Australian Local Government Association. Karen's contributions to local government span more than two decades. Elected to the Shire of Morawa in 2005, and serving as its president from 2009, she has been a steadfast advocate for regional communities and for the vital role local government plays in the lives of Western Australians. Her election as WALGA Deputy President in 2020 and then President in 2022 came at a time of significant challenge for councils across the state. She led with steadiness, collaboration and a genuine care for the sector. WALGA's role in supporting councils and advocating to both state and federal governments is critical, and Karen has strengthened its voice. Her leadership has always reflected her country roots—practical, resilient and outcome focused.

Appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in 2023, her service to local government and the Morawa community has been rightly recognised. She has also contributed nationally as Deputy President of the Australian Local Government Association, and as a mentor to elected members across Western Australia. Colleagues speak of her authenticity and her commitment to encouraging women in regional Western Australia to step forward and to lead. Her advice—to believe in yourself, embrace opportunity and stand up for what is right—captures her spirit and her leadership. On behalf of Western Australia I thank Karen Chappel for her integrity, dedication and enduring service, and wish her well for the future.

Just last week I joined His Excellency the Governor of Western Australia, Mr Chris Dawson, at the funeral of Mr Dave Scott. We did so as private citizens, to honour a remarkable but humble legacy. Dave Scott, a much-loved member of our community, passed away peacefully on 4 February. He was a man—a humble man—who truly lived a large and generous life.

Dave served with the 2nd Battalion in Vietnam. The war left a deep mark on him; yet, with courage and support, he came to stand proudly as a veteran. For more than a decade, he delivered the Anzac address at Emmanuel Christian Community School in Girrawheen, helping young Australians understand sacrifice, mateship and service, and it was his regular appearance at these events where I got to know Dave and his wife, Sue.

In civilian life, Dave was the person who got things done, from helping to build the Fun Factory playground in Karawara, thinking outside the box and backing young people, to mentoring athletes, singing in the Spirit of the Streets Choir and gathering his friends and neighbours around his table for spirited debate, Dave strengthened community wherever he stood and acted. Volunteers like Dave are the quiet backbone of our nation. They build communities, coach our kids, lead our community groups and create spaces of belonging—often without recognition but with enormous impact.

Despite illness, Dave always remained positive and determined. Above all, he was devoted to Sue; his daughters, Kylee and Jodi; and his grandchildren. Dave Scott was simply a good man who left this world better for having been here.

Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated.

Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We'll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that's radical Islam, antifa, 'trantifa' or any other group.

Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I've not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all.

As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, 'There are no good Muslims,' is a lie. Her exact words were as follows:

I've got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that's what it's all about. You know, you say, 'Oh, well, there's good Muslims out there.' Well, I'm sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims?

The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are.

Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between 'good Muslim' and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I'll repeat Janet's words:

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—

the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—

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.

Yesterday, when I read Janet's comments, the Greens objected to Janet's differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who've assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism.

The political left's refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That's fact; that's history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation.

In the last few weeks, I've spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I'll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational.

Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson:

If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you …

I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end.

The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate's ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate:

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of 'threatening social harmony'. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger—

Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber—

while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged.

And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it's been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting.

The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany's version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states.

Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi's head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate.

Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who've already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It's common sense. It's designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it's not the whole problem.

I'm a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028.

Tonight I rise to speak in support of Western Australian commercial and recreational fishermen and against the demersal fishing ban in Western Australia. It's a decision that has devastated coastal communities, crippled small businesses and exposed yet again the breathtaking mismanagement of the Western Australian Labor government.

The fishing ban came out of the blue for fishermen who have invested their lives in creating multigenerational businesses that provide fresh fish for Western Australians. One Nation has been fighting this fishing ban from the day Labor dropped it on Western Australian families without warning and without consultation. Without warning, the Labor government imposed restrictions on demersal fishing across huge stretches of our coastline. These bans were announced with no warning, no consultation and no credible transition plan for the people whose livelihoods depend on the fishing industry. For generations, commercial, charter and recreational fishers have worked responsibly under regulated quotas and have invested millions in boats, equipment and local supply chains, and overnight the state Labor government pulled the rug out from under them. Along our coastline, fishing is not a hobby; it is the backbone of the local economy. Families who built their lives around the ocean and on supplying Western Australians with fresh local fish are now staring down the barrel of financial ruin.

My friend the Hon. Rod Caddies, member of the Legislative Council of Western Australia representing One Nation, has been on the road supporting these families. These are some of the stories he heard. In Geraldton, shark fisherman John Higham climbed onto the roof of the fisheries office on 16 February and chained himself there. He swallowed the keys and said he was going broke and that the government just hangs up on him. In Kalbarri, Phil de Grauw has supplied fresh fish to restaurants for four decades and now sits idle while his business bleeds. Steve Eley bought a new tackle shop in Kalbarri just days before the ban. That Fishing Shop in Waroona and the owners, Glen and Michelle Field, have been majorly affected. In Bunbury, Sam at Wollaston Fish and Chips grew the number of his employees from seven to 18, providing local jobs, and now stares at empty fridges wondering how to pay wages. Also in Bunbury is Rod Vanoosten from Millard Marine. There's also Phil Clarke from Fins Seafood, who employs 50 people in Hamilton Hill. He's now having to import four to five tonnes of fish per week from New Zealand. This has led to a 30 to 40 per cent wholesale price rise and to people no longer choosing to put fish on the menu. These are only a few stories of the people affected.

The flow-on effects are enormous. In fishing towns, the local bakery is closing and the local pub is struggling. How can you run a small business close to this industry without being affected? How does Labor think these shops and towns are going to survive? And for what? The WA Labor government claims this is about sustainability, yet the fishermen themselves have been calling for measured, science based management for years. What they received instead was a blunt-force ban, which is the policy equivalent of using a sledgehammer against an industry that feeds the people of Western Australia. The irony is staggering.

WA is blessed with one of the largest and best managed fisheries systems in the world. For decades, we've balanced environmental protection and economic sustainability. Yet the WA Labor government chose to ignore that history and impose a ban so extreme that it shut down the fishing industry overnight. They were given less than one month's notice. We're talking about family owned businesses. We're talking about deckhands that are now unemployed. We're talking about young families reconsidering whether there is a future in the industry at all. We're talking about coastal towns already battling rising costs, housing shortages and workforce pressures.

Our state government has shown more urgency and virtue signalling to inner-city activists than it has stood up for local businesses. What our state government delivered was chaos and economic damage that could have been avoided with competent leadership. The people of Western Australia deserve so much better. They deserve transparency about the science. They deserve a genuine seat at the table. They deserve compensation that reflects the real financial impact. Instead, under this state Labor government, we have seen ideology triumph over practicality. The fishing ban has become a symbol of a broader problem: a state Labor government that governs from Perth's inner suburbs without listening to the regions that feed our state, fuel our state and sustain our state. We're seeing charters cancelled, tackle shops quiet and families destroyed.

It's the same story in every coastal town. And, while commercial fishers are locked out, seismic blasting gets approved in the same spawning grounds. The Geographe Bay windfarm gets approved without restriction in waters supposedly called protected. It's no coincidence that there now won't be any commercial fishing boats on the water to report the destruction of our pristine ocean. These foreign owned wind turbine companies have been given licence by the Albanese government to destroy the ocean floor and use sound levels that are known to kill our marine life, in the middle of a whale superhighway and the nursing grounds of many endangered marine species, all while our own fishermen have been locked out of the water. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

One Nation calls that out for exactly what it is: a war on the Western Australian family, so that turbines can go in—wind turbines that we don't need and that won't feed us, wind turbines that will weaken our national defence by creating radar clutter. One Nation will back every Western Australian who just wants a fair go in the water. These decisions will not be forgotten by the thousands of Western Australians who feel abandoned by the very government that claims to represent them. The ocean has sustained our communities for generations. I urge our state government to go back to the drawing board. Western Australia can have sustainable fisheries and thriving regional communities. What we cannot afford is continued mismanagement by a state Labor government that refuses to listen to the people. Once these fishing families are gone, they won't be coming back. Enjoy your imported fish, WA Labor.

Senate adjourned at 21:12