by leave—I move:

That the consideration of private senators' bills not proceed today and instead general business motion No. 386 standing in the name of Senator Payman concerning a statutory review of the Online Safety Act be considered and the question be put following 70 minutes of debate.

Question agreed to.

In line with general business notice of motion No. 386 given yesterday, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021, which was completed in October 2024, remains unimplemented by the Government;

(b) further notes that the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021 found that the eSafety Commissioner is ill-equipped to protect the Australian women and girls who are subjected to harassment, abuse and cyberbullying on a daily basis; and

(c) calls on the Government to implement the recommendations of the statutory review of the Online Safety Act 2021.

Colleagues, imagine waking up to find your face circulating online, not in a family photo, not in a news article, not making headlines, but in a pornographic deepfake. You open your inbox and read, 'We are going to rape you. My bat is going to fit nicely in your skull. I will cut off your throat.' Your home address is published. Your family's names are circulated. Images appear of you hanging in a noose and a gun pointed to your head. You call the police, you are told it is serious, you attend a station, you are handed a pamphlet, you contact the cyber security hotline, you are referred back, you contact the eSafety Commissioner and you are told that this does not meet the threshold. That was the experience of Perth activists Caitlin Roper and Lyn Kennedy. It was the experience of women who campaigned against video games that simulated rape. After more than 20,000 games were removed, the backlash came—coordinated, sustained and vicious—with threats to rape, threats to kill, deepfake pornography, doxxing. And when they sought help, they were told that the law could not act.

That is not a failure of effort by the police or regulators; it is a failure of the threshold set by this parliament. The statutory review of the Online Safety Act delivered in October 2024 found that the adult cyberabuse scheme is not fit for purpose. Only around six per cent of reports to the scheme meet the current legislated threshold—that's six per cent. When 94 per cent of Australians who report abuse are told, 'It does not qualify for removal,' we must ask whether we have set the bar too high for a civil take-down regime. Under the current law an ordinary, reasonable person must conclude the material was intended to cause serious harm to an Australian adult before eSafety can act. Serious harm—that may be an appropriate standard in a criminal prosecution, but the adult cyber scheme is not about imprisonment; it is about removing menacing, harassing and abusive content from public circulation. Requiring proof of serious harm in that context has been proven disproportionately difficult. The review made a clear recommendation: lower the threshold.

Yesterday I introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026, which implements recommendation 18. It recalibrates the test so that an ordinary, reasonable person must conclude it is likely the material was intended to have an effect on a particular Australian adult and the material is, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or seriously offensive. At the same time, the seriousness requirement is strengthened. Material must not be merely offensive; it must be seriously offensive, representing a significant departure from the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults. This is rebalancing that we need. It lowers one limb and raises another. It maintains an objective test, and that's what experts have been calling for. It preserves safeguards. It ensures that the scheme catches genuinely harmful conduct without sweeping in robust debate.

Colleagues, this is not theoretical or fanciful. We know from eSafety's own research that 70 per cent of adults have had at least one negative online experience in the past year. Women, First Nations Australians, culturally diverse communities, LGBTQI Australians and people with disability are disproportionately targeted. Organisations across this country see the consequences every single day. Phoenix Australia works with victims of sexual trauma, including those who experience sustained harassment and threats that create ongoing psychological harm. Women's legal services report increasing numbers of clients whose online abuse escalates into fear for their safety. Headspace and Lifeline speak about the impact of digital harassment on young people's mental health. And mental health organisations are telling us, time and time again, that online abuse is not just words on the screen. It has real-world consequences in the form of anxiety, hypervigilance, depression and withdrawal from public life. Advocacy organisations such as Collective Shout have warned that women are increasingly silenced by fear. Disability advocates speak about targeted harassment campaigns designed to exhaust and intimidate people.

This is the environment that Australians are navigating every single day—and I know what it's like to stand in that environment. Nearly two years ago, I crossed the floor of the Senate chamber on a matter of conscience. I knew it would generate anger, but I did not anticipate the volume and persistence of the threats that have since followed. You can grow accustomed to the criticism because it's just part of public life, but what you do not grow accustomed to are the threats to kill you or threats against your husband, your five-year-old nephew or even your British short-hair kitten, or messages describing how someone will shoot you. The routine contact with the Australian Federal Police about individuals making credible threats is not just exhausting; it's time consuming and it's something that we should never have to subject our teams and our officers to. The vicarious trauma that impacts our staff is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

Going back to the online world, it's not abstract when you see your address circulating or your family members' names mentioned. This isn't about politicians feeling uncomfortable; it's a broader pattern of behaviour that we're seeing. It's disproportionately affecting women, especially those who choose or have the bravery to speak up.

When Caitlin Roper told my office that eSafety dismissed the material because it referred to an organisation rather than an individual, even where individuals were specifically tagged in threats to murder them, it exposed how the current threshold can operate in practice. The regulator is constrained by the legislation we have written, so, if we want a different outcome, we must change the law. The amendments in the bill do not criminalise speech or the freedom of speech. They do not remove the reasonable-person test. They do not eliminate safeguards. They are just the threshold so that the targeted abuse can be addressed before it escalates further.

The amendments also apply to material provided before commencement. Again, this does not create criminal liability. It simply enables the regulator to issue takedown notices for material that meets the recalibrated threshold regardless of when it was posted. Again, we see that as a protective measure rather than a punitive measure.

Freedom of expression is fundamental, and it is protected under article 19 of the ICCPR, but it is not absolute. The same covenant recognises that restrictions may be imposed where necessary and proportionate to protect the rights and reputations of others—the right to dignity, the right to safety and the right not to be subjected to unlawful attacks on honour and reputation. I see this bill as being proportionate. It maintains a high seriousness bar. It ensures that only material representing a significant departure from accepted standards is captured.

I implore each and every one of you to look into the bill that I introduced yesterday. In three months time, I will become a mother, and I will bring a baby girl into this world. I think often about the world she will grow up in. Will she feel that participating in public debate is worth the risk? Will she believe that her voice matters? Will she inherit an online environment where threats of rape and violence are dismissed as the cost of speaking up, or will she grow up in a society that clearly says, 'This crosses a line'?

We cannot control every individual who hides behind a screen and acts as a keyboard warrior. We cannot control every individual who hides their identity and continues perpetrating the harassment online. But we can ensure that our laws reflect the reality of digital life. We can ensure that, when someone reports targeted abuse, they're not turned away because the threshold is unrealistically high for a civil scheme. We can ensure that our regulator has the tools necessary to act.

We often speak in this chamber about the kind of country we want to build together. We speak about respect, equality and safety. The online world is no longer separate from the real world. It shapes reputations, careers, relationships and mental health. When threats to rape and kill are normalised in comment sections, when deepfake pornography circulates without consequence and when victims are handed pamphlets instead of protection, trust in institutions erodes.

The statutory review has given us a road map. The recommendation is clear. The evidence is compelling. The harm is real, and the experts have been speaking to us and making sure that we understand that this will not just go away. The bill I introduced yesterday, like I said, is proportionate, it's measured, and it's evidence based. It ensures that the adult cyberabuse scheme functions as intended, and it sends a signal that this parliament will not ignore the lived experience of targeted online abuse.

Colleagues, we have a responsibility to consider what kind of digital environment we are shaping. In three months time, when I look at my little baby girl, I want to be able to tell her that, when women are being silenced by threats and intimidation, this parliament did not look away. I want to tell her that we chose dignity over indifference, that we chose protection over paralysis, that together we chose to act to stamp out this harassment and abuse. I commend the motion to the Senate, and I urge each and every one of my colleagues to support the passage of the bill when it comes to be debated in the future. Thank you.

It's my pleasure to rise and speak on what is a very important issue for all Australians, and that is the online safety of Australians. We all want to know that, when we go online, we are not going to be subjected to some of the behaviour that we've just heard in Senator Payman's speech.

I want to start by making a couple of important corrections to the representations that Senator Payman has made. Firstly, I think it's very important to understand that there is the criminal law in this country. Many of the terrible things that Senator Payman outlined—threats to kill, other threats to menace, deepfake porn and the like—already have very strong existing provisions in both our civil and criminal law.

Of course, starting with the criminal law, it is an offence to threaten to kill, to threaten to harm or to menace, to harass or to intimidate someone using a carriage service, and there are very significant consequences for that. It was never the intention of the parliament to enact the online safety framework and cut across the critical role that the criminal law plays in protecting people from those sorts of heinous acts, regardless of whether they are online, on the street or otherwise in the community.

I also want to briefly mention—and I congratulate Senator Payman on her pregnancy; it's very exciting that she's about to give birth to a baby girl—and reference what Senator Payman has gone through personally. She talks about what she endured after she crossed the floor, and I make the very brief point that I think a lot of what she endured was isolation and condemnation by fellow members of the Labor Party after she exercised her conscience, crossed the floor and was forced to leave the party—or expelled. I want to put that on record.

I also want to make the very important point that the adult cyberabuse scheme in the Online Safety Act was designed to target serious, targeted harm, not lawful disagreement. The statutory test requires that material needs to be intended to cause serious harm—harm that is serious, not trivial, subjective or merely offensive. That high threshold was not accidental. It was a conscious safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach, so I want to flag it also in relation to the private senator's bill. I want to flag that lowering the definition of adult cyberabuse risks converting a harm based safety regime into, potentially, what I would say is a speech-policing mechanism.

In relation to the first particular example that Senator Payman gave, in relation to some of those heinous threats that were made, I am interested to understand the detail because there is no doubt that any sort of suggestion of criminal conduct or doxxing—the eSafety Commissioner does have very important powers to act in relation to some of those matters, but it sounds to me, Senator Payman, that they are principally criminal matters. As I say, there are very important provisions in our criminal law to deal with that sort of conduct.

I do want to raise my concerns in the context of the full Federal Court decision which was handed down just a couple of weeks ago, where the full Federal Court ruled in favour of the children's rights activist Celine Baumgarten, finding that the eSafety Commissioner had improperly issued a take-down notice to X seeking to remove a post where Ms Baumgarten had raised concerns about a queer club at a Melbourne primary school. This was a damning finding against the eSafety Commissioner, because what we know is that, in fact, the eSafety Commissioner has been using these so-called 'informal notices', writing to the online platforms, saying that these are not within the terms and conditions of the platforms' operations and requesting take-downs of those posts. However, what the court has found is that those informal notices did actually constitute take-down notices and that they were, in fact, in breach of the Online Safety Act because they did not meet the threshold for adult cyberabuse. So what the eSafety Commissioner has been doing in approximately hundreds of cases every year under the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme is issuing notices that don't comply with the law.

I do want to put on record that the eSafety Commission has now changed the way it goes about issuing those informal notices—after Celine Baumgarten took that matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal—making it very clear that there is no obligation for the platform to take any action and that it's a voluntary scheme only. That's in stark contrast to the sorts of notices that were previously being issued, which, of course, the full Federal Court found were unlawful. Those notices included a reference to section 7 of the Online Safety Act, suggesting very clearly that the conduct complained of was a breach of the Online Safety Act, specifically the cyberabuse scheme.

One of the recommendations in the Online Safety Act review is recommendation 14. That says:

For the avoidance of doubt, the legislation should make it clear that informal requests for takedown are legal and legitimate as they lead to quicker results for individuals who are often in severe distress.

Well, clearly, we've now had this full Federal Court decision, which makes it clear that you can't turn something that's unlawful into something that's legal just by stating so. Recommendation 14 is, I would put, a way of trying to circumvent the current law, which the parliament, as I say, has very deliberately crafted to ensure that the eSafety Commissioner has powers to act in limited cases.

What I'm concerned about in relation to the Celine Baumgarten case is that she has, in my view, raised very legitimate concerns about extreme gender activism at a primary school. She wrote in her post and took significant issue with the fact that the school, she felt, was indoctrinating young children aged between eight and 12 about radical gender ideology. She said:

Children should NOT be learning about sexualities at such a young, impressionable age.

This is foul. Leave the kids ALONE.

She certainly did identify a particular teacher. This teacher had actually published some information about the queer club in a school newsletter, and this, of course, ended online.

My concern about lowering the threshold is that there is a real risk that, if we turn the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme into one which prevents someone from being deeply offended, we are then getting into a whole new world of stifling free speech, and we know that this is a fundamental right for all Australian. This is a fundamental right. I have to say that we are proud of the intention to combat some of the risks that we are seeing now online. As I say, the online safety of all Australian is incredibly important, but in recent times we have seen a number of decisions by the eSafety Commissioner that I would suggest are really a bridge too far. They are really stepping into the area of stifling free speech, and that is a fundamental right of every single Australian.

I want to refer to the evidence that the eSafety Commissioner gave in estimates when I was questioning her about this case. This, of course, was before the full Federal Court made this decision. In a statement that I released on 25 February I said that the eSafety Commissioner should clarify her evidence, because, when I asked about Ms Baumgarten's post, at one point the eSafety Commissioner did actually say that she thought this was adult cyberabuse and then she corrected her evidence. So it was quite confusing, and then the general counsel for the eSafety Commissioner made it clear:

We didn't see it as adult cyberabuse. That's our assessment: it wasn't adult cyberabuse.

We have to get the balance right. That is critically important. The Federal Court scrutinised the limits of the eSafety Commissioner's powers under the act, and I think that what this case has illustrated is that we've got to be very careful to ensure there are objective legal standards. There's a lot of constitutional sensitivity surrounding the regulation of online speech, given there is an implied freedom of political speech in our Constitution, and if that threshold were lowered, there are real concerns that, in a case such as that of Celine Baumgarten, concerns about freedom of speech would intensify.

There was another case, involving a person by the name of Chris Elston, known as Billboard Chris. That particular case also demonstrated overreach by the eSafety Commissioner when he took the eSafety Commissioner on and, again, the eSafety Commissioner was found to have overreached in her powers. This was back in 2023-24, when the eSafety Commissioner issued a removal notice that referred to an Australian transgender activist. The commissioner formed the view that the material constituted adult cyberabuse under the act and the post was geoblocked in Australia following the notice. This was challenged in the Federal Court and, again, the decision was made that this material did not meet the statutory threshold of being intended to cause serious harm. That is the really key issue here. The act provides that there must be an intention to cause serious harm.

If we were to adopt the approach of Senator Payman in relation to conduct which causes deep offence, then we are straying into a very, very different world. Someone can say something where there's no intention to cause offence, but, by changing the act quite dramatically to include that and many other recommendations in the online safety review, I think we are then facing a whole new world in terms of the government's obligation to protect freedom of speech. I certainly think there is merit in looking at issues where perhaps there are some gaps in the law. Senator Payman identified that there was no room for the eSafety Commissioner to act because it involved an organisation, not a person. I'm not suggesting that there is not merit in perhaps having a look at some aspects of the Online Safety Act, but I am concerned that we are entering a whole new world where the eSafety Commissioner is using the Online Safety Act in a way that the parliament did not intend. That, as I said, is a bridge too far.

We've got to remember that serious offence is not necessarily harm. Democracies can be noisy. Conversations can be robust; they can often be uncomfortable. Political speech can be confronting, offensive, passionate, even harsh. But offence is not the same as cognisable harm. So, if subjective distress becomes the benchmark, almost any controversial view could be suppressed. This could have a chilling effect on public debate. We cannot lower the threshold to cross this bridge. It is a bridge too far.

I rise to contribute to this debate this morning put forward by Senator Payman. I want to thank Senator Payman for bringing this issue forward, because it is important. After almost 18 months since this government introduced the social media ban—a very blunt instrument—they have failed to respond to the 67 recommendations of the Online Safety Act review. These are 67 recommendations which go to the very heart of what needs to be done to make our online world safer for everybody—safer for children, safer for adults, safer for young people, safer for old people, safer women, safer for men, safer for everybody. But the government has been dragging its chain on implementing these recommendations precisely for some of the reasons that Senator Henderson has suggested. They don't really want to take on those who profit and who use the online space to peddle their fear, to peddle their hate, to peddle their misogyny all under the false claim of freedom of speech.

If you're not allowed to abuse people and threaten people and hurt people in the supermarket, in the street, at your local sporting club, in your schoolyard or in your workplace, why on earth should you be allowed to do it in the online space, which now, of course, is the public square? There are big, big forces, vested interests, pushing against making those who profit off of this hate online profitable. The big tech companies—those that are making massive profits of billions and billions and billions of dollars a year—don't want these types of laws enacted. They don't want the online safety commissioner to be able to do their job effectively, because they are making billions off seeing hate, misogyny and abuse circulate and go viral online. The entire business model of social media companies and the digital tycoons is peddled by individuals spreading hate, abuse and nastiness. It is why we need not only to ensure the online safety commissioner has more powers to do its job, crack down and hold individuals to account, and to take down damaging, abusive, dangerous content, but also to ensure, as individual users online, that we can control what comes into our feeds.

The algorithms that power our social media feeds and the online space are all designed to profit from fear, misogyny, racism, hatred and abuse. The tech companies—Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and all of those big tech billionaires—have monetised fear and hatred. They do it through their algorithms. They control how viral it goes and how far that hidden abuse spreads. They turn it up or turn it down. They don't care about that end user—they don't care about us as individuals online, as people, as humans. All they care about is how much money each post, each eyeball or each click is making for them. They have become merchants of hate and fear, and they use their algorithms to profiteer.

That is why we need to implement not just these recommendations—and the government needs to stop dragging its feet—but laws that allow each individual user to control their own algorithms. We should be able to make the choice as to what we want to see in our feeds or not. We shouldn't have advertising rammed into our feeds even when it's dangerous and harmful. We shouldn't be having young people and kids bombarded with gambling advertising online, or alcohol ads, or ads that promote pornography sites, or ads that feed into young women's unhelpful and unhealthy body issues—or ads for quack medicine, phony drugs that help you get skinny or phony drugs that make you happy. We shouldn't have these companies being able to dictate what type of hurtful information is pushed into our feeds. If we don't want to see it, we should be able to turn it off. We should be in control of our own feeds. We can only do that if we regulate and make it legal for us, as customers—as the user, as the individual, as the people—to be able to control what we see and what we don't see. We should be able to turn off misogynistic posts. We should be able to turn off racist rubbish. We should be able to tune out of content that is unwanted and unwarranted. The tech bros don't want us to have control of our own feeds because they want to be able to push whatever nasty and viral content they want that is making them maximum profits at the time. They want to be able to control what goes into every single one of our phones, our tablets and our smart televisions.

This is about choice. Yes, we need to crack down on harmful and hurtful and abusive information, comments and content. People who are posting that abuse need to be held accountable—but those who are making money from this hatred are those that really need to be taken on. We have to hit them where it hurts, and that is their business model. They should not be able to ram advertising down the throats of minors online. They should not be able to control everything that comes into your feed or my feed or our children's feeds online. It is about choice.

When I hear the coalition and the coalition spokesperson stand here and make contributions about freedom of speech—what about the freedom to choose? What about the freedom to have control over our own algorithms and not just have it outsourced to billionaires that are making billions and billions and billions of dollars in profit at the expense of the safety of women and at the safety of people in vulnerable situations—those that are struggling with eating disorders or those that are struggling with racist comments and abuse or young men who just want to be young men growing up in the world and figuring out how they fit? They shouldn't be bombarded with misogynistic rubbish that tells them the only way to be a man is to be a bully and the only way to be a man is to be abusive to women. They should be able to opt out of that. They should not be bombarded with misogyny just because it makes people like Mark Zuckerberg millions and billions of dollars.

I urge the government to get on with the important steps of reform in this space. They promised to move on a duty of care bill. We still haven't seen it. Where is it? 18 months later, we've still got nothing. It is as if they introduced the social media ban for under-16s and thought: 'Oh well, job done. Move along. Nothing to see here.' Meanwhile, abuse, hatred, misogyny and racism thrive online. But they think they have done something.

There's a reason that the social media companies didn't want the government to touch their algorithms and the transparency of how they work and of what data is being used. As individual users online, we should have control of our own data. We should be able to decide whether it gets sold to advertisers. We should be able to choose who gets to see it and who doesn't. We should be able to choose what's in our feeds and what isn't in our feeds and what we want to see and what we don't. That is freedom. Spare me the tears from the coalition about freedom of speech. How about freedom to choose what is on our phones and what isn't and what Facebook, Meta, Instagram, Twitter and TikTok will make money off of from our content, our children's content, our young people's content and our mums' and dads' content? Australians should have the right to choose whether our data is used for advertising and what our algorithms show in our social media feeds. That would instantly make a big difference to the abuse that we see towards women, towards people of colour and towards minorities. It would see a huge decrease in the amount of abuse online, because there wouldn't be people making money off of it. You want to make online safer? You have got to hit them where it hurts and you have got to stop the merchants of hate and fear from being able to make money off our social media feeds.

The coalition opposes this motion and is likely to oppose the private senator's bill introduced by Senator Payman, the Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026. But I just want to say, having listened to Senator Payman's contribution on this, she presented a very thoughtful and considered speech. I think that what's behind the bill and what you're trying to achieve is notable and definitely worth commending. While I disagree with what it might achieve and how it would achieve it, I do want to seriously commend you, Senator Payman, for the work that you've done.

You raise a very important issue. I've got children, and they're through those very difficult teenage years and are older teenagers now. But I've watched them and their friends deal with the challenges of the online world that, as a 47-year-old, I didn't have to deal with when I was a teenager. Young people these days are dealing with things that obviously generations before them didn't have to deal with. It is important that we tackle this issue. It's important that the government deals with this seriously. It's a global issue and it's something that needs to be dealt with.

This issue of online safety has been recognised by the coalition and indeed also by the Albanese Labor government, which started the Statutory Review of the Online Safety Act in November 2023. But that was 2½ years ago. Ms Rickard was appointed to undertake that work and provide a report to the minister by 31 October 2024, which was done. Ms Rickard's report was extensive, and more than 150 public submissions were received. The report, all 200-plus pages, made 67 recommendations, and, while the report was completed in October 2024, the minister sat on it for nearly six months before tabling it publicly in parliament in February 2025. That was over a year ago. Despite receiving the report over a year ago, the minister's most recent statement notes that the government is 'continuing to carefully consider' its recommendations.

You could be critical of the government for taking so long. You could be critical of the government for sitting on this, for sitting on its hands, and criticism is rightfully due to be put onto the government. But the government is right to carefully consider these matters because matters of freedom of speech are critical to a functioning democratic, civil society. This is a vexed issue. Of course we must protect children and of course we must put in place measures that provide that protection. No-one wants to see children, teenagers, put at risk online, but, if we overreach when it comes to restrictions on speech, then who knows what the consequences could be?

I'm pleased that the government is carefully considering it. They shouldn't use that as an excuse not to take proportionate action that's required, but I urge them to carefully consider these things. If we just run at a million miles an hour into implementing some of the recommendations that were in that report and that would have maybe unintended consequences and a chilling effect on freedom of speech, then the consequences for this country—and indeed we're leaders in the world on this—would be significant. We absolutely need to deal with these things carefully.

But we do need a digital duty of care. The government has called on the public to have their say, but what's happened since? What's the government actually doing? I think it's right that Senator Payman and even Senator Hanson-Young—while I disagree with a lot of what she was saying, there were some elements, which I'll come to in a moment, that I do agree with, particularly when it comes to choice; I absolutely agree—are critical of the government. We want to know what you're actually planning to do and we want to see action. Parents want to see action. Parents want to understand what it is you're actually going to do, and of course freedom lovers want to understand it too, because we know that there is a propensity, particularly with this government, to overreach when it comes to impinging upon our rights and freedom of speech. So we want to make sure that what you're going to do and implement is appropriate and proper.

Children are of course the ones that are most vulnerable to cyberbullying, grooming and other nefarious online abuse. It's not just children though. Adults—particularly vulnerable adults—are susceptible. So it is right that the responsibility is put upon platforms to prevent this online abuse from happening in the first place. Now, while the Minister for Communications is busy attending sporting events and jetting off overseas on promotional tours, Australians at home are still waiting on the Albanese Labor government to take appropriate steps and action.

I want to go to something that Senator Hanson-Young said about choice. I think she's actually right when she says that users of these platforms ought to have choice over what they are fed on their feeds and what information they have that is then shared and used. I think that's right. In fact, I don't just think it; I absolutely agree with that. It should be the domain and right of the individual, of the user. I worry that, if we're giving the choice to the platforms themselves or, dare I say, to government or to the eSafety Commissioner to determine and make the ruling on what information can be shared and spread on people's feeds, that's where we start to go into dangerous territory. But we absolutely should have these platforms enabled to give greater choice and transparency to the individual users. It actually is the epitome of freedom of choice and freedom of speech when we as individuals are empowered to make choices about what our information is used for and what information we receive. Absolutely, it should be the right of parents to have more than a say and put in place the controls that are necessary to prevent information that's being passed on.

The review acknowledged that freedom of speech must be protected in order to preserve online safety. Senator Henderson, my colleague, has called for a full investigation into the eSafety Commissioner after the Federal Court ruled that the regulator exceeded its powers by issuing a takedown notice to X—Twitter. The case Senator Henderson referred involved the children's rights activist Celine Baumgarten, who posted concerns in 2024 about a Melbourne primary school teacher promoting gender ideology. Despite an internal finding that the post did not meet the legal threshold for adult cyberabuse, the eSafety Commissioner sent X a complaint alert resembling a formal removal notice citing the Online Safety Act. Both the Administrative Review Tribunal, the ART, and the full Federal Court found that the commissioner acted out side of her statutory authority, leading to the post being reinstated.

This raises serious concerns about free speech, the misuse of regulatory powers and whether the commissioner attempted to suppress views about gender activism in schools.

Adult cyberabuse is significant and a serious issue, but, if a post does not reach the requisite threshold, what the eSafety Commissioner did was effectively stifling free speech when we know free speech is, as I have already discussed, one of the most important and fundamental rights that we have in this country. If we undermine this, we actually undermine the very fabric of the society that we live in. You only need to look at countries across the world—none more so than what we're seeing on our televisions right now, as I stand here—to see that oppression at its extreme, when it comes to freedoms of speech, where you see a country eroded.

So it is of course of great concern. It's something that the minister needs to answer. The minister needs to answer how often the commissioner has improperly used take-down notices and whether individuals have been properly informed of appeal rights. Importantly, we really should have an answer on what the total cost is to the taxpayer for the legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the government should not just shove this report in the bottom drawer; they should respond in a considered way, absolutely, as I have outlined. The report raises serious concerns around online safety, particularly as it pertains to children and young people. This government needs to be accountable in how it stewards the safety of the next generation. In the same breath, though, we cannot hide censorship behind the mask of safety. The coalition will always seek to protect Australians' freedom of speech, and it's committed to ensuring that the measures implemented by this government do not encroach on this very important and fundamental right.

I will start by saying I will support Senator Payman's Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026, which makes it easier for people to take action on online safety concerns without damaging freedom of speech. We need to take a proper look at our Online Safety Act and make it better reflect the independent review's recommendations. The government has taken great strides in improving online safety over the last few years, like fast-tracking the legislative review of the Online Safety Act, increasing funding to the eSafety Commissioner and committing to a digital duty of care. But we do need to acknowledge that Senator Payman's private senator's bill is fixing a problem that the government has failed to fix.

It's been more than a year since the release of the report of the independent review of the Online Safety Act, providing the government with 67 recommendations on how to keep Australians safe online. That means it has been more than a year since the government was handed an easy-win how-to guide on how to help Australians' safety, yet the government hasn't even provided a formal response, let alone taken any action to improve our Online Safety Act. It has sat on its hands and relied on crossbenchers to follow up and do the work for them. That's what's happening here. Senator Payman is just trying to implement one of the key recommendations from the review. She's now moving a motion to make the point that we need action to protect Australians online.

The government isn't acting fast enough. The one thing we did get from the government off the back of the Online Safety Act review was the commitment to a digital duty of care, but we haven't heard much from Minister Wells since the very brief consultation last year. Where is it up to? When will it be ready? A digital duty of care is really exciting; we need to have it as soon as possible, whilst ensuring we get it right. It would put the onus of protection back on the platforms, not on victims online. It would use Safety by Design to actually fix the problem at the source—to fix the problem at the system level. It would overhaul the system to be a proactive one, rather than just tinkering around the edges with our current whack-a-mole regulatory approach. That's real change, not just political speak.

And hey, yes, we passed stronger hate-speech laws earlier this year, but when are we going to take stronger action on hate speech online by bots? We don't even know when a robot posts or when a human posts. Bot don't need to sleep. They can post 24/7, artificially amplifying hateful and divisive content. That hurts our social cohesion, all without us even knowing what is coming from a human being or what's coming from a robot. That's why we need to make social media platforms label bot accounts. This wouldn't censor content, and it wouldn't silence free speech. It would just let people know who they're really talking to online and who is commenting and posting on their news feeds. It's a simple change that would make a big difference to keeping Australians safe online.

We know that, last Friday, the Attorney-General met with all her state and territory counterparts to discuss how to stop online hate. What was even achieved from that meeting? Where's the announcement? Once again, it's radio silence from the government when it comes to protecting Australians online. For over a year now, you have sat on a report on how to stop online hate, and you know there are easy solutions, like labelling bots on social media, so where's the action? Why are you wasting the time of the attorneys-general? The people want less talking and more action, please.

To the government: I urge you to please be bold. Don't leave it to the crossbench to follow-up and action reports from legislative reviews. Do your jobs and release a government response to the review that you commissioned. Be transparent about where work is up to on the digital duty of care, and, in the first instance, make the platforms label bot accounts online. Give the people the information they need to stay safe online.

I want to thank Senator Payman for bringing this motion on and bringing the issue to the Senate. It was in October 2024 when the Labor government got the statutory review which says, at its core, that we need to do something to keep people safe online. That's what the review says—things need to happen to keep people safe online. One of the core recommendations was to implement a digital duty of care and have at least some underpinning for decency and standards and protections online.

That was in October 2024. The world is moving quickly when it comes to the online space. I don't know if the Labor government hasn't noticed this, but, since October 2024, there have been major changes—this constant rolling mall of technological changes, the expansion of AI and the creep of that into even more parts of our online world. Unless we have a nimble government willing to actually get in front of this or, at least, not be 10 or 20 years behind this—we absolutely need action from the government.

They keep saying that they're doing something on a digital duty of care, on an online duty of care. They keep saying that, but where is the consultation? There has been no effective public consultation and no identifiable public process. Are they going to do what they did 18 months ago when it came to banning children from social media? Are they are just going to rush in into parliament with a thought bubble which won't achieve their policy outcomes? Is that their plan—just wait until a further crisis develops and then just rush a poorly drafted, poorly conceived, ineffective piece of legislation in on digital duty of care and say, 'Problem solved'? I fear that's the actual plan, if you could call it that.

Why do we need to be taking this seriously? Why should government be taking proactive steps to protect us from some of the worst risks of AI? Because we're seeing those risks happen right now. We are seeing chatbots that are enticing—why should be taking action now? Why should we be expecting the parliament and government to be taking steps to protect us from the obvious harms of AI? It's because we're seeing the damage happening right now. We're seeing chatbots that are enforcing delusions which potentially lead to psychosis. We are seeing chatbots encouraging suicidal ideation and self-harm. We are seeing chatbots, AI run chatbots, literally facilitating sexual harassment and the grooming of minors, and we are seeing, across the online world, AI promoting misinformation and extremism. And the government's response is: crickets, nothing, some vague statements about a digital duty of care that perhaps might come out at some future time without consultation with the public.

Well, I say, and the Greens say, that we need to start this urgently now—a public consultation on duty of care, with a concrete proposal before us that will at least put some standards in the online world that we can hold platforms to account for, such that we can actually give people some protection and not just do what Labor is doing at the moment, egged on by One Nation and egged on by the coalition, who say, 'No rules: whatever the billionaires want, whatever the big platforms want; we're just going to sit frightened in a little corner and let the online world descend into hatred, extremism and online violence.' That is not an answer.

We need digital duty of care now—one that works, that holds these platforms to account—and for once to have this parliament and this government stand up to the billionaire backers of this AI attack on our basic freedoms and liberties and stand up for the rights of ordinary Australians.

I'd like to start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the eSafety Commissioner's goal of removing child exploitation material online. This is absolutely what we want to see as a nation, and I believe that harsher punishments are needed for those who produce or access this material. However, the scope of the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has been expanded well and truly beyond the safety of children online. She has turned the agency into a worldwide censorship machine that is being used to target political enemies.

Free speech is a fundamental value of the Australian culture. It should be in the Constitution. But the uniparty does not want the Australian people to have the protection of the Constitution. After all, it was the coalition that appointed Julie Inman Grant to patrol the Australian public under the guise of protecting them. The uniparty is not for the people. It is not for the rights of Australians to say what they think and to see the events of the world and judge for themselves. It is a blight on our country that we allow bureaucrats to decide what Australians are mature enough to see.

This hasn't gone unnoticed around the world. The US congress has demanded that the eSafety Commissioner, a US citizen, present herself before congress to give evidence in their review of worldwide censorship regimes. In his request, Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, refers to the eSafety commissioner as a 'noted zealot for global takedowns' and cites her travel to the US in September 2025 to be a keynote speaker at a Stanford University event. I would like to read a passage from the letter from congress around how they viewed the event:

The stated purpose of this event was to 'bring … together policymakers, academics, and experienced Silicon Valley experts to discuss the state of compliance and enforcement of existing regulations related to online trust and safety'.

Put plainly, the roundtable sought to facilitate cooperation with global censorship by bringing together foreign officials who have directly targeted American speech and represent a serious threat to the First Amendment.

This clearly shows the antagonistic effect that the eSafety Commissioner has had on one of our most important allies—an ally that has much more regard for the freedom of its people than the government of Australia does.

What has the eSafety Commissioner been ordering to be taken down that has prompted such strong language from the US? It was the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari, an Islamist attack on a Christian bishop, an example of the government's complete failure to address the Islamist extremism that they decided should be censored, not only in Australia but around the world. And the slaying of Iryna Zarutska and the assassination of Charlie Kirk were geoblocked in Australia—once again, both videos that the far Left of politics found inconvenient to their cause. I asked about the blocking of these videos during estimates. I was told they were blocked because of the National Classification Scheme and that the content was unrelatable and therefore not suitable for anybody to view.

There is some important work to be done by the office of the eSafety Commissioner. However, the scope needs to be limited and monitored closely. We have seen an appetite for this office to reach beyond their duty to protect children and into the realm of ideological censor. Adults do not need a government guardian to tell them what is and is not safe for them to view. If they knowingly view anything that is child exploitation material they should be subject to the full force of the law. It is up to parents, not the government, to decide what is suitable for their children. No-one loves kids more than their parents do—certainly not the government. I have no issue with education, but taking away parents' rights to choose what is right for their children is gross overreach. Provide parents with the tools and leave the parenting to them.

Last of all, I would like to point out the ridiculous cost of eSafety's failed litigations. Extending the ban on the stabbing of Ma Mari: they were made to pay out over $600,000, not including their own legal costs. Australian taxpayer money was spent to have them censored. And eSafety ordered that Billboard Chris's criticism of transgender ideology used on children be taken down. It's a criticism that most Australians would agree with—complete ideological censorship. It cost the Australian public $66,000 in legal costs. The recent case of Celine Baumgarten, who raised the issue with a queer club being advertised in school, had an estimated cost of $50,000.

What a waste of taxpayer money, which should be used to prosecute the eSafety Commissioner's real objective of removing child exploitation material. The recommendations of this report do not address the need to severely limit the scope of this office to what it needs to be focusing on and away from government censorship. One Nation would completely reform the eSafety office for this purpose. We would scrap it and start again if necessary. Australians do not need censorship. We do not need the government to parent our children. If you don't like what's online, switch off. Stop the censorship now.

Senator Payman's motion calls for the recommendations of the review into the Online Safety Act to be fully implemented. One Nation agrees in part. We agree with supporting the work of the eSafety office, which was in place long before Julie Inman Grant took on the position of global internet commissar. We do not support the eSafety Commissioner's crusade to become the world internet policeman.

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

I seek leave to move a motion, as circulated, relating to consideration of government amendments to formal business.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of government amendments to formal business.

You all know why we are here. Day after day, hour after hour, what the government is doing is delaying the Senate by deliberately moving amendment after amendment after amendment, buying itself more time, more time, more time, in notices of motion. It is important today that we suspend standing orders to have a good look at this motion and then, I would hope, pass it. Why? Because the government is wasting the time of the Senate. When you waste the time of the Senate, quite frankly, you abuse the privileges that the taxpayers of Australia have given us to come in here and actually deal with the matters that are of most important concern to them.

This motion represents the coalition's determination to step up and take control of the chamber, because the government is losing complete control of the chamber, and ensure we cut through the fog of delay, because, we all know, when we look at the Notice Paperhere it is—this is now hours and hours this afternoon doing nothing more and nothing less than each amendment to a motion dividing and the government buying itself more time to, quite frankly and disappointingly, do what it should be doing—that is, debate the very important issues that matter to the Australian taxpayer.

So, quite frankly, if the government won't be disciplined with its time, we will join with the crossbenches to take control of the chamber and ensure we put back in place some form of procedural rules. Motion after motion after motion, hours and hours of delay—this government has seen fit to amend rather than progress, with motion after motion, with amendments delayed and shuffled around the Notice Paper as though, quite frankly, the Senate's time is just something we play with. The taxpayers don't send us here and say, 'Do what you like. Spend hours crossing over backwards and forwards doing, quite frankly, absolutely nothing but pandering to a government agenda that is nothing more and nothing less than delay, delay, delay because they don't want to provide the Australian taxpayer with transparency.'

It is not often I try to suspend standing orders but this is an important item and that is why we need to suspend standing orders. If the government will not debate the issues that matter to the Australian taxpayer, we will help them to do just that. We have a government not willing to stand at the dispatch box and argue for its program, not willing to stand here and answer questions on its legislation so the Australian people properly understand what the government is doing to them; instead, we see procedural motion after procedural motion after division after division. When people say, 'What did you do in the Senate today?' I have to say, 'We shuffled paper on behalf of the Australian taxpayer courtesy of the Labor government that, quite frankly, has no respect for the Australian taxpayer.' So, again, it is important today that the Senate unite, pass this motion to bring a little bit of decorum, a little bit of procedural fairness back to the chamber.

The motion is very simple. All it says is the government has to make amendments to the motion. We accept that. We will not stop the government from making the amendments but we will stop wasting the Senate's time, our time, the Liberal and National Party, the crossbench's time. There is little time in this place to put your case. To the people in the gallery, we are actually doing this on behalf of you, the taxpayer. I assume you don't want us to spend hours of the day just sitting on each side of the chamber because the government does not have the guts to come in here and actually answer questions on transparency.

The motion is simple. You will get to put your amendments, no issues at all; however, you will not divide on each one. What you are going to do is put one amendment. We are going to put them all together—so if you want your amendments to get up, they will—and we will then ensure we dispense properly of the business of the Senate. As I said, if the government are not prepared to be the adults in this chamber and actually properly respect the Australian taxpayer, the opposition will be.

I will perhaps start where—

It's not often you come down to do this.

I will perhaps start where the Leader of the Opposition—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Chair, please.

Order, please. Senator Wong has the call.

I know they're your side, but it would be good to call them.

Senator Wong—

Do I have the call?

I ask that you respect the chair.

Yes, I do respect the chair—

I was seeking to restore order—

and I'm asking you to exercise your authority.

and I've just asked to restore order. Senator Wong, you have the call.

Thank you. I will start where the Leader of the Opposition left off, which was: who are the adults in the room? We've seen how adult this opposition, this Greens party and this One Nation party are or are not. We have conflict in the Middle East.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Please allow Senator Wong to be heard in silence. Senator Cash was heard in silence. Please allow Senator Wong to be heard in silence.

We have conflict in the Middle East. We have 115,000 Australians in the Middle East. We have Iran attacking not one, not two, not three but 10 countries—10 countries.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senators, I ask that Senator Wong be heard in silence. That courtesy was extended to Senator Cash.

We are dealing with a consular crisis 24 hours a day, and I hope I can have some updates for the chamber—

Order! Senators, I ask that you listen to Senator Wong in silence. If you want to continue a conversation, please leave the chamber to do so.

I hope we can have some updates on that later today for the chamber and for the public.

We have an opposition that has not asked a single question on the economy. That says something about their priorities. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is here arguing about some Senate procedure but is not interested in asking a question about the economy. We have the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, who still hasn't asked a question. What I would say, through you, Chair—

Senator McKenzie on a point of order.

It is on direct relevance to the suspension motion in front of the Senate. As the Chair has previously ruled, you must speak to the motion before the chair, which is on the suspension—not on matters in the Middle East or why the government is or isn't focused on what it's doing, but on the suspension order motion that is in front of the chair.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I'm listening closely to Senator Wong. I believe she is referring to the relative priority afforded to government business, so, Senator Wong, please continue.

I appreciate that, because that is precisely what I am pointing to. It is precisely the point I am making: this is all happening in the world and this is all happening in the Australian community, but you are focused on issues of Senate procedure. I would invite the opposition: if you want to be the adults in the room, maybe do some of the reflection that your election review, which was tabled—

Senator Cash on a point of order.

Again, it is on direct relevance. With all due respect to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—again, you're doing exactly what you say you don't like done in the Senate, which is to not address the question and give a speech. I would ask you to direct the Leader of the Opposition to actually answer and reflect on—

A government senator: Government.

Government—the question before the chair.

I'm going to seek some advice from the Clerk. The Leader of the Government, Senator Wong, is referring to the relative importance of business before the chamber, which is pertinent to the motion. Senator Wong may continue.

That is precisely the point I am making—that those opposite, the opposition, are much more focused on their internals and matters of procedure, as is evinced both by the questions that they are engaging in and by this stunt. I accept that the crossbench is going to engage in these sorts of measures. I think the Senate—

Really? Seriously?

If I could finish, Senator Cash; I did listen to you with courtesy. I think that the crossbench—and I'm sure the manager will say something about this—is using OPDs in a way that, as a senator who has been here for over 20 years, I have not seen. I think that deserves a collaborative discussion. If people don't want to engage in that, it's a matter for them. I would say to the opposition that there was a time when parties of government who actually thought of themselves as parties of government behaved like adults. This opposition is not behaving like adults.

One Nation will be supporting this motion, because it is entirely appropriate to deal with what is going on. The Labor government is intentionally wasting the Senate's time. That is abundantly clear. There are very important things that we should be dealing with, and the government is wasting this chamber's time. You can say it's a procedural issue, but, at the heart of it, you are intentionally wasting time. This has to stop. It is so disrespectful to the taxpayer. It is so disrespectful to the Australian people to engage—it's childish. It is a childish way that you are behaving. You are dragging things out intentionally, and it needs to stop.

One Nation is prepared to assist anyone who wants to resolve this. This is a perfectly reasonable motion, and I am glad that Labor acknowledges that we need to speed things up. If you want to speed things up, then I would hope that would support this motion, too. It is so obvious what you are doing. You are intentionally dragging things out, and then, at the end of the week, you will come and say, 'We are out of time,' and then you will move a guillotine and seek to rush legislation through. You will shut down debate. You are wasting time now to give yourself an excuse in the future to shut down debate and ram through legislation. That is inappropriate.

We must resolve things now so you can no longer use the excuse of being out of time. You have the time now to fix this. Let's fix it, and let's get on with the business of the Senate that we should be dealing with.

I welcome the opportunity to talk about orders for the production of documents and the way that they are being used in the chamber. I think it requires going back and having a look at what has happened, and I've spoken about that in the chamber before.

In the past, in the early years of the Senate, orders for production of documents were used sparingly, and for a period of time in the sixties, seventies and eighties they weren't used at all. In 2006, there was one that passed the Senate. It was seen as the most significant power available to the Senate to call for documents. As Senator Wong just said, that has changed. It's changed most dramatically in this parliamentary term, where, on Monday, we had 32 orders for production of documents in one day.

If we think back to how they were handled, and it was the way that the opposition used to handle it when they were in government—not when there were that many—the practice was to let orders of production through, which was the approach that we took for a period of time. Then we were criticised and misrepresented by the Senate saying, 'Everyone has agreed to this order for the production of documents, and they are not complying.' So we decided that, yes, we would put our vote on the record every single time we did not agree with an order for the production of documents and have that recorded as a division—as is our right. That was so it could be very clear that, while the rest of the Senate was deciding that documents that had already been published online should be produced for the Senate or documents that maybe covered 130,000 documents should be provided tomorrow, we didn't agree with that. That is why we're dividing and that is why we're amending. We have every single right to do so, just as all of you have a right to move amendments to anything in this place. We respect that right. But don't come in here and say that this is a problem of the government's making. It is not. It is the way formal business is being misused and abused by the Senate.

You're just time wasting; don't guillotine your own legislation.

Order! Senator McKenzie, your interjections are disorderly.

I will continue to say that. I am a big supporter of transparency and open government. If you look at questions on notice and the materials that are being released, you will see—compared to your record, Senator Cash—this government outdoes you on every single measure. The standards that you applied in government are not the standards we apply. But we will not accept that 42 orders for the production of documents for Senator Bragg to find out whether Housing Australia has purchased any furniture is the correct use of that power. That is what is happening in here, and, if we oppose it, we—if you put on them on the Notice Paper and we oppose it, we have the right to divide on it. If we want to amend it, we have the right to amend it and have that amendment considered.

And, yes, it affects everyone in this chamber. But it is our right to divide, and, if you are going to load 20 OPDs and 30 OPDs, then, yes, it will take a considerable time in the afternoon to deal with that. We need to be on the record that we do not agree—and the history books will show—with the abuse of the power of the order for the production of documents.

I've been trying to reach agreement with people around the Senate about how to deal with OPDs, acknowledging that it's not working for anyone, and then this motion gets put without discussion or debate.

Senator Gallagher, I will interrupt you for a moment. Senator McKenzie, before I recognise your point of order, may I just make the observation that you have repeatedly interjected in this debate.

Government senators interjecting—

Senators on my right, too! You have a point of order, but, while you avail yourself of those rules, I would appreciate if you would listen when I call you to order when you are interjecting.

I accept I've been disorderly in my interjections. My point of order is on direct relevance. The minister has the opportunity, if this suspension motion gets up, to actually debate whether the Labor Party has been wasting the Senate's time or not. I would ask you to draw her to the question about suspension.

I have understood your point of order. There is no point of order. The minister is being relevant to this debate, however much you may not agree with her. I've ruled on that point of order.

The debate is around whether we should suspend to consider a motion around the order for the production of documents.

In conclusion, if we look at the 46th Parliament, over 139 sitting days there were 198 orders moved, which was much higher than previous parliaments. In the 47th Parliament, there were 435 orders of production moved, and in 32 sitting days in this parliament—and probably if we include today's and this week's—there have been more than 200. You cannot say that this part of the program and orders for the production of documents are being used appropriately. They are not. They are being used as formal motions, and it's not appropriate. We will continue to oppose and continue to divide.

If you listened to what the government just had to say, there's this claim that we're preventing the government from voting on questions of orders for the production of documents. If the government had read the motion, they would see it does precisely the opposite. We are voting on government amendments; we're just doing it as a job lot.

I'll remind senators that yesterday, the day before and the last sitting week we had verbatim repeated motions to amend orders for the production of documents. There was one after another after another—almost identical, in fact. To that end, we thought we might assist the government, allowing them to have more time to actually get on with government business and do the things that the leader herself came down to talk about—to deal with matters of foreign affairs and their belated response to assist Australians caught in the Middle East. It was interesting that the leader came down here to speak to this motion rather than dealing with those urgent matters, but there is no prevention of the government's right to vote against an order for the production of documents being exercised here. For those in the gallery and listening at home, an order for production of documents is just transparency. It is us wanting to see a document belonging to government and relating to you—relating to how we spend your money. They're voting no to those things. They don't want you to know. That's what an order for the production of documents is, ladies and gentlemen. I just want to make that clear when it comes to what the government has been saying.

Over the last four sitting days, would you believe we've had limited time to do very important things, like deal with national security and foreign affairs. We have spent six hours and 31 minutes dealing with formal business. We're getting our steps up from one side of the chamber to the other, so there are good fitness benefits there! But we've had six hours and 31 minutes voting on questions before this parliament, half of which could be dispensed with, which is the point of this motion. These amendments to delete all words after 'that' and replace them with whatever the government want to put in, which is exactly the same every time, could be done away with if senators support the motion that Senator Cash wants to debate today. We want to be able to deal with the issues this government says are important, as voiced by the leader just before. We don't want to stand in the way of that, and it is not just us who have been seeking to divide on every single amendment this government puts forward. They're the ones who are doing this. They are the ones who are stringing out formal business. That could end if this suspension is supported and this motion is passed.

As stated, when it comes to transparency, remember that this is a government that said: 'We are going to be more transparent than that last evil government. The coalition government would hide everything and make sure the public saw nothing. No OPD was ever responded to under them.' Look at what's happening here. When you do get a document, it is just black ink because everything has been redacted. It's not light reading; there is no reading, because this government don't want you to see what they're doing on your behalf. This is why they have been tying themselves in knots for the last few sitting days. It's particularly about the crossbench, as the Manager of Government Business alluded to, who have limited resources and need to be across everything. They need access to this information, hence the number of orders for production of documents and request for transparency. A bit of disinfectant and natural light is being applied to the business of government in these motions. That's what we support here.

If there is room for reform, let's get on and talk about it. Let's talk about how we can refine how this process works. But, with every day that goes past, after six hours and 31 minutes of bells ringing and senators crossing back and forward, I can tell you now: if there was a productivity measure for how we spend our time during formal business, the taxpayers of Australia have gained nothing from it. The government have voted no every single time, and they are on their own. They have united the entire Senate against the government when it comes to matters of transparency. Everyone from One Nation to the Australian Greens has been voting against the government's approach here. That's got to tell you something. Something is very wrong with the process this government is adopting when it comes to provision of information and how they're managing this chamber. Sadly, it does paint a picture of loss of control.

We've had six hours and 31 minutes of lost, wasted time. That is not good for Australia, it's not good for democracy, and it's not good for transparency. So, to that end, how can a government continue operating this way? There is no solution in sight. We've put forward a solution. It makes sense. It will cut down the amount of time we're wasting on this by half so we can get on and do the job Australians want us to do.

I rise in support of this motion to ensure that the Senate can free up some time to debate and deal with important business. It's my sense that the increase in OPDs actually reflects the nosedive in transparency that we've seen from this government. It reflects the frustration of crossbenchers and others. On some of the comparisons with the Morrison government—if we compare the last term of the Morrison government in parliament with the first term of the Albanese government, and we look at compliance rates with OPDs, in the 46th Parliament, it was—

You wouldn’t call that apples with apples, would you, Senator Pocock?

I'll take that interjection.

Senator McAllister! Senators, come to order. Senator Pocock has the call. He is entitled to be heard.

I am very happy to take the interjection about comparing apples with apples, because I am in fact comparing the compliance rate with OPDs with the compliance rate with OPDs, which seems to be a fairly similar comparison. Under the Morrison government, it was 48.7 per cent. Under the Albanese government, it is 32.8 per cent.

One of the frustrations for those on the crossbench is that, even when we do successfully move an OPD, we're often getting back this—blacked-out pages.

Senator Pocock, you are not permitted under the standing orders, as you know, to bring a prop into the chamber.

That is a tabled document.

Absolutely, but you cannot use it as a prop. Senator Pocock, you are entitled to rely on the document and describe it, but please don't hold it up for the purposes of a visual.

Thank you, Chair, for the correction. I was just holding up a document we received back in response to an OPD, and, curiously, there were a bunch of redactions to the talking points for a public event that the minister was giving, which just seems extraordinary by any measure

There is so much urgent stuff that this parliament should be dealing with. There are Australians struggling out there under housing pressures and cost-of-living pressures. Yes, we've seen this ridiculous approach to essentially double the votes that this chamber takes. I don't know if you're looking for a record number of defeats in a week or what it might be. I welcome this. I think that we should move forward. Yes, there's potentially a debate about the scope of some OPDs, but I think they are an incredibly valuable thing and an important part of the Senate.

You have to ask the larger question, in the context of a government that at the same time brings forward an FOI bill to reduce transparency—an FOI bill that actually goes against a recommendation of the robodebt royal commission and actually reduces transparency. That doesn't cut it. You can't just keep pointing to the Morrison government and saying, 'Well, at least we're a little bit better than them.' Australians want better, and rightly. They deserve better. So I urge you to do better on this. We have a Senate that wants more transparency.

In fact, we read in the media—and I've spoken to some of these companies—that we have local AI companies who have solutions that are ready to go and that will cut down your processing time. They can actually help you with your OPDs. It seems to me that the problem we're facing is not actually the time it takes to gather the documents but the time it takes to go through and redact the talking points for a public event. That must take a lot of time. That must take a huge amount of time and a lot of ink.

Get a private company to trawl through the government record?

Well, what's Microsoft? I'll take that interjection. I'll take the interjection, quickly, from Senator McAllister. She is very happy for Microsoft, a multinational with some serious data concerns with the Trump administration, to have all of our data and all of our emails, but, when it comes to a sovereign tech AI company based here in Australia, with safeguards, that can do it offline, there are questions raised. That doesn't cut it. It doesn't cut it on transparency, and it doesn't cut it when it comes to how we treat small Australian businesses.

Senator McKenzie, I see you on your feet, but unfortunately the time for this debate has just expired.

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

I remind advisors, particularly at the back of the room, that, once a division is called, you are not to move.

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of government amendments to formal business may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate.

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

I move:

That—

(a) immediately after the deferred vote on general business notice of motion no. 359, the questions on government amendments to general business notices of motion moved on 3 March be put immediately together;

(b) if a division is called for on government amendments to formal motions moved today then the division will be deferred until the end of formal motions and the questions on the amendments be put together; and

(c) the main question on formal motions moved today then be put separately.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

On a point of order, I would like to make a contribution on the third reading, and I would ask for the minister's indulgence to withdraw—

As you are aware, it is the minister's prerogative to move that the question be put. You can vote either way, but the motion has been moved.

The question is that the question be put on the third reading.

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

I rise today to speak in support of the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025. This bill reflects the Albanese Labor government's unwavering commitment to the safety and security of all Australians. It is about strengthening our justice system and building a stronger, fairer and more effective federal parole system, a system where critical decisions are made with the utmost expertise and objectivity and a clear focus on protecting our communities—a system that Australians can have confidence in.

Parole plays a vital role in our justice system, and, when decisions about parole are administered properly and made by people with knowledge and expertise, parole actually keeps communities safer. This includes legal, law enforcement, corrective services, victims-of-crime advocates, psychologists and community safety experts. The combined interdisciplinary knowledge of these professions helps with rehabilitation, reintegration and public protection. With support and appropriate conditions, we can minimise reoffending. Of course, this would never be at the cost of public safety. Expert decision-making ensures that robust controls, supervision and safeguards are imposed where necessary to protect the community.

Despite this, the Commonwealth remains the only jurisdiction without an independent parole board. As it currently stands, decisions regarding federal offenders are currently made by the Commonwealth Parole Office, within the Attorney-General's Department, in coordination with the Attorney-General. While the office of the Attorney-General is one of immense responsibility and integrity, the current model places an undue burden on a single entity. It risks politicising a process that demands specialised knowledge and dispassionate judgement. In a liberal democracy like ours, the separation of powers is a cornerstone of good governance and legal systems. The current model is vulnerable to breaches of procedural fairness, a fundamental principle that holds our justice system together.

We do not ask the Attorney-General to determine who should be prosecuted. That responsibility rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions—precisely because we believe in the separation of powers. We expect the DPP to act independently, apolitically and in accordance with the law and evidence. The same principle must apply across the board. As the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, articulated so clearly in her second reading speech on this legislation, decisions about whether convicted federal offenders are released into the community on parole and the conditions under which they are released should be made by law enforcement and other community safety experts, not by politicians. This bill aligns the Commonwealth with best-practice approaches across states and territories as well as international partners, including Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.

Calls for an independent Commonwealth Parole Board are not new. Governments have been talking about how this could happen since 1975. I am proud to be a part of the Albanese government, a government who is tackling these longstanding challenges. In my role as chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee I have the privilege of working on these overdue elements of our legal system. These are reforms that strengthen our institutions, and the need for reform has never been clearer. The nature of federal offending has evolved significantly. Historically, federal offences often comprised matters like social services fraud. Today, federal offences include complex matters and serious offences, including terrorism and child sexual abuse offences. The make-up and complexity of the federal offender cohort has changed over time.

This shift demands a more sophisticated and specialised approach to parole decision-making. In 2024-25 there were more than 530 federal parole and parole-related decisions. This number has been consistently increasing each year by five to 15 per cent. The current model is no longer fit for purpose. The bill puts forward a statutory independent Commonwealth Parole Board. The board will have complete discretion in performing or exercising its functions or powers and is not subject to direction from anyone when doing so. The board will consist of a chair, a deputy chair and at least three sessional members.

Importantly, this bill mandates that members hold experience and expertise across a broad range of relevant disciplines. Members will possess expertise in law, law enforcement, corrective services, victim advocacy, psychology, social work, criminology, and even medicine and mental health. Parole decisions are complex, and this breadth of knowledge will ensure that every aspect of an offender's circumstances is considered and will lead to genuinely risk-informed decisions. This is how we truly de-politicise parole and foster a greater public trust and confidence in the federal parole system.

The legislation also delivers transparency and accountability. This also brings the Commonwealth in line with best-practice models that are already successfully implemented across Australia's states and territories. So this should really be non-controversial. Decisions will be documented and subject to review. The chair will be required to provide an annual report to parliament detailing the board's activities, case load and emerging issues, ensuring ongoing scrutiny.

Importantly, those who live and breathe the work of implementing the legal system support the implementation of an independent parole board. The Australian Law Commission, Law Council of Australia and National Legal Aid have all recommended the establishment of an independent Commonwealth parole board. The Law Council have stated that parole decisions are complex. They require expertise and resourcing to facilitate procedural fairness where community safety, effective rehabilitation and human rights of prisoners, as well as the experience and perspectives of victims, all require respect and consideration. This bill delivers exactly that.

Finally, it is important to address concerns raised in light of recent events. The Attorney-General has stated that this bill will not change the statutory prohibition against parole for terrorist offenders. There is a very high threshold that must be met for a terrorism offender to be granted parole. Parole can only be granted if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the release. That won't change. Community safety remains the overriding principle, particularly for the most serious offences. By passing this bill, we are strengthening community protection, restoring confidence in the parole system and ensuring that critical decisions are made independently, expertly and fairly. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we'll be supporting the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, and we are very much looking forward to an independent Commonwealth parole authority. If we only needed one reason to support this bill, the reason I'd give would be David McBride. David McBride is a political prisoner in Australia who is in jail under a Commonwealth offence—a breaching secrecy offence—for telling the truth about war. David McBride, in the next 12 months, will come up for parole. I can tell you what I don't want to see happen. I don't want to see David McBride, as a political prisoner, have his parole application decided by an attorney-general—a politician from any one of the war parties. I don't want that to happen. I want to see an independent parole board actually look at the merits not just of David's parole application but of every parole application from anyone who's in jail for breaching a Commonwealth offence.

I've heard some pretty remarkable contributions in this chamber, but I have rarely seen one stray so far from reality as the one we heard from the shadow Attorney-General, Senator Cash, yesterday. Senator Cash suggested that having an independent statutory parole board at a Commonwealth level was some kind of political smokescreen, some terrible lack of accountability and a wicked political ploy from the Labor government to avoid accountability for parole decisions. She suggested that it was indicative of a collapse in political standards that we're finding, and she suggests that it would be an incredibly dangerous thing for community safety. As I said, rarely have I heard a speech stray so far from reality than that contribution from Senator Cash, and I haven't really done it justice. There was invective and passion that she also added to her attack on this bill.

But what Senator Cash forgot to say was that every other jurisdiction in this country has a parole board, every state and every territory has an independent parole board. The UK and the overwhelming bulk of jurisdictions across the world that follow a common-law tradition like us have independent parole boards. That is because the public expects decisions about criminal justice, about whether people go in jail or stay in jail, not to be decided by politicians but to be decided by independent bodies. In fact, our constitution requires that at a Commonwealth level. Courts making decisions about criminality and then independent parole boards making decisions about whether people should be released once their minimum sentence time has been reached—that's what happens across the Commonwealth. We then saw the shadow Attorney-General say this is outrageous because an independent statutory parole board will be making decisions about people who have committed serious Commonwealth offences such as terrorism, child abuse. They are incredibly serious criminal offences. The Greens believe that whether or not someone gets parole should be decided by an independent statutory body, not by a politician.

But again, what the shadow Attorney-General, who wants to be the Attorney-General in the future—a frightening thought that we would revisit that past—and the coalition forgot to mention was that, at a state and territory level, parole boards in their daily work across this country are deciding whether or not people who have been convicted of manslaughter, serious sexual assault, serious—even state based—terror offences, some of the most appalling crimes you can imagine get parole. They are doing it without the involvement and without a political veto from politicians at a state and territory level. That's how the public would expect our criminal justice system to work.

We currently have at a Commonwealth level—the only jurisdiction in the country—a politician in the form of the Attorney-General who can pretty much pluck any parole decision away from the bureaucrats in their office and make a political decision on parole. That is an incredibly dangerous political role in what is meant to be an apolitical criminal justice system. How it works in practice is the Attorney-General delegates the bulk of the parole decision-making to bureaucrats inside the Attorney-General's office. That is another thing the coalition forgot to mention—that, under their preferred model, the overwhelming bulk of Commonwealth parole decisions under the status quo are not even made by a politician but are just made by bureaucrats in the office with no statutory controls, no statutory independence; you don't even know who is making the parole decisions. They are nameless bureaucrats whose careers depend on keeping in favour with the secretary—whose career depends on keeping in favour with the Attorney-General. That is the current Commonwealth parole system. If the coalition had been honest about wanting nameless, faceless bureaucrats who owe their careers to the secretary—who owes their career to the AG—to be the ongoing parole system for the Commonwealth, they should be honest and talk about it truthfully.

What does this bill do? It creates an independent parole board which will have people appointed to it based on relevant expertise. Parole is really hard. I can tell you now, having spoken with people who have been on parole boards in my home state of New South Wales, members of statutory parole boards take their jobs incredibly seriously. They look at the evidence about the offence. They look at a person's record inside the criminal justice, rehabilitation programs they have or haven't done, their stated intention. They can consult most times with victims and they inform victims of decisions being made.

They don't have to under this.

I will get to the guidelines in due course. They do that in a respectful way. I can tell you now, not every victim, not every survivor, wants to be part of a parole decision. Many victims and survivors want that to be dealt with by an independent statutory body, and they want emotional and psychological distance from the decision being made. But some do want to be involved. They want their hurt, their pain, their experience to be before the Parole Board. Allowing that voice on parole to be heard should be and needs to be part of an effective parole system. But it's part of an array of complex material, including, as I said, the nature of the offence, the response by the person seeking parole to their time in prison, evidence from the corrections authorities, evidence from psychologists and sometimes evidence about a person's basic record inside the corrections system—a complex series of facts and expert evidence that is best assessed by an independent board, an independent body, not by a politician who's doing it on a part-time basis for political reasons and not by a nameless, faceless bureaucrat who isn't controlled by any identifiable guidelines or controls.

I've got to tell you an independent parole board will be significant, especially for some parts of the community—for example, First Nations people in federal custody. They deserve a fair and impartial process, not to have their parole decision decided by a coalition attorney-general or a Labor attorney-general. They deserve, as I think all people deserve, a pathway through the criminal justice system that is based upon the merits of the matter, not the politics of the matter. It has been a longstanding recommendation at a federal level, going back five decades, for the Commonwealth to establish an independent parole board. It's been a recommendation from multiple parliamentary committees and from the ALRC, the Australian Law Reform Commission, and it's about time it happened.

We did have concerns with the initial draft presented to us by the government. We had concerns that clause 24 of the bill allowed the departmental secretary to sit on the board when the chair or the acting chair was unavailable. The Greens firmly believe that a parole board should be genuinely independent from the government of the day, and a departmental secretary who owes their job and their political future to the attorney-general and the government of the day is not independent; they're a part of the executive government. As drafted, that clause significantly undermined the board's independence from the government of the day. I am very grateful for the assistance we've had from the Law Council, their detailed submissions and their detailed engagement with the bill, including on this issue about the independence of the parole board. I am glad that we've been able to reach an agreement with the government for an amendment to clause 24 which will remove the secretary's role and will instead put in place an arrangement where an acting chair can be appointed, to ensure that there's the independence of the parole board.

We have had a series of submissions, and there will be a series of amendments being moved, which are proposing to put in express provisions about how the parole board should operate. Save for the coalition's amendments, the amendments that are being brought forward by other senators, I think, are coming from a good place. They are, for example, suggesting that natural justice needs to be applied by the parole board, they are proposing that the parole board must conduct interviews before making a parole decision, and there have been propositions that we should expand the jurisdiction of the parole board to also include reconsiderations. I understand, and the Greens understand, where these amendments come from.

But can I say, on the amendment that would require the parole board to conduct interviews, that that may be good, and I and the Greens believe that would be essential if the parole board is intending to refuse parole, but there would be many circumstances where a parole board might be well satisfied to give a grant of parole without an interview, and you wouldn't want to limit the ability to do that. I would hope, and the Greens would expect, that that kind of process would be adopted in the guidelines once the parole board is up and running. But, as currently drafted, that amendment would potentially prevent some people who are entitled to and worthy of parole from getting parole in a timely fashion.

As to the amendment proposing the rules of procedural fairness, again, we understand the effect of that and the intent of that. The common law makes it clear that people have a right of procedural fairness in decisions such as those of the parole board. And, under common law, unless there's some statutory statement to the contrary, there is a right of procedural fairness, which will be part of the parole board as established. For that reason, we don't believe it is necessary to include that statement in the legislation, because it's implicit in the board as established under existing Commonwealth principles. And, of course, the guidelines would not be able to limit the right as to procedural fairness. They might be able to articulate how it occurs, but they would not be able to remove the right to procedural fairness.

I'll say, finally, on the issue of victims: I would expect the guidelines to include the role for victims that I've articulated in this speech on the second reading—the rights of victims to be advised; the rights of victims, if they wish, to have their voice heard in a parole decision. I believe that we will see that, in these guidelines—and it will be a significant improvement from the current system, that the coalition are trying to defend, where there are no rights for victims and they are not engaged with, they are not heard, unless a politician decides it's in their political interests to do so.

We want to depoliticise the criminal justice system. We want experts, well qualified and independent, to decide parole, not politicians. And we support the bill.

I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, which is a deeply flawed proposal. Unlike the Greens' Senator Shoebridge, we want accountability in our criminal justice system. This bill would strip the decision-making responsibility about parole for federal offenders from the Attorney-General and would enshrine a parole board that would then make decisions about parole, instead of the minister.

This parole board would be unelected and it would be fundamentally unaccountable—and, most importantly, right now, it would be elected by a very left government that has a poor track record of keeping Australians safe and protecting our way of life. It would also be made up of people who don't need the relevant legal, corrections or law-enforcement background. That's very, very important. As it stands, the Attorney-General is an elected member of the House of Representatives, accountable to the parliament and answerable to the people. The Attorney-General is not just another minister; the Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Commonwealth. The minister's decision as to whether a criminal goes free or remains in prison is a critical one. Currently, the Attorney-General has the final say over these decisions, and we, the people of Australia, can hold the minister accountable for their decisions.

The crux of why this proposal is so flat-out wrong comes down to accountability. Who holds the blame at the end of the day if that parole decision goes badly wrong? Who decides whether egregious criminals walk free early or not? Under this new bill, Labor is trying to take the easy path, to make the easy response. They will say: 'It was the decision of an independent body; don't blame us.' Under this new bill, this parole board would be appointed by this left-wing government but answerable to no-one.

This is a predictable step from a government addicted to shifting the blame. Just think about their response to Australia's record-high inflation. It is outpacing the rest of the OECD, because of the government and its spending, and, according to the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, the government is not at fault. The RBA begs to differ. The coalition's testimony—and that of many experts—shows that this government is hiding the truth: that the Labor government is degrading your standard of living, and, of course, it is a coalition, Liberal led, government that will restore it for the Australian people.

Immigration that has seen over 1½ million new arrivals to this country in three short years—that's not the fault of the Prime Minister; that's someone else's fault. But we all know the truth: that Labor has lost control of the borders. The ISIS brides are coming back. 'Don't blame me,' says the Prime Minister. They are Australian citizens, and Minister Burke must roll out the red carpet to these terrorists who seek to divide us or, worse, try to kill us in our own streets. Always remember: the Liberal led coalition will restore our standard of living and protect our way of life. There is a pattern here.

The Prime Minister is refusing to accept responsibility for his government's decisions, and federal prisoner releases are just the next step in a long line of abrogation. Federal offenders are not just people who have done the wrong thing; they include people guilty of the most serious and complex crimes—terrorists, including offenders with ongoing ideological networks, child sex offenders, including those involved in large-scale abuse material networks, people smugglers and transnational facilitators, serious organised crime figures, cybercriminals with international reach, foreign interference actors and those linked to hostile state activity. These are heinous and damaging crimes that destroy the fabric of Australia. Releasing these prisoners is not a box-ticking exercise.

The government tells us that more than 530 parole decisions were made in the year 2024-25 and that the workload is only increasing. But a growing caseload is not a reason to hand this responsibility off to a panel. It's a reason to make sure that the decision-maker has the authority and information they need and accountability directly to the community. These decisions often touch on classified intelligence, frontline policing operations and sensitive international issues. In our Commonwealth system, only the Attorney-General can bring together the highest levels of advice from across the government and ensure that every relevant agency is engaged with the seriousness and seniority that these decisions demand. This board, acting inside tight, legislative restrictions, would have nowhere near the reach an Attorney-General does regarding national security, nor would it have the same capacity or accountability. This is why these decisions should be kept at the highest level—with the First Law Officer of the Commonwealth.

When drafting this bill, Labor has also made one serious omission. They gave no serious considerations to victims. The government would rather placate victims with discretionary language rather than organise a sensible way for victims to have their say. What you do not see in this bill is any kind of mandatory requirement for the victims of these criminals to be consulted before a parole decision is made. There will be no legislative requirement for any notification that an offender is due to be released nor that a hearing is being held or that a parole decision is imminent. How is that fair? How is it fair or just that a victim of sexual abuse, organised crime, exploitation or a terrorist act should remain unaware that the person that damaged their life so terribly is being released into the community? This bill neglects the rights of victims and treats them as a matter of procedural consideration rather than honouring their right to feel safe in their own country. Victims don't need platitudes; they need enforceable rights to be notified, to be heard and to know their safety is being taken seriously.

The coalition has strong concerns that the appointed members of this parole board will reflect the diversity policy of this government rather than merit. There is no requirement that the members of this board have a legal, corrections or law enforcement background. This sounds more like the judging panel for the Archibald Prize than a serious, community safety focused parole board. Appointments to this board must be based on merit, demonstrated expertise and experience based in law, intelligence, victim advocacy and risk assessment. Labor would be placing the safety of victims and Australians, more broadly, on decisions not made by experts but rather by diversity hires. I wholeheartedly support the amendment proposed by Senator Cash to allow the Attorney-General to object to decisions made by the Commonwealth Parole Board. This is a principled change that keeps accountability firmly in the court of the Attorney-General.

Public safety has taken a backseat in this bill. If this board is to be inaugurated, the board members must be qualified. You can only think of the most horrific potential scenarios: a serial child abuser is jailed and considered for parole just years later, and an inexperienced and inept board or a weak, left-leaning one grants parole without any oversight or accountability, which may result in that abuser reoffending. I know there is always risk in these decisions, but this risk must be weighed and the judgements made by experienced men and women who are held accountable by you, the Australian people—

A faceless bureaucrat?

Senator Shoebridge, we are getting to the end of the speeches and the reading. I would ask that you show some tolerance, because we heard you in silence.

Largely

Well, for the time that I have sat in the chair. Thank you, for clearing that up!

We cannot afford to make mistakes in this area as the safety of the victims and the community, more broadly, depends on it. I do not trust this Labor government to appoint a board that is fit for purpose, and that is why the proposed amendment from Senator Cash is absolutely essential.

This bill comes from a government focused on making its job easier, not Australians safer. It comes from a government focused on delegating the hard decisions, not making them. It comes from the most secretive Australian government of the last 50 years, from FOIs to ISIS brides. This government is incapable of being transparent with the Australian people. I am proud to stand with the coalition, which opposes this bill as it is currently drafted. Only a Liberal-led coalition government would protect Australians' way of life. It would ensure victims are heard and consulted in these decisions and accept the responsibility of our actions, unlike this Labor government, which is hiding and ducking from every warranted criticism. I do not commend this bill in its current form to the Senate, and I urge all other senators to do the same.

For serious offenders, community safety is non-negotiable. The question is not whether we take risks seriously; the question is how we manage that risk when release occurs. That requires judgement; it requires experience, and above all it requires independence. That is why the legislation before the Senate matters. The Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 and the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 establish an independent Commonwealth Parole Board and transfer federal parole decision-making to an expert statutory body, replacing the current ministerial decision-making framework with an independent statutory model.

At its core, this reform is about aligning the Commonwealth with what Australians already expect. Decisions about whether a convicted federal offender is released into the community and on what conditions should be made carefully, consistently and based on evidence and risk. At the moment, parole decisions for federal offenders are made by the Attorney-General, working with delegates within the Commonwealth Parole Office inside the Attorney-General's department. That arrangement has existed for a long time. It developed in a very different context when the federal offender cohort was small, relatively narrow and largely made up of offences like social security fraud and regulatory breaches. That context has changed.

The number of federal offenders has grown. There are now around 1,200 federal offenders serving sentences across Australia. That is more than the combined prison populations of the ACT and Tasmania. More importantly, the nature of federal funding has changed. The cohort now includes people convicted of terrorism offences, serious organised crime and child sexual abuse material offences. These are complex cases. They involve real risks and they demand deep expertise, yet until now the structures for making those decisions has not kept pace.

Every state and territory in Australia has an independent parole board. The Commonwealth is the only jurisdiction that does not. That makes us the exception, not the standard. Australians expect parole decisions to be made independently of politics. They expect consistency, they expect transparency and they expect community safety to be taken seriously at every stage. This reform responds directly to those expectations.

The Albanese Labor government is establishing a statutory, independent, Commonwealth parole board made up of people with experience across law, law enforcement, corrections, psychology, psychiatry, social work, rehabilitation and working with victims of crime. This matters because parole is not a box-ticking exercise. Assessing risks requires understanding patterns of offending. Understanding rehabilitation requires insight into treatment, behaviour and support structures. Understudy community impact requires listening to victims and considering the broader consequences of release. These are not skills developed through politics; they are developed through practice.

This reform reflects Labor's values of fairness, security and responsibility. Fairness means decisions should be made on the merits of each case, not shaped by political pressure, media attention or fear of criticism. Security means putting community protection first. Parole is not a concession; it is a control mechanism. It allows authorities to impose strict conditions, monitor behaviour and act immediately if those conditions are breached. Responsibility means government has a duty to modernise systems when they no longer reflect best practice. Parole is often misunderstood in public debate. It's not an automatic release. It's not a reward. It is not leniency. Parole is a conditional release under strict control. It allows enforceable conditions to be imposed. It allows supervision. It allows authorities to monitor behaviour closely. If those conditions are breached, parole can be suspended or revoked and the person returned to custody. It's structured oversight.

A system that manages the transition from custody to community is safer than one that ignores it. That is why parole decisions matter so deeply and that is why who makes those decisions matters just as much. Under the current system, the Attorney-General is the decision-maker. This is a question of system design. Ministers are elected to make laws, set policy and be accountable to parliament and the public. Individual parole decisions should sit with an independent expert body. The current arrangement potentially exposes decisions to political pressure and undermines confidence even when decisions are made carefully and in good faith. This legislation draws a clear and appropriate line. Ministers set the laws; experts apply it. The Commonwealth Parole Board will make decisions independently. The board will not be subject to direction. Members will be statutory officeholders. Decisions will be made collectively, with reasons recorded. The board will be required to report annually to parliament, and its operations will be reviewed after commencement. Importantly, decisions will remain subject to judicial review and existing procedural fairness obligations will continue to apply. That is accountability built into the system, not bolted on after the fact.

The board will also have the flexibility to make better decisions. This legislation allows the board to defer decisions in limited circumstances where more information is genuinely needed. It allows reconsideration periods to be set in a way that reflects the time required to complete rehabilitation programs or secure stable accommodation. That flexibility is not about delay for its own sake; it's about making decisions at the right time rather than the wrong time. Good decisions made later are better than poor decisions made early.

This reform does not make it easier for serious offenders to be released. It does not weaken the law. It does not lower the threshold for release, and it does not reduce protections for the community. The bill strengthens the integrity of the system by ensuring decisions are made independently, consistently and on the basis of evidence. The legal framework for parole remains in place. The criteria remain the same. The standards remain high. The purposes of parole are unchanged—rehabilitation and reintegration, where appropriate, and the protection of the community.

Community safety is not a secondary consideration here; it is central to the system. It always has been, and it remains so under this legislation. The statutory prohibition on parole for terrorist offenders remains unchanged. The threshold for release remains extremely high. Nothing in this bill alters that. What changes is not the standard; what changes is the decision-maker. Decisions will be made with greater independence, greater consistency and greater credibility.

This reform also stands in sharp contrast to the former coalition government's approach. For years, they resisted the establishment of an independent Commonwealth parole board—and it appears they still will—despite repeated calls from the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Law Reform Commission, National Legal Aid and victim-advocacy groups. They were content to leave parole decisions with ministers while criticising outcomes they disagreed with from the sidelines. Labor has chosen a different path. We have listened to experts. We have listened to victim advocates, and we have acted. This legislation is the product of extensive consultation with various stakeholders across Australia, including state and territory justice agencies, correction authorities, legal bodies and advocacy groups. It reflects best practice, not political theatre.

For Tasmania, this reform has real and practical significance. Federal offenders are held in Tasmanian prisons. They are supervised by Tasmanian correctional staff. Decisions made at the Commonwealth level have direct consequences for the Tasmanian community. Tasmania already operates under an independent parole board model at the state level. We understand the value of independence in maintaining consistency and public trust.

The government has committed $28.3 million over four years to establish and operate the Commonwealth Parole Board with ongoing funding of around $7 million per year. That is a serious investment. It reflects the seriousness of the task and the importance of getting it right. Success will not be measured by headlines or slogans. It will be measured by better decisions, safer communities and greater confidence in the justice system.

At its heart, this reform is about responsibility. This includes responsibility to victims, who deserve a system that takes their safety seriously and treats their experiences with respect; responsibility to the community, which expects decisions about release from custody to be made carefully and, I'll say it again, independently and, again, on the basis of evidence; and responsibility to the integrity of our institutions, which depends on power being exercised properly, not politically. This is careful reform. It's overdue reform, and it's the right reform. I commend the bill to the Senate.

I listened very closely to Senator Brown's comments and remarks in relation to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, as I have listened to the remarks of other senators in this place. At the outset, I'd like to state that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in Australia's political system. The Attorney-General is not just an elected official appointed as a minister; they also have all sorts of responsibilities connected with their role as the first law officer of the country. That brings significant obligations upon the Attorney-General with respect to our system of justice, with respect to rule of law and with respect to different discretions that they're required to consider very carefully as to whether or not they exercise them. So I think the first point that needs to be made in this debate is that the position of attorney-general is quite unique in terms of ministerial status and responsibilities linked to their role as the first law officer of the country.

The second point I want to make is this: I have no doubt that attorneys-general from both of the parties of government, supported by experts within the Attorney-General's Department, have been operating to make the best possible parole decisions they can in all the circumstances. Whilst people can allege that decisions were being made, or may be made, for political reasons, I haven't heard any evidence of that. I haven't heard any evidence that any attorney-general, from any party, in any government—certainly during my time in this place—has made a parole decision on the basis of political considerations. Not one example has been given. I have no doubt that my friend and colleague Senator Cash, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, when she had those responsibilities as Attorney-General, would have carefully considered, in her diligent way, the evidence given to her by the departmental officials—by the experts—and made a decision in accordance with the law with respect to parole. I have absolutely no doubt about it, and we have not heard any example of political interference or the exercise of decision-making power with respect to parole being influenced by political considerations. We haven't heard one example of it—not one during the whole debate. That's a good thing, because there shouldn't be political considerations with respect to parole. So I really think people need to be careful before alleging that colleagues in this place have exercised powers for political considerations. I underline the fact that I am sure my friend and colleague Senator Cash would have exercised these powers extremely diligently, as her predecessors would have.

There's a corollary. You want to take the power away from the Attorney-General and give it to an independent board. Well, let's look at the independent board that you're proposing. Let's consider what's actually being proposed here, because there is a benefit in the Attorney-General, an elected official, having this power and being responsible for the exercise of this power in this place and in the other place. There is a benefit in that, in terms of that public accountability, because when they make the wrong decision they can be held accountable for that decision in this place. You want to move it to an independent board. Okay, let's look at the mechanics with respect to this independent board.

The first point I want to make is that I think the position of chair of this parole board under this piece of legislation is extraordinarily powerful. This will be an official who is appointed once and will be in this position for five years, and it is an extraordinarily important professional position. If you were to think about the sort of qualifications you would expect the chair of the parole board to have, I would have thought most reasonable people listening to this debate would think there would need to be something more than someone having been enrolled for at least five years as a practising lawyer. Five years? I wouldn't feel confident to do this job as someone who was admitted some 25 years ago.

That's the test for High Court judges, district court judges—

Well, I don't necessarily agree with it in that context either, Senator Shoebridge. This is a person who is going to have the power under this bill to issue guidelines—as you would well know, Senator Shoebridge—that don't even have to be published. The bill doesn't even require the guidelines which will be promulgated by the Parole Board to be published. What an extraordinary situation. They don't even have to be published.

Senator Shoebridge, I've got no doubt, sincerely believes that the guidelines will contain a regime for the points of view on the perspective of victims of crime to be considered. I have no doubt he has that sincere view. It may well be the case, but there's nothing in this bill that requires it. Something that has happened in every single jurisdiction—those opposite keep telling us about what's happening under the state and territory jurisdictions—is statutory recognition of the rights of victims to be consulted with respect to a range of matters involving parole, and there is no statutory obligation in this bill recognising the rights of victims—none. We're totally dependent upon what the guidelines say, and the guidelines don't even have to be published.

Going to my home state of Queensland, there are requirements for a victim of a crime to be consulted, informed, advised and treated with respect and compassion from when the victim of a crime initially reports the crime all the way through to the making of parole decisions. That's actually in the law, but there's nothing of that in this law—none of it. When those opposite get up and tell us the bill reflects best practice in states and territories, it doesn't with respect to victims of crime. There's nothing in it.

In my home state of Queensland—and Senator Shoebridge did recognise that it's a voluntary right—a victim has a right, not an obligation, to be registered as someone who wants to be kept informed through the whole process, so they're actually advised of what the sentence is for the perpetrator of the crime of which they are a victim. They're actually informed when the time period of the custodial sentence is expiring and they're coming up to a parole decision. They're actually given a statutory right to make a submission—not something dependent upon guidelines which may or may not be published but a statutory right to make a submission to a parole board so that their voice is heard, so that the voices of the victims of crime are heard.

Under this system, there is absolutely no obligation upon this new, independent parole board that requires it to hear the perspective of the victim, and that is not good enough. Don't come into this place and tell us you're introducing this fantastic reform that has been mooted for many years—I understand the rationale, and I well understand the argument. Don't come into this place and say this is a fantastic reform that replicates the best of the systems across other states and territories when the fact of the matter is that there's a gaping hole in terms of the voices of the victims of crime. We're better than that in this place.

It didn't take me long to look at a number of jurisdictions, from Queensland and South Australia to New South Wales, to find that the law with respect to parole board decision-making has moved on, and the voices of victims of crimes need to be heard. In my home state of Queensland, a victim actually has rights to seek redress in the event that their right to be consulted isn't complied with by parole boards in Queensland. It's not just a paper right; there are some teeth to it as well. There are consequences if victims aren't consulted, but there's nothing in here about those processes. All there is is this extraordinary power given to the chair to issue guidelines. This is clause 13 of the bill:

The Chair may, in writing, issue guidelines, not inconsistent with this or any other Act, relating to the procedures of the Commonwealth Parole Board including, but not limited to…

…   …   …

… the arrangements for meetings …

…   …   …

… procedures to be followed …

… arrangements for managing conflicts of interest …

…any other matter … required or permitted—

et cetera. The guidelines aren't a legislative instrument, so that means they never come back to this place. We never get the opportunity to say, 'Those guidelines are inappropriate. Those procedures are inappropriate.' We never get the opportunity to disallow those guidelines, because they're not a legislative instrument.

And here's the kicker: the chair may publish the guidelines if the chair considers it appropriate to do so. How ridiculous! Why is it up to the chair to decide whether or not to publish the guidelines? That's extraordinary. Why shouldn't these guidelines be public? If, as Senator Shoebridge suggests, and I don't doubt his sincerity in this regard, the guidelines will include procedures for victims to be consulted, why wouldn't those guidelines be published? Shouldn't the guidelines—the procedures and processes for the operation of this independent parole board—be on the public record? Don't you all have a right to know what those guidelines are, including with respect to how victims are consulted?

Over the last few years, there have certainly been cases, including victims of sexual assault from my home state of Queensland, where survivors of the gravest type of assault have been absolutely devastated when the perpetrator of the crime against them has been released, either from prison or from immigration detention, and they weren't informed, and they've only found out because a journalist has rung them and told them. How would you feel? I can't imagine. I can try and imagine. I can try and put myself in the position of a victim of crime subject to that. I can try. But how would you feel if a perpetrator of such a dreadful crime against you had been released and the first you heard about it was when you got a phone call from a journalist? It's extraordinary, and it's not good enough.

That's why, across states and territories all around this country, the rights of victims of crime have been incorporated into legislation so they are enforceable rights. Victims can choose to be kept abreast as to whether or not offenders are going to be released or whether or not they're coming up for parole. They can be given the opportunity to make submissions if offenders are coming up for parole hearings. If victims want to exercise their right to have their views heard by parole boards, those rights are embedded in legislation. That is missing from this legislation. It's missing from the current system. I take Senator Shoebridge's comment in that regard: it's missing from the current system as well. But it's also missing from this legislation, and that's not good enough. If we're going to introduce a reform like this, we should be good enough to be able to consider all aspects of the policy issues relating to parole and make sure, when we go through this process, that the bill that's passed at the end of the process represents best practice in all respects. However, in this respect, there is a gaping hole in relation to the rights of the victims of crime, and that is very, very disappointing.

I want to make some other comments with respect to the qualifications of the members of the Parole Board. There is a section that deals with the sorts of qualifications that people have to have, but you then have this problematic overlay of needing someone with experience, knowledge of law, knowledge of matters relating to victims of crime. I would've thought the best people are the actual victims themselves, and that's why I think they should be heard. Then you have this overlay with respect to the demographics of Australia. I'm not sure what that means. Now, as much as anyone, I'm in favour of seeking to make sure that, across government boards, we have equality of representation of women et cetera, but what does reflecting the demographics of the country mean? Does that mean you've got to have someone from a rural area or a regional area? How do you dovetail that with the qualifications? (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

by leave—I table a petition which calls on the government to establish the long-promised proton beam therapy here in Australia for children like Evelyn, signed by over 27,000 people, and I acknowledge the family members of Billie and Evelyn here in the chamber today.

It being 12.15 now, we will move to senators' statements.

Australians are struggling under Prime Minister Albanese. Under Labor, inflation continues to rise, power prices are out of control, insurance premiums are skyrocketing and the dream of homeownership is dying, if not dead, for young Australians. What is the government doing to address these issues? Nothing. Zip. Instead, Labor now think it is the perfect time to increase the size of parliament and create jobs for more politicians. What has been reported is 40 more politicians at a reported cost of $100 million a year. It is frankly ludicrous that Labor and Prime Minister Albanese are wasting precious taxpayer resources on this fanciful idea.

Labor should instead be focused on fixing their cost-of-living, healthcare and housing crises, which are crippling our economy and crippling the livelihoods of Australians. Sadly, Prime Minister Albanese's Labor Party continues to put politics before people. Rather than lifting Australians up, Labor would prefer to spend hundreds of millions of dollars employing more politicians and continue on with their merry agenda of creating laws that make this country worse. Australians do not want more politicians. It is as simple as that.

This has been made very clear to me on my travels around Queensland. Over the past few weeks, I've been to places like Rocky, Cairns, Nambour, Toowoomba and St George. Do you know what people are saying to me when I raise the issue of whether we should have more politicians? They get pretty cranky about it because they don't want more politicians and they especially don't want more Labor or Greens politicians. We don't need more Labor and Greens politicians; we need better politicians. We need politicians who work hard, like those on the coalition side, and who understand and deliver for the people they represent. My message to the left side of politics is this: please get out of your offices and engage with your constituents. I'll tell you this for free: none of them want to pay for more politicians.

They want real action on the cost of living. They want cheaper electricity. They want affordable groceries. They want better access to education and health care, and they want to be left alone by the government to live their lives on their own terms. Australians are sick of being dictated to by Anthony Albanese and Labor. They want smaller government. They want smaller, effective government—not bigger, bloated government. Labor continues to push Australia in the wrong direction, and adding more politicians to the mix will not turn our country around. I stand firmly against any plans to increase the size of parliament and create more jobs for politicians, because I want our country to be a happy place, and I don't think Australia will be a happy place if you have more politicians cluttering up the joint.

Last week, I visited Rocky, and I met with local state MPs Donna Kirkland, Nigel Hutton and Glen Kelly. Excitement is building in central Queensland because, in Rocky, on the Fitzroy River, rowing is going to be held for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games. Let me say this clearly as the shadow minister for the 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games: rowing belongs in Rockhampton. As Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie likes to say, if it's good enough for Marshall from Moura to row on the Fitzroy River, then it's good enough for Pierre from Paris to row on the Fitzroy River, because the Fitzroy River is one of Australia's great river systems. It offers the length, conditions and community backing required to deliver a world-class regatta.

Local leaders, businesses and volunteers have worked tirelessly to put Rocky on the map as an Olympic city. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of Matt Canavan, the locally based senator in Rocky, and Michelle Landry, the federal member for Capricornia, who have been Olympic champions—like what I did there, Senator Cadell!—in their advocacy for rowing to be held in Rockhampton. That's why it's pretty outrageous to hear suggestions that rowing should be held anywhere else other than Rocky, particularly when those suggestions come from the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, who has suggested that rowing should be shifted out of Queensland and into New South Wales. The 2032 Olympic and Paralympic games are Queensland's games. They were secured by Queenslanders and they must be held in Queensland and benefit the people of Queensland first and then Australia second.

As the shadow minister, I'll do everything in my power to ensure that Olympic events, whether rowing or even tennis, stay in Queensland, where they belong, because we've already seen what happens when Labor dithers and delays. Under the former Labor state government, Queensland squandered a considerable head start when it came to planning and preparing for the games. Years were lost to indecision and internal division, and the very future of the games was at risk. When David Crisafulli and his team were elected, at the end of 2024, they moved immediately to conduct a 100-day review and release their 2032 Delivery Plan. This plan has provided certainty to communities, industry and athletes as it ensures that all of Queensland, not just Brisbane, will share in the economic opportunity.

Take Yeppoon, just outside of Rocky, for example. It's home to the Keppel Bay Sailing Club. I visited this club with Nigel Hutton, the member for Keppel, and they were looking towards 2032 and hoping to attract international sailing nations for training camps and lead-up regattas. Out in Roma, the capital of the Maranoa Regional Council, Deputy Mayor Cameron O'Neil and Mayor Wendy Taylor are looking to host swimming teams there with their new 50-metre Olympic swimming pool once it is built. This means all of Queensland can benefit in the Olympic Games and in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. All of us in Queensland should benefit. Rockhampton is ready to go, the Fitzroy River is ready and Central Queensland is ready. I say the Prime Minister should please bear this in mind when he continues to speak out about shifting the rowing from Queensland to New South Wales.

In recent months, Queensland has once again been tested by severe flooding across large parts of the state, from the Far North to the north-west and now into the south-west. Great swathes of water are slowly travelling across Queensland. At the same time, communities along the coast are remaining on flood watch and looking out to sea as a tropical low decides whether or not to form into a cyclone. Over the past few months, homes have been inundated, roads and bridges have been cut, businesses have been disrupted and primary producers have been hit hard. For many families and many Queenslanders, this is the latest in a long line of natural disasters they have endured. But in Queensland we're used to that. We're used to droughts, we're used to cyclones and we're used to picking ourselves up. I want to say thank you, as a Queensland LNP senator, to all those State Emergency Service volunteers, the police, the ambos and all those people who have gone out there and helped their local communities, because their professionalism and courage have saved lives and brought comfort to many. I also want to thank the Queensland state government, in particular the Premier and also Ann Leahy, the Minister for Fire, Disaster Recovery and Volunteers, for the work they have done to ensure communities immediately get the support they need.

In this last week, we have seen the death of an evil man, and I say 'good'. It is good that Ayatollah Khamenei has been killed. That man ordered the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and, while I don't rejoice in the death of anyone, I do pay homage to the victims of his barbarous crimes against humanity. The world is a safer place with his death. I hope that he is in hell, and I hope that he is in the hottest part of hell, and I hope that he stays there for eternity.

I rise to speak on the national housing crisis. This country is at breaking point. The great Australian dream of owning a home is dead, thanks to Labor. Barely a day goes past without new horrific housing news. There are no affordable houses for first home buyers in any city across this whole country. It's now more challenging to get into the market than it has ever been. But, rather than fix the housing crisis, this government is spending more on housing-investor tax breaks, every year, than on social housing, homelessness services and rent assistance combined. As to the National Housing Accord, it has promised us 1.2 million new homes over five years; every month it's falling further and further behind. So shame on this government.

Housing affordability is a political choice, and we can choose much better. It used to be that, if you worked hard, got an education and saved, you could afford a home and support a family. This is no longer true. Homeownership rates among 25- to 29-year-olds have fallen from 50 per cent to 36 per cent in the 50 years to 2021. Young people face house price growth which outstrips their wages, forcing them into too many years of renting under precarious leases. For countless people, owning a home is no longer a realistic milestone. This means moving every year, living with uncertainty and constantly putting off goals like starting a family. The prices of entry-level houses have grown three times faster than wages in the last five years. And it's not just buying a home. National rents have increased 2½ times faster than wages over the same period.

Our housing system is now a generational lottery. And it's no accident; it's by design. It's by policy and government failure. It's working exactly as the major parties have designed it to work. They have built an economic system where working people pay, on average, 24 per cent of their wages in tax. Meanwhile, very wealthy people sit on multimillion-dollar land and home portfolios, watching their value surge, getting richer every day, with gains that are lightly taxed or deferred for tax for years. So our economic system taxes effort and rewards speculation. We tax work so much more than wealth, including speculative housing wealth. Labor's tax breaks help investors come armed with deeper pockets—with, on average, $100,000 more in their pocket than a first homebuyer—to auctions every weekend, ensuring they outbid hardworking first home buyers who have scrimped for years to save their precious deposit.

Wages crawl; assets explode in value; taxes aid wealth concentration. And politicians act confused about why young people are angry and can't afford to save harder to bid at those auctions successfully!

Working Australians are fed up. They're fed up watching banks and wealthy property investors profit from a housing crisis spiralling out of control, while wages stagnate and basic shelter becomes a privilege instead of a right. The social contract is broken. Labor has the responsibility to stop rewarding the wealthy and start ensuring every Australian can afford a home.

It's not just Australians who are concerned about our housing crisis here and its historic nature. It has drawn the attention of the international community. Just this week, the UN has published a major review that says Australia must do more to protect our basic rights, highlighting poverty, housing, social security failure, climate impacts and ongoing asylum concerns. In particular, the UN called out Australia's 'persistent shortage of affordable housing' and the insufficient availability of social housing, resulting in very long waiting lists and increased homelessness. When did we become this country? When the UN is telling a rich country like us to do better on housing, the government needs to take a long hard look in the mirror. Surely that's a wake-up call. Even the UN is telling Labor to get on with its National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which we're still waiting for, and to make sure we adopt a human rights based national approach to housing.

We need to invest more in social housing. We need to strengthen rent regulation, enhance tenant protections and prevent excessive rent increases in public and private housing. We need to prevent the speculative misuse of housing, ensure adequate housing for Indigenous Australians and other disadvantaged groups, and increase the levels of Commonwealth rent assistance. These are practical reforms that the Greens have been fighting for for years. What are Labor for if not to deal with this basic issue of a roof over your head and fix this incredible crisis affecting so many millions of Australians?

To make housing truly affordable, we need more public housing. If you look around the world, countries with affordable housing all have one thing in common: they have a large role for the public sector in housing, as we have had historically when we weren't in the kind of crisis we face right now. The declining role of government in building housing stock in Australia, both for sale to homeowner-occupiers and for affordable rent through the public housing system, is driving the decline in housing affordability both for renters and for homebuyers in our housing market. In this housing crisis, the supply of homes cannot be left to private developers whose profits increase the more house prices and rents go up.

Over the past 30 years, the major parties together have worsened housing affordability, grown public housing waiting lists and turned housing from a human right into a commodity. According to ACOSS, social housing now makes up less than two per cent of dwellings built annually. This is down from 22 per cent in the 1950s and 15 per cent in the 1970s. In Australia, there are now 190,000 households on the public housing waitlist. That's an increase of 50,000 houses just since 2018. The waitlists exceed 10 years in every state and territory. As a consequence, homelessness levels have risen to the worst in living memory, and they're deeply shocking to many of us in Australia who think homelessness should not be a scourge of every Australian city. As a consequence, that homelessness is putting so many children and so many women at risk, and this is a national shame. It's a scandal. But both parties have played their role in creating it. Now it's on Labor. With more than four years in power, it has failed spectacularly to address this crisis. Indeed, many of its measures have made the problem worse. This government must directly build more quality public and affordable homes.

I say to every Australian struggling through the housing crisis: if you feel like you can't get ahead, you're not alone. The system is rigged. It's stacked against you. Where we are now is the result of successive governments, but it is fixable. Our history tells us we are a country that can fix this. We can live differently. We can put a roof over everyone's head. We have fixed it before.

Politics should deliver for all of us. Instead, politicians from the major parties are delivering for the banks. Just look at their profits in the last few months—record levels, billions of dollars rolling in because of growth in very expensive housing lending. We've got big developers making a motza out of the housing crisis and the ultra wealthy growing their wealth without doing anything other anything than speculatively investing. Our government is spending more on tax breaks for wealthy property investors than on the neediest members of our society. While so many Australians work harder than ever and have never been more time poor, big banks are making record profits ripping us off, and the ultra wealthy are getting richer than ever before. It's intergenerational inequality on steroids, and it's inequality between workers and the wealthy on steroids. It is like nothing we have ever seen before in what we used to think of as the lucky country—a lucky country where you now can't afford a home as a first home buyer. Unless we do something different, it'll keep getting worse.

But it doesn't have to be like this. If the crisis was started through government choices, it can be fixed through government choices as well. We need to put a roof over everyone's head. We need a National Housing and Homelessness Plan. We are waiting on Labor to deliver it. No more bandaids—a proper national plan. We need to stop treating housing as an asset class that serves only the wealthy few and to reclaim housing as a human right.

It is an historic week for all freedom-loving people of Australia and indeed the world. The occupation of Persian Iran by the despotic Islamic Republic is being shattered by the joint forces of Israel and America. For 47 years, the people of Iran have been subjected to a brutal regime with little sign that their suffering would end. This decisive military campaign from the United States over the past five days is in the interests of the Iranian people. It is in the interests of the Australian people, who under this Labor government are watching social cohesion and basic safety deteriorate. We, in the coalition, will protect Australians' way of life, because protecting our way of life is in the interests of all democratic and freedom-loving people right across this wonderful world of ours.

The goal of the military intervention in Iran, to stop this Islamic regime murdering women, men and children with impunity and to instead install a democratic government, is a noble goal and a goal I wholeheartedly back. Over 30,000 innocent Iranians have been murdered by this regime just in the past few months for daring to challenge the now dead Ayatollah for their freedoms. Thousands more face executions. Millions more face suppression, and yet the good Persian people continue to rise up. The moral clarity of both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Donald Trump has allowed them to put the safety of their peoples, the security of Western liberal values and the United Nations principle of the responsibility to protect at the forefront of their foreign policy. If only we had such conviction at home.

While American and Israeli war fighters put their own lives at risk to defeat the Islamic Republic of Iran, to obliterate its nuclear ambitions and to free its people from oppression, we have seen remarkable scenes of jubilation and relief from everyday Iranians. What I've found most uplifting, from all the scenes of joy from a people who have known little hope for 47 years, is the accounts of women at the forefront of these celebrations. Women have been the most persecuted and repressed by this abhorrent regime. They have had their freedom of religion, freedom of self-determination and even their freedom to choose the clothes that they wear and the jobs that they hold be crushed by the Ayatollah and his mullahs. Let us not forget who these Persian people are fighting against. The extremists of the Islamic Republic of Iran want to turn back the clock on women's rights to the 14th century.

These extreme fundamentalists running one of the world's oldest civilisations under extreme religious principles believe that the rape of a wife is not a crime. These evil dictators believe child marriage is sanctified by their religion and sexual slavery is the price of losing a war. They believe Jews should be killed, wherever they can be found, and that little girls and boys are the property of old men. These are extremist, misogynistic and evil tyrants. The world is better off with the Ayatollah and his most senior officials dead.

Now, thanks to this decisive action, we have seen women gathering en masse on the streets of Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz. They have been throwing off the burqa, ejecting morality police from their trains and burning portraits of their dictators. They have screamed with absolute delight at the destruction of their enemies. These actions risk imprisonment and death. These women are brave beyond belief, and they have my utmost respect and admiration. May God bless them as they throw their shackles free.

At home on the streets of Sydney, we have seen our own Persian community celebrate the undoing of their oppressors in Iran, and hasn't it been fantastic to see them waving Australian flags as they protest the brutal Iranian regime and celebrate freedom? That is modern Australia on display—the Australia that I love—and it is a breath of fresh air from those other protesters, who would defy and disparage Australia. The Iranian regime has sought death and instability for decades. Australians have suffered directly as a result both at home and in the Middle East. Firebombings and terrorist attacks in Sydney and Melbourne followed the murder of an Australian citizen alongside thousands of Jewish people in Israel on October 7, and they weigh on the souls of those Iranian dictators. For years, Australian Defence Force personnel have been attacked by Iranian forces across Iraq and Syria, causing injuries both physical and psychological. The end of the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot come soon enough. This is very important to the coalition. Under a coalition government, we will protect Australia's way of life.

While this action is under way in the air by the brave men and women of the Israeli Defence Force and the United States military and on the ground by the Iranian people rising up against their captors, I pray for the safety of both. I pray that the civilians marching for their freedoms find a quick and decisive victory against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I pray that the brave service men and women return to their families safely and know that their actions helped destroy one of the world's most evil governments. And I pray that the future of Iran is bright, that its best days are ahead and that the sacrifices of those that we have lost in the past 47 years have not been in vain.

The Australian Persian community, particularly in Sydney in my home state, have added an enormous amount to the great Australian story. Their contribution to what makes Australia has been remarkable. It is well recognised and it is celebrated and appreciated. While the Australian Persian community suffer through this challenging time, it's important that they know they're not alone. You are not alone. The coalition, above all others in this place, support you and your struggle for democracy, for your values and for your freedom. Thank you for all that you give to Australia. We support you.

The modern Liberal Party might be struggling to find an identity, but there is one thing that will always remain true about those opposite: they never learn from their mistakes—not after WorkChoices, not after net zero and not after the work-from-home debacle at the last election. We've been promised a new start with this new-look leadership team, with a deputy leader who in this very chamber is not allowed to ask a single question in question time—not one. We've had two days and not one question from that deputy leader. We are told things have changed, but the old guard are still very much in charge in this place, calling the shots. It feels a lot like a new direction while standing very firmly in the exact same spot, doing the exact same old tricks: offending migrant workers and refusing to rebuild trust with female voters in this country.

Instead of reflecting on the now very leaked Liberal Party election review, the Liberal Party has rewarded the two central figures responsible for their massive loss, promoting them to their leader and your deputy leader—the people who brought us a plan for billions of dollars of taxpayer money to be spent on nuclear plants, on boozy subsidised lunches for bosses and on a ban on working from home. Those two are the ones you have promoted to new deputy leadership. That is not renewal. That is not reform. You cannot set fire to your own credibility and ask Australians to admire the smoke. Nothing is more reflective of how the Liberal Party has lost its way than their behaviour this week, talking about ISIS brides instead of talking about the issues that matter to Australians. Not one question has been asked this week about the economy, not one question about jobs, not one question about housing—which, I can tell you, is a top concern in Queensland. Those are the things people expect you to ask about in this place.

I compare that track record with the track record of this government. We had the housing minister, Minister Clare O'Neil, in Queensland last week. I and both the member for Petrie, Emma Comer, and the member for Dickson, Ali France, asked the minister to host a Moreton Bay round table of housing stakeholders in Redcliffe. She immediately said yes—yes to listening, yes to collaboration, yes to rolling up her sleeves and working with the community to build more homes. That round table brought together the mayor of the City of Moreton Bay, Bric Housing, Common Ground, Q Shelter, BHC and Coast2Bay Housing.

All those organisations were enthusiastic about Labor's efforts to shift the dial on the current housing crisis, which has been created by a decade of Liberal inaction. They were enthusiastic about our five per cent deposit scheme, which has helped more than 250,000 Australians purchase their first home. More than 50,000 of those people are Queenslanders, people the Liberal Party and the Greens would prefer to not be in a home of their own, because it doesn't suit their rhetoric. They would prefer that they be forced to pay a 20 per cent deposit and up to $20,000 $30,000, $40,000 and sometimes $50,000 in lenders mortgage insurance. That's their alternative on housing, and it's a disgrace.

But when we talked to those housing community providers, they said to us that they have absolutely welcomed the HAFF funds that have been rolling out housing projects across Queensland. I was really pleased that we were able to take the minister to two housing projects. The first of those is in Sutton Street. It is a new tower that has delivered 82 new homes; 59 of them are social housing, and there are 23 units kept as affordable homes. This means quality housing specifically for older residents. It didn't stop there. We also visited a construction site in the suburb of Margate, where we are building 60 new homes—and I can tell you, the member for Petrie is absolutely pushing for more.

We know that to continue to build houses we must continue to invest in our tradies. That's why this government is delivering free TAFE. We're also delivering $10,000 payments in construction so we can continue a pipeline of housing, while those opposite continue to talk about themselves.

I want to reflect some of the feedback coming in from people here in Canberra, people in the ACT, whom I represent. I want to start with the cost of living and in particular the price of petrol here in Canberra, which has just topped $2 a litre.

This week the Prime Minister celebrated 30 years in the parliament. That is a huge contribution in terms of public service, and he's clearly achieved a lot. But it's also three decades since he's had to pay for his own tank of petrol on any kind of regular basis, and I think we need to keep that in mind as parliamentarians. I worry that some in the government have lost touch with how acute the day-to-day cost-of-living concerns of the people we're here to represent are. I know Minister Bowen's advice to Australians was to not panic-buy petrol. That's easy to say but harder to do when you see the price of petrol climbing as it is. I really welcome the comments from the Treasurer today saying that he's written to the ACCC asking them to monitor the situation, but I would respectfully ask the government to please do more. We have to do more for Australians.

I'll pre-empt the argument from the government and say, yes, we know that the Australian government can't single-handedly solve the crisis in the Middle East, but I think there are things that we can do here, and we can do them now. We're being warned that petrol prices could jump up 40 cents a litre due to the conflict in Iran, with prices increasing even before wholesale costs have risen, and that should concern us in our concentrated market. That is some serious profit—if you're increasing costs now even before you're passing on the added wholesale costs. Canberra and Darwin already have the highest petrol prices in the country, on average paying four cents or so more per litre to fill up. That's almost 20 million bucks a year in Canberra.

Let's look at some of the solutions to these very legitimate grievances. Firstly, we could commit to implementing a national open real-time fuel-price reporting standard and taking enforcement action if companies exploit this crisis. In an environment ripe for price gouging, we know we have a competition issue in many sectors of the Australian economy. Markets only work when they are transparent and competitive and companies face swift and severe penalties from profiting unethically.

We could also do more to support the creation of an affordable second-hand EV market. One of the biggest risks of the energy transition is the risk that it entrenches the growing wealth divide and inequality in this country. There will be thousands and thousands of Australians, at the moment, driving past the local servo and smiling because they have an EV and they can charge it at home for 10 or 15 bucks or they can charge it from their solar for free. We have to make sure that we leave no-one behind here and that we're actually ensuring that low-income households can actually benefit from the transition. We could also impose 25 per cent on gas exports. Prices are about to go through the roof. If you look at the gas futures market, there are huge, huge increases. We should get a return on that gas. These gas companies have done nothing special to command that extra profit. Australians should get a cut of that. That's revenue that is desperately needed here in Australia.

Finally, on the energy transition, I want to talk briefly about artificial intelligence. It seems every day we've got a new story about jobs being lost to AI—the opportunity the government talks about. But, while there might be opportunities, there are also risks to privacy, risks to jobs, risks to water and risks to energy. We see that water demand for data centres in Sydney alone will exceed the total drinking water used in Canberra within the next decade, and we are seeing more and more data centres being built. I'm not hearing anything from the Labor government about safeguards and about how we ensure that we're not increasing the price of electricity and that we're not using valuable drinking water. These are very legitimate questions, and they deserve answers from the Albanese Labor government.

I'm rising today in support of the Australian Unions campaign It's for Every Body. This campaign calls for 10 days of paid reproductive leave to be embedded in the National Employment Standards. This leave would give all workers, regardless of their sex or gender, the time that they need to manage reproductive health matters, including menstruation; pregnancy; breastfeeding and lactation; contraception; miscarriage and pregnancy loss; perimenopause and menopause; chronic conditions, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis; hormone therapy; fertility treatments; IVF and assisted reproductive health services; hysterectomy and vasectomy; termination; and private health care, such as screenings for breast, cervical and prostate cancer.

These issues are widespread. They're deeply personal, and they're often invisible in the workplace, yet their impact is significant. One in seven Australian women suffer from endometriosis, one in six Australian couples experience fertility issues, one in 18 babies are born via IVF treatment, and one in six blokes are affected by prostate cancer. These numbers tell a story—one of resilience, silent suffering and a system that is yet to catch up. It's time for our workplace standards to reflect the current reality.

For many working women, especially those juggling caring responsibilities, the workday never truly ends. Women still perform 40 per cent more unpaid labour than men—cooking, cleaning, and caring for children and elderly parents. The invisible load is heavy, and, when women take leave, it's rarely for themselves. It's to care for others. This campaign is about changing that. It's about recognising that the body deserves care too.

It's not just a women's issue. Reproductive leave and reproductive health affects everybody. Blokes undergo vasectomies and have prostate treatment, and the grief of a miscarriage affects both parents. Reproductive health leave must be inclusive because dignity, healing and support should never depend on your gender.

Late last year, I heard directly from a great bunch of union delegates who had travelled to Canberra to tell us about how important reproductive leave would be for them and for their members. It would be transformative for someone like Sasha from Tasmania, who lives with polycystic ovary syndrome and has experienced 12 pregnancies, nine of which ended in miscarriage over 10 years. Without access to leave, Sasha had no time to grieve or recover. She had to return to work immediately to keep up with her mortgage. Reproductive leave would have given her the space to rest and heal without stigma.

There's also Rachel from Tasmania, who has experienced a great deal of tremendous and debilitating pain due to reproductive health issues. She's renowned among doctors for her incredible uterus. Rachel has fought tirelessly for women and other people to be recognised and treated with dignity in the workplace, because this is often a silent matter, and she's calling for people to have fair access.

It would be transformative for someone like Kara from Queensland, a young professional with endometriosis who pushed through work while battling debilitating pain and nausea. Kara hid her condition, afraid of being seen as unreliable. Reproductive leave would have allowed her to manage her health openly and without fear.

It would have been transformative for Jono and his partner, who underwent IVF while juggling full-time work, invasive procedures, emotional highs and would have given them the time and compassion needed to pursue parenthood.

Everyone deserves the right to care for their body without fear of judgement. Other countries are moving forward. They are recognising that reproductive health is a workplace issue. But, here, our employment standards still imagine the ideal worker as someone with no bodily needs, no caregiving responsibilities and no interruptions. That's not real life. When we ignore reproductive health, we don't just hurt individuals. We hurt our economy. Untreated reproductive health issues lead to absenteeism, unemployment, career derailment and even early retirement.

These are not rare conditions. They are widespread, and they deserve recognition. That's why Australian unions are calling for reproductive health leave, a dedicated paid entitlement that covers reproductive health needs. Just to be clear, it's not sick leave, it's not carers leave, it's not compassionate leave. It's a standalone leave entitlement reflecting the lived realities of millions of Australians.

There are plenty of people in this place and outside of it who want to talk about immigration. But, by the way you talk about migrants, we know which migrants you are really talking about. We are talked about as literal aliens, as outsiders or as problems to be managed and never as people who live with you, who are your neighbours or who are your colleagues. We're never talked about as people to be heard and listened to. We are, as Reni Eddo-Lodge so perfectly put it, 'Schrodinger's immigrant'. We are lazy and a drain on welfare while simultaneously also stealing jobs and undercutting wages. We are not successful enough, yet also too successful, taking opportunities away from so-called 'real Australians'. We live in ethnic ghettos and refuse to integrate while also taking over housing in every corner of this country. The absurdity of the media and the political establishment is genuinely mind boggling.

Migrants are not some small group either. Unless you are First Nations, you have a migrant story, whether you like it or not. The way this community is talked about is, quite frankly, appalling. We came to this country for a better life but we also want to contribute something to this country to make it better. We are engineers, doctors, caregivers, nurses, taxi drivers, cleaners, scientists and food delivery workers and we work hard! We are the glue that keeps this country going.

Some might think I am too loud, too migrant, too Muslim, but our belonging cannot be conditional on keeping our heads down and keeping our mouths shut. We have as much of a right as anyone to speak up on issues that we see as unjust and unfair, without being abused and vilified every single time. Here is something that might just blow your mind: migrants are living through the exact same housing crisis, the same inflation crisis, the same wages crisis as everyone else. Migrants did not cause these crises; decades of political failure did, decades of sucking up to billionaires did.

Let's be honest about who has been failing. It is not just a One Nation problem; Labor and Liberals have spent years creating the conditions of this antimigrant environment. Instead of showing leadership, they have dabbled and continued to dabble in far-right-wing talking points and policies, trying to out-right the Right. It was Labor that introduced some of the harshest antirefugee and anti-immigration laws. They pointed the finger at international students for a housing crisis built entirely on their own policy failures. They created the scapegoat and now they act surprised when One Nation picks it up and runs with it. Even when they think they are defending migrants, they do it in the most warped ways imaginable. South Australian Premier Malinauskas thought it was clever to pitch to One Nation voters by asking: 'Who is going to feed you and bathe you and wipe your bum when you are 90?' Just stop. We are not here to wipe your arse, Premier.

Migrants work in every industry in this country, including aged care, but our place here is not conditional on servitude. It is not conditional on wiping the backsides of people who campaign against us. Let me be direct: stop scapegoating migrant communities for economic pressures that were never of our making and start investing in real solutions for housing, for cost of living; issues that are hurting all of us. Every time a politician reaches for the migrant caricature instead of doing the hard work of fixing the broken system, they are making a choice. They are making a choice to send us further into the hellscape that One Nation is building and that choice has consequences for real people, for real communities, across the whole country.

The goods and services tax, GST, is a tax paid by all Australians on various goods and services. It is supposed to be designed to benefit all Australians in every state. When it was first introduced in 2000, the Australian government and all states and territories agreed it would be shared, based on the longstanding fair-go principle of horizontal fiscal equalisation. That is a fancy way of saying the money raised by the GST must be fairly distributed to all Australians. This was supposed to make sure every state and territory had the money for health, education and infrastructure regardless of their own ability to raise their own revenue. So far so good.

But then in 2018 the Morrison government gave Western Australia a special deal on the GST which, by the way, was clearly designed to win marginal seats. Under that deal, Western Australia got a much greater share of the GST revenue than it would have received under the old system. But Western Australia already had loads of cash from the mining boom. In 2025 it declared a $2.5 billion surplus. Wouldn't it be lovely to have that in every state? Most other states like New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland have faced budget black holes.

The fair-go principles of the GST were lost in both major parties' pursuit of an election win. They were effectively buying votes from the people of Western Australia, and, by goodness, didn't it cost you, as it has cost the rest of us. This naked manipulation of our country's budget is a shameful episode in our nation's history, and it needs to be fixed. The only state that benefited from these changes and is still is benefiting is Western Australia, the richest state. Since 2018 and 2019 it has received over $24.2 billion more than it would have done under the crappy Morrison deal. Combine that with the $53.8 billion in mineral royalties over the last seven years, and Western Australia has cash surpluses totalling more than $18 billion. Wow!

Every other state and territory recorded cash deficits over that time. The GST is Tasmania's single largest source of revenue, accounting for approximately 40 per cent of the total general government sector revenue in 2025-26. Given the importance of GST for the state, it is critical that Tasmania secures its fair share on an ongoing basis. When this dodgy deal was done by the Morrison government, all the other states rightly howled, and so they should have, because this deal was blatantly unfair. Instead of fixing the dodgy deal, the federal government chucked more Australian taxpayer money at the problem. This gave states like Tasmania a no-worse-off guarantee. This guarantee has protected Tasmanians from the dodgy GST deal, which would have otherwise reduced states' GST revenue by $318.6 million. Chucking money at a problem of your own making is not the answer, and you're following in pursuit over on this side. That's the government today.

It has been estimated that a no-worse-off guarantee will cost the federal government budget $8 billion over nine years to 2026-27, and it is now expected that it will have cost the federal budget almost $60 billion, because you won't fix the dodgy deal of Morrison, which is scheduled to expire in 2029-30. Apart from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, this is the biggest cost of any single policy decision. This $52 billion blow-out from the GST carve-up is a massive drain on the federal budget, especially at a time when there is a huge demand for money for our hospitals, schools and infrastructure—money that must be shared equally and fairly if the Treasurer is looking to save money and he has the courage to do so.

Does Minister Chalmers have any courage? That's what we want to know before the May budget. Is he going to have the courage to overturn the dodgy deal done by the Morrison government? Does he have the courage? I want to see what the man is made of. And what about the Tasmanians sitting over there in the Labor Party? How are you going with the dodgy GST deal? Are you going to get up and start telling your own to give back the money that's ours, or are we going to keep taking money out of the budget that we shouldn't have to because it should be coming from Western Australia? You've got to be kidding me in here.

I can tell you, there is nothing fair about the politicians using the GST money, which is our money, to buy voters in other states. That's all you're doing. It's bribery money, it's disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourselves—and you're still going down that lane. Give Tasmania back its money.

Cybercrime is no longer distant or abstract. It's happening in Australia to Australians every single day. It affects families, older Australians, small and large businesses and our children. It's becoming more organised, more targeted and crueller. Cybercrime often starts quietly, with a message that feels personal, with a call that sounds legitimate or with a promise of help, reassurance or connection. Romance scams devastate lives as well as finances.

Bank scams exploit fear and urgency, and their strategies are orchestrated to make people panic. But we know that, when those calls come from legitimate banks and they say, 'Don't transfer the money; it's very suspicious,' you need to heed that warning. If it is legitimate, people will wait and will understand.

Sexual exploitation weaponises shame. These crimes are designed to isolate people and rush people, to make them do impulsive things online and when they're speaking to people on the phone. They're designed to silence people. Too many victims stay quiet, not because they're careless but because they feel embarrassed, ashamed or afraid that they won't be believed. That silence protects criminals.

These are simple steps that really do matter: slow down when something feels too urgent or is unknown to you; go to direct, trusted sources like your banks; and report early because, if you report early, you've got a chance of getting your money back. Those three steps matter because scammers rely on panic. They rely on isolation, and they rely on silence. This cannot be a burden placed on individuals alone. We cannot expect people to outsmart criminal networks by themselves, and we cannot solve this by blaming victims. Labor believes in collective protection, in governments stepping in where people cannot and in building systems that support Australians before harm escalates. That's why Labor has been leading the way globally when it comes to protecting our kids.

Our social media ban to protect our kids is leading the world. We have countries following suit now because they know the damage that social media is doing and what damage can be done to our children by cybercrime and organised crime. Everyone deserves to have a fair go, and we really need to protect our children. I want to give a shout-out to the Australian Federal Police and the JPC3 for their coordinated efforts to disrupt cybercrime across Australia as well as globally. Cybercrime does not happen in isolation. Criminals share their tools. They share information. They target together. The AFP brings agencies and industries together to combat organised crime. They identify patterns, and the whole point of it is to disrupt early. That's why you really need to report.

We know some great work that's being done through JPC3 and the AFP, and that is focusing on young people. Young people are being extorted and exploited sexually. When they are groomed on many of these online platforms, they are too ashamed to tell their parents, teachers or anyone in authority, because of the shame and guilt that they feel. We need to ensure that the message gets out to these young people that they can talk to people about this, they will be heard, they will be supported and everything will be done to support them. The unfortunate thing is that there are too many young men, as well as young girls, that are being exploited through chats and through online gaming.

We all need to take responsibility for this. It's not just the AFP; it's not just police. It's a community issue. It's a parenting issue. It shouldn't be left just to schools. We need to get the message out that, if you are compromised or you feel like there's something not right in the chat rooms when you're online playing a game, you have to say no and stay within a proper format.

I've often said that this terrible Albanese government is the most secretive in Australian history. No issue demonstrates this more than the Prime Minister's lies about his secret plan to bring the ISIS brides—and never forget that they are terrorists or sympathisers—back to Australia. Do any have dual citizenship? If they do, then strip them of their Australian citizenship, denying their right and their children's right to come back to Australia.

The Australian people have been deliberately kept in the dark. Only last week, the Prime Minister told the media in Werribee:

… what we aren't doing is providing repatriation of these people.

This week, revelations made to my office by New South Wales corrections officers have blown his lies out of the water. It turns out the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, have been preparing to accept these women for quite some time. Renovations are underway at the Windsor women's correctional facility to create a new wing designed to house female terrorists. Corrections officers in New South Wales are currently undergoing a new training module called 'Women in Violent Extremism'. This module is designed to train officers to deal with category 5 female inmates. At the moment, New South Wales has no category 5 inmates.

I'm told that any ISIS brides—terrorists—who arrive before the new facility at Windsor is completed will be temporarily housed at Silverwater Women's Correctional Centre. I'm also told that perhaps not all of these women will be headed for New South Wales. That raises yet more questions to which we know the Prime Minister will never give a straight answer. Where else will these women be held? Victoria? South Australia? Who knows? Have Jacinta Allan and Peter Malinauskas also been covertly working with the Albanese government to prepare the welcome mat for these ISIS terrorists? At what cost to the taxpayer? My rough figures would put the cost at $1,800 per day, per prisoner in New South Wales. That's more than $650,000 per year, per prisoner. If these women face life sentences, taxpayers will pay tens of millions of dollars for the Prime Minister's secretive plans to bring back these ISIS terrorists.

Let us never forget what these women did. People around the world reacted with shock and revulsion at the depravity of the so-called Islamic State caliphate. These maniacs burned people alive. They enslaved and raped thousands of women. They murdered thousands more, along with their children. They inspired acts of terrorism around the world, which killed many more people, including here in Australia. They continue to inspire acts of terror, including the massacre of Jewish Australians at Bondi. These women volunteered to join this depraved cult. They were enthusiastic. They were happy to be part of it. When it all fell apart, when the Islamic State was destroyed, they had to experience something they never thought would happen—consequences. They were thrown in a refugee camp in Syria with all the suffering that goes with it. That's where they should stay.

I'm confident I speak for many Australians in saying they should be left there to rot, but that's not how Labor and the Greens think. Labor and the Greens snub their noses at the Australian people and pull out all the stops to accommodate these traitors. Labor are embarrassed enough to hide it under a veil of secrecy. They've thrown a burqa over their plans, hiding these women and the assistance they're giving them. Labor is despicable. They cannot be trusted with the safety of the Australian community. They cannot be trusted with national security. They cannot be trusted to stop radical Islam. They cannot be trusted to stop antisemitism. These failures, culminating in the Bondi terrorist attack, will define the Prime Minister's time in office forever. It's time for Australians to stand up to the worst prime minister and the worst government we've ever had. Australians want their country back, minus the terrorist brides and radical Islam.

We are seeing a hotly contested race to the fringe of politics—a race to the bottom and a race to the far right. There was a time when the Liberal Party had the courage to draw a line. Former prime minister John Howard had the courage to disendorse Senator Hanson in 1996 and the courage to put One Nation last in 2001. But, somewhere along the way, that courage has been lost. They once understood that some rhetoric has no place in mainstream Australia.

We all have a responsibility to lead by example, to behave in a way that reflects the standards that the vast majority of Australians expect from their representatives, to refrain from stoking fear and spreading misinformation in the way that Senator Hanson has just done in this place, and to refrain from pitting Australians against one another in the pursuit of political gain. Never has this been more important than it is right now, but, instead of showing the leadership that this country needs, the opposition are so committed to outflanking One Nation on the far right that they could not bring themselves to support our motion to censure Senator Hanson on Monday. So the question must be asked: are they so afraid that they will face electoral obliteration if they lose this race to the fringe, to the far right wing?

Senator Cash and the opposition say that they condemn the rhetoric of Senator Hanson, but they will not take decisive action to really show it. For them, the political calculation remains the same. I'm sure we will see more of the same old playbook at the upcoming Farrer by-election: a backroom preference deal designed to hold out and wedge the independent. They might say they're against Senator Hanson's words, but I am sure they will still rely on her preferences at the ballot box. Condemning the rhetoric here in Canberra while relying on the politics of division in the electorate is not true leadership.

In Western Australia, we see Senator Hanson's colleagues are no different. What they say is actually dangerous misinformation and often dangerous conspiracies. There is an endless number of ways that we can get this wrong. One Nation's divisive rhetoric doesn't stop at attacking our country's social cohesion. While this government is working to keep energy prices down to reach our target of net zero, One Nation is also spreading misinformation about our clean energy transition, claiming that Australians are footing the bill and subsidising wind turbines. The fact is that renewables like solar and wind are the cheapest form of new energy.

In recent weeks we heard from Senator Whitten in this place that the science isn't settled and that only bureaucrats and ideologues fear debate, but that is a line that climate deniers use when, in fact, denying climate change is the ideology at play. Senator Whitten, in a further attempt to pit Western Australians against each other, accused a hardworking local shire of deceiving its community after it established a clean energy action group, describing the initiative as a front for Synergy and suggesting that that local government and its officers are taking a cut of supplier contracts—accusing them of corruption. These are extraordinary and outrageous claims made in this place by Senator Whitten. Picking fights with local governments like the hardworking Shire of Augusta Margaret River is just another way with which One Nation, Senator Hanson and Senator Whitten seek to stoke division in communities.

While One Nation spreads this misinformation, our government is getting on with the job. We're investing in cleaner energy, we're strengthening the grid and we're making sure that Australian households and businesses have access to reliable and affordable power. I congratulate the local shires, like the Shire of Augusta Margaret River and many others in my home state of Western Australia, who are working hard to bring renewable energy to their communities.

Right now, Australians deserve serious leadership and expect our leaders and the alternative government to bring Australians together. It's a responsibility we must carry.

Two weeks ago, I spent the day at the University of Western Australia's O day. If you've ever been to O day, you know the energy—stalls everywhere, clubs recruiting, students with tote bags and big dreams. It reminds you of what hope and possibility feel like. But, behind the excitement, I kept hearing something else: worry. It was not about exams or which majors they were going to choose but about housing. A nursing student said to me, 'Senator, I just want to know if I'll ever be able to buy a house.' A law student told me he's already assuming he'll rent for the rest of his life. Another said she's thinking of moving back with her parents, studying part time and taking up another job just to cover her daily expenses.

Now, these are not young people looking for shortcuts or handouts. They're working hard, they're studying and they're planning their futures, but they're looking at a housing market that feels completely out of reach. Right now, the median home in Perth is just over $989,000. That's almost a million dollars. Tell me which student can afford that.

In January alone, prices jumped by more than $22,500. That's around $5,000 a week. According to Cotality, home values in WA are rising about 10 times faster than wages. You can do everything right—study, work and save—and still watch the goalposts move further away every single month. Data from the Real Estate Institute of WA shows units are selling in seven days, houses in eight and listings are nearly 44 per cent lower than this time last year. People are feeling rushed and pressured as though, if they don't jump in now, they will miss out forever.

Western Australia cannot simply build its way out of this housing crisis. Economist Gary Stevenson, a former Citibank trader and now known as the people's economist, makes this point clearly. He argues this isn't just about local planning, rules or state red tape. We've experienced a global asset boom. During COVID, trillions of dollars were pumped into economies. That money made its way upwards into the hands of those who already held the most wealth, and much of it was invested in assets, property, shares, stocks and gold. While wages move slowly, asset prices surge, and that's why homeownership feels impossible for so many Australians.

Of course, supply matters, and, of course, we need more homes to be built, but, if we ignore the deeper issue of inequality, we risk creating two Australias—wealthy inner pockets and struggling outer suburbs missing out on services and opportunities. If we don't look at tax settings like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount, then we're just patching over cracks. 'What is negative gearing?' I hear you ask. In plain English, negative gearing means if someone buys an investment property and the rent doesn't cover the mortgage and costs, they can deduct the loss from their taxable income. If a high-income earner loses $10,000 a year on a rental property, they can use that loss to reduce the tax they pay on their salary. In effect, the taxpayer helps subsidise that investment. The investor may accept a short-term loss because they expect the property to rise in value, and, when they sell, they receive the capital gains tax discount—bonus, bonus! While first home buyers are trying to save a deposit, they're competing with someone who has both a tax advantage and a greater borrowing power.

Some people will accuse me of punishing success, but, deep down, they know we should be asking whether our housing system is tilted too heavily towards speculation over shelter. At UWA, these students were asking the tough questions, so let's have an honest conversation about the inequality. Let's show the courage to limit negative gearing and half the capital gains tax discount and give every day Australians a fair go.

Recently, I attended the Tasmanian Leaders Program graduation for the class of 2025 in Hobart. More than 100 family members, friends, alumni and supporters came along to celebrate this year's graduates and what they have achieved. For 20 years, Tasmanian Leaders have played an important role in strengthening leadership across our state. Over that time, hundreds of Tasmanians from different sectors and regions have come through the program, and they remain connected through its alumni network. Many have gone on to lead organisations, serve on boards, contribute to their local communities and mentor others coming behind them. The program is not just about one year of workshops and events but about building a culture of leadership across Tasmania where people stay connected and continue to work together.

The graduation ceremony included speakers who shared their own leadership journeys and practical lessons for their experience. Emma Dickson spoke about stepping up, backing yourself and being prepared to grow. Chair Rob Woolley reflected on the strength of the Tasmanian Leaders network and the responsibilities that come with being part of it. I also want to acknowledge Nnamdi Eseme, the MC for the event, who's a graduate himself. He brought real energy, warmth and humour to the afternoon. He was a genuine highlight and a great example of the confidence and capability this program helps to foster.

I thank Tasmanian Leaders for their continued contribution to our state, and I wish this year's graduates every success.

It now being 1.30, we'll move to two-minute statements.

Australians were promised access to life-saving proton beam therapy right here in Australia. Yet, years later, this promise remains unfulfilled. The Australian Bragg Centre for Proton Therapy and Research sits empty on North Terrace in Adelaide, without the proton beam technology it was built to house, forcing parents like Billie to travel overseas so her young daughter Evelyn could receive lifesaving treatment. Proton beam therapy is cutting-edge technology that not only saves lives but also improves patients' quality of life, avoiding lifelong repercussions. No Australian family should have to endure the financial, emotional and physical burden of travelling overseas for a treatment that is readily available overseas and could be available here at home but for the inaction of both the federal and state governments.

Today, I was proud to table in this chamber a petition signed by more than 27,000 people on behalf of Proton Cancer Access Australia and the families involved: the Tuckerman family, including Billie and Evelyn; Daniel Johnstone; Shona Edwards; the Martin family; the Paul family; the Millard family; the Camerini family; the Marchmont family; the Ouwens family; the Jacket family; the Marcol and Peterson family; the Chehab family; the Tunks and Scott family; the Kelly family; the Pfoeffer family; the Suggate family; the Ward family; the Savorgnan family; and the Gallard family. I am calling on the Albanese federal government and the Malinauskas South Australian government to urgently respond to this petition and tell us when the project is going to be delivered. Cancer patients and their families deserve action—not more delays; not more excuses. Hopefully, the tabling of this petition today ensures this issue finally receives the attention and actions it deserves from both the state and federal governments so that these families are not doing this in vain.

I rise to speak about the Federation Internationale de Hockey, or FIH, Pro League in Hobart, and in particular the Hockeyroos' match against China that I attended. For two weeks in February, Hobart hosted eight of the best hockey nations in the world at the Tasmanian Hockey Centre in New Town. Both our national women's team, the Hockeyroos, and our national men's team, the Kookaburras, competed on home soil, giving Tasmanians and Australians that rare chance to see both elite women's and men's international hockey in the one tournament. For the first time, Australia brought back-to-back stages of the Pro League together in one city, and that city was Hobart. That is a strong endorsement of Tasmania's sporting community and our ability to deliver events of genuine international standing.

I was there to watch the Hockeyroos take on a very experienced Chinese side. The result did not go Australia's way, unfortunately, with China finishing 3-1 winners. But what stood out was the grit and composure of the Australian team. This was a squad featuring fresh faces and emerging talent, taking on an opponent with far greater international experience. China came into the match with almost 1,000 international appearances across their squad, compared to just over 300 for Australia.

There were young players—budding national squad players, I'm sure—in the crowd, watching every contest, every tackle and every run into the circle. Seeing Australia compete at the international level here in Tasmania sends a powerful message about opportunity and aspiration. Events like the Pro League do more than showcase elite sport; they back local jobs, support small businesses and highlight the strength of community sport.

To the Hockeyroos and Kookaburras: thank you for your effort and resilience. Tasmania was proud to cheer you on.

Yesterday, the Australian Radio Network, the owners of KIIS FM, announced that, finally, Jackie O had had enough—had had enough of Kyle Sandilands' abusive on-air behaviour. After 25 years of putting up with this sexist, misogynistic, abusive rubbish, Jackie O had said, 'Enough is enough.'

Let's be clear here. This breakfast show, Kyle and Jackie O, has made millions from misogynistic, racist, homophobic and plain vile content. It is well past time that the entire show was pulled off air. But of course, as usual, it's the woman who has to leave, while the bloke gets to explain himself.

Kyle Sandilands has a long history of making obscene comments that disrespect women and minority groups and fuel a culture of hate and division. I don't need to repeat all the disgusting and abusive things that Sandilands has said on air—misogynistic, racist and homophobic abuse and vitriol; jokes about women being raped; jokes about women having sex, not knowing who with; jokes about their staff being forced to urinate and having it played live on air; the humiliation of a 12-year-old child who'd been raped—brought to tears under abusive questioning from Sandilands, live on air.

Now, the radio station has given Sandilands 14 days to remedy this behaviour. The bloke needs to go. Time is up. How many more chances does this abusive bully need? He needs to be sacked and sacked immediately.

Sadly, one in three households in Australia have experienced food insecurity over the last 12 months, which is a terrible situation. The Prime Minister, last sitting period, assured Australians that he was doing 'everything', through his government, that he could, to help Australians struggling with the cost-of-living crisis. And to that I say, 'Really?'

I did a bit of deep-diving into where some of our money is going, and I found a whole heap of fairly informative grants that might be of interest to the Australian people. I wonder which of these the Prime Minister would pull, in order to put some food on some Australians' tables. I'll start with this one: 'Intercultural protocols for sustainable human activity in outer space', for half a million dollars. Here's another one: 'Addressing long-term climate displacement in Australia' for half a million dollars—not much food going on table with that one! There's 'Change the date? Australia Day, reconciliation and the politics of division' for a cool $1.48 million; that's a lot of dinners for Australians right there. The next one is: 'Malnuda Burra Yina: Gabra Stories of Yorta Yorta Fruit Picking' for $1.4 million. Wow! There's 'Innovating a new framework for Indigenous-led climate adaptation strategies' for $500,000. There's not a lot of food going on the table there. What about 'reducing gender inequalities for women with psychosocial disability', for half a million dollars, Prime Minister? What about this one: 'Informal sexuality and civics education pedagogies of LGBTQ+ youth' for half a million dollars? There's not a lot of food going on the table for that one, Prime Minister.

Yesterday morning, Minister Collins and I joined the National Farmers Federation President, Hamish McIntyre, to celebrate Australia's agricultural production value. It's set to reach a record $100 billion this financial year. It's an incredible milestone which means we'll meet and exceed the NFF'S ambitious 2030 target by four years. I acknowledge the NFF for their continued advocacy, and for their ambition, which has helped drive this success.

The forecast released by ABARES shows that agricultural, fisheries and forestry exports will reach a record high of $85 billion this financial year, with more demand than ever for Australia's premium food and fibre. Since we came to office, Australia's agricultural production value has increased by 15 per cent. This reaffirms the work of the Albanese government to diversify trade opportunities for our farmers, support more regional jobs and strengthen local economies. The Albanese government knows that, when our regions and rural communities are thriving, Australia prospers.

One of the great drivers of success in our ag sector is a workforce that is skilled and supported. Through the expanded PALM scheme, there are now more than 17,000 workers contributing to our agriculture sector, and more than 10,000 in meat processing. The scheme is delivering for employers and is ensuring protections for workers and meaningful opportunities for our Pacific partners. It is important. I thank the unions for the work that they have been doing in that space.

At the same time, we're investing in homegrown skills through fee-free TAFE, which has now supported tens of thousands of enrolments in agriculture related courses. Continued success hinges on the strength of our workforce, and we want to back our farmers and producers so that they know the Albanese government has their back. Above all, this achievement belongs to Australian farmers and to regional and rural communities. We remain as committed as ever to growing our agriculture sector and to giving our farming community every opportunity to succeed.

Australians are watching the conflict escalate in the Middle East, and a terrifying truth is staring us in the face. The Albanese Labor government has left this country dangerously exposed on fuel security. When sea lanes like the Strait of Hormuz are threatened, Australia cannot pretend we are insulated. We are an island nation that runs on imported fuel, yet the Albanese Labor government has failed to build the reserves, refining strength and secure supply chains a serious government should have in place. We are told we have only weeks of diesel, and even that headline number can include fuel at sea on ships that can be diverted the moment global prices spike. If there is panic buying, if trucking companies scramble, if supply tightens then days may become weeks. Diesel is not a luxury. Hospitals rely on it when power fails. Our freight networks rely on it every hour of every day. Farmers, miners, manufacturers, tradies, regional communities rely on it to keep Australia moving. If diesel runs short, shelves empty, medicines are delayed, and rural and remote Australians are hit hardest and they are hit first.

Labor had time. They have had warnings over and over again. This issue has been raised in the past. They had the responsibility but they have dropped the ball and now Australians will pay the price, not just at the bowser but in higher bills, higher freight costs and a higher cost of living for every household and every small business. This is now an urgent matter of national security. Labor's inaction has consequences and Australians deserve better. Labor had the responsibility to be prepared for global conflict. They had been warned on fuel security countless times. They have failed to act.

One Nation is prepared to lead on this issue. Today Senator Hanson will be introducing a motion into this parliament to have an inquiry into resolving this urgently. We need to act and I hope the Senate supports her inquiry later today.

We saw the Treasurer this morning indicate his concerns that the conflict in the Middle East could cut Australia's supplies of oil and fertiliser. But this begs the question about why the Treasurer and his government are imposing a carbon tax on the production of oil and fertilisers in this country. If the Labor Party were serious about securing our supplies of oil and fertiliser, they would remove the carbon tax—the so-called safeguard mechanism—from these essential suppliers of oil and fertiliser.

Right now we only have two fuel refineries left in the country, in Brisbane and Geelong, and both of those refineries are subject to Labor's carbon tax. Those refineries respectively emit around 600,000 and 800,000 tonnes a year in Brisbane and Geelong respectively. Because of Labor's carbon tax, they are required to reduce those emissions by roughly five per cent—4.9 per cent—each year, year on year, cumulatively. For this year, that means a reduction of 30,000 tonnes at the refinery in Brisbane and 44,000 tonnes at the refinery at Geelong. To do that, those facilities have to buy things called carbon credits to offset the emissions as required under Labor's carbon tax. Those cost around $35 a tonne, so the cost to the refineries in both Brisbane and Geelong is over a million dollars a year, and it gets a lot worse very quickly. Because it's a five per cent reduction every year, 10 per cent in the second year and 15 per cent in the third, by 2030 both of the refineries we have left will be up for a $10 million bill at those carbon prices per year—per year! If the government were serious about securing oil, securing our fuel security, they'd remove the carbon tax on the production of oil in Australia for Australians so Australians can keep moving.

Last month, I had the great opportunity to visit King Island, our great island off an island off an island, and it's been one of my highlights of the year so far. It was a great opportunity to meet with locals, with businesses and with community groups and to have a chat about things that matter to people on the island. I started the day with a little walk down the street, talking to businesses and shoppers about some of the important issues happening in the aviation sector. It was a great way to get involved on the island—having a brekkie at the bakery and being able to explore around, as it was my first time on the island.

I then had an opportunity to meet with the King Island Council, whose big-picture thinking about the island's future was inspiring. The mayor's very unique way of presenting to me the great industries and businesses was a real stand-out. My next stop was at the CWA, where I met the wonderful ladies who keep the community together, who are constantly checking in on the community and also serving some pretty bloody great scones.

I then had a great opportunity to visit Sally at the Phoenix Community House. I love community houses and the service that they do for the community. I heard about what they do, saw their veggie garden and heard about how they are building a sustainable future on the island with fruit and vegetables. I then, of course, stopped by and visited King Island Dairy. Everybody knows King Island cheese is the best cheese in the country.

I then had an opportunity to participate in a stakeholder session at the King Island Regional Development Organisation focusing on the challenges in the regional aviation sector and giving the locals a chance to raise their ideas and solutions with me. What struck me most was the absolute kindness and welcoming nature of the people of King Island and the beautiful fresh air. I can't wait to spend a lot more time there in the future.

Today, I've written to the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors asking him to immediately reinstate human oversight into aged-care assessments. Before the new aged-care rules came into effect on 1 November, assessors had the ability to override the integrated assessment tool algorithm if the assessment it churned out wasn't suitable. They have now lost the ability to do this, and we are hearing from hundreds of older people, their families and their care providers that the algorithm is systematically underassessing people's needs, denying them essential and most often life-saving care and supports. Hundreds of thousands of older Australians are already on a long waiting list, waiting for at-home support, and now Labor has added in another barrier to that process.

Reducing complex human needs to a set of rules and inputs just so you can save a few dollars is dangerous, and it's outrageous. By removing human decision-making, you're leaving the health and wellbeing of older people in the hands of an opaque and flawed system. We know that this is a false economy, because denying at-home support doesn't save us anything. It costs Australians their health, and it costs the government more in the long run. It is always the case that those with the least are asked to carry the burden of austerity and budget repair, and Labor's changes to the aged-care system are symptomatic of this, pushing up costs for people on fixed and low incomes and making it even harder for them to access care. Human assessors must have the ability to override underassessments so that older people can get the support that they need to live safe and fulfilling lives in their own homes.

Let me make a prediction so blindingly obvious that it barely qualifies as one: higher taxes are coming. We all know this. You don't spend months and months floating conversations about revenue fairness and structural pressures unless you're preparing the patient for the needle. Governments don't soften the ground unless they are about to dig. The problem is this: arithmetic, that most offensive of political realities for this government. For the better part of two decades, government spending per person has grown at roughly twice the pace of tax collected per person. That gap is not going to close itself. It widens. That's what it does. When it widens fast enough, what does it do? It just swallows you up.

We are spending like a country with a mining boom and taxing like a country in denial. The result? A population that is increasingly dependent on government cheques, subsidies and services while at the same time less able to stand on its own two feet. What happens? Independence shrinks as the state expands, and productivity takes a nosedive.

Approximately two decades ago we had no net debt. Today every man, woman and child effectively carries a public debt of tens of thousands of dollars. Our Commonwealth's network has evaporated, and who inherits the tab? It's not the pollies cutting the ribbons today; it's the young, the ones who are told endlessly that they are the future while we quietly mortgage that future. When government spends money, someone else eventually pays.

I recently visited Shepparton in the beautiful electorate of Nicholls for the northern forum of the Country Labor Executive, also known as the CLX. It reinforced why Labor matters in the regions and why regional communities deserve a fair go. A fair go isn't just a phrase for Labor; it is absolutely our foundation. Born in regional Australia and forged in the shearers' strikes, ours is a movement built on working people standing together for a fair go. Built in union halls and trades councils like the Goulburn Valley Trades & Labour Council, where we gathered in Shepparton, Labor's strength has always come from collectivism—Australian workers organising for change.

At CLX we heard directly from locals about housing, skills, industry and health care, and I was really proud to be able to get up and say that Labor doesn't just listen—it delivers. In Nicholls 1,726 people have bought their first home with the five per cent deposit through our expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. In Mallee, my old stomping ground, 1,547 have bought their first home, and in Indi 1,289 people have gotten into their first home. That is not just a headline; that is keys in doors. We're funding new social and affordable homes in Shepparton.

Across regional Victoria more than 35,000 free TAFE enrolments are building skills locally. It's also easier to see a GP, with over half the clinics in Indi, Mallee and Nicholls now bulk-billing. Indi is at 51 per cent. In Mallee it's 53 per cent. In Nicholls it is 61 per cent. That's thanks to the $8.5 billion investment into Medicare. Thousands of apprentices are training in our regions, backed by direct support. We've extended the home batteries initiative to help households keep down power bills.

The NDIS supports over 700,000 Australians living with a disability and is expected to cost the Australian taxpayer $58 billion by 2028. The government says they are reining in costs and fraud—mm-hm! But a story last week in the Advocate newspaper in my backyard clearly shows there is much work to be done.

The story was about Cradle Coast Care. A small NDIS provider on the north-west coast, this outfit has fewer than 50 client, but they are making so much money that they are one of the major sponsors of local sport. Last week the Cradle Coast Care chief executive and Waratah-Wynyard councillor Dillon Roberts confirmed his company has provided over $20,000 in sponsorships to clubs this financial year with further funding expected. The chairman of Cradle Coast Care confirmed that this small NDIS provider made $1.9 million from the NDIS in 2024-25 and was projected to take in $2.4 million by the end of 2025-26 for 50 participants. Goodness me.

The Advocate made it very clear they weren't suggesting that Cradle Coast Care or its directors are doing anything improper, but, to me, there is something very wrong with this picture. Why is a small provider making so much cash that they can support sporting clubs? Meanwhile, veterans on the north-west coast struggle to get access to allied health providers like occupational therapists because DVA doesn't pay the same rates as the NDIS. Recommendation 71 of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide said that DVA's fees should align with the NDIS. Minister Keogh has said that he supports the implementation of that recommendation. Well, why haven't you done it yet, mate? You've had two years. I have an amendment that will fix this, and I hope the minister will take this opportunity. The NDIS is a lifeline for many Australians, and I support it, but the money needs to be targeted so that it goes to those who need it. Right now, your party over there is failing to get the job done.

Senator Thorpe.

It's in the paper. Go read it.

Everything is in the paper.

Senators! Senator Cox and Senator Lambie, you are now cutting into other people's time. Please show respect to other senators.

I want to speak about racism against the Fitzroy Stars netball team. After a recent match, a player from an opposing club directed racist abuse at Stars players, using the phrase 'you people' before making monkey noises and beating their chest in imitation of an ape. The matter went to an all-white tribunal, all blokes, and the player was found not guilty. Horrifically, the young Aboriginal women who experienced the abuse were then required to re-enact the incident in front of the tribunal. It's unbelievable that Aboriginal players were made to re-enact racism against them just to be believed. Our people should be able to step onto a court, play the game they love and know they will be treated with fairness and respect.

Fitzroy Stars is not just another sporting club to me; it's part of my life. I started playing with the Stars when I was 10 years old and spent all my juniors there. My nan was a timekeeper at the club, and I've played on those very courts where this happened. I stand with the players and the whole Fitzroy Stars community. Community sport should bring people together, not reproduce the racism our people have been fighting for generations. The sporting fields are meant to be level, equal playing fields.

We talk about racism and standing up against racism. When will racism end? All of our babies are not born racist; they learn it. So stamp out racism once and for all, and allow people to live their lives without being treated differently and badly, which ultimately causes so much harm to us.

Today's national accounts have confirmed what Australian households already know, and that's that they are poorer today than when Labor came to power. Living standards have gone backwards under Labor. In fact, Australian households have experienced one of the sharpest and fastest falls in living standards anywhere in the developed world. Australians are working harder, but they're going backwards. Any wage rises are immediately eaten up by rising prices, mortgage holders are paying thousands of dollars more every single month, and families are stretched to their limits. They're making do and cutting back.

Acting Deputy President, I want to, through you, speak to those who are watching or listening at home. You were promised that you would be better off under Labor, and we know today that that is a lie. We know that every family, every small-business owner and every young person who has had their optimism whittled away by this government will tell you that their reality is very different from Treasurer Jim Chalmers's spin. Why is it that the Albanese government's response to this reality is to spend more? They are making the problem worse.

Today's data confirmed in black and white the warning of every credible economist: that public sector demand is growing twice as fast as in the private sector. While households and businesses are tightening their belts, the government is doing the exact opposite. It's not a one-off. This is a pattern. This is now the second consecutive quarter in which public sector demand growth has outpaced private sector demand growth. This tells you everything you need to know about the Albanese government.

Australians were promised that they would be better off under Labor. Well, no wonder you are angry, because, when the government surges its demand ahead, private demand is whittled away. It pushes up inflation, keeps interest rates higher for longer and crowds out the very businesses we rely on to create jobs and lift living standards. You are paying more, your wages are buying less, and, unless the government puts your interests ahead of its own, you will continue to see your standard of living fall while the government grows itself.

Senator Ayres, please take your seat. Senator Cash?

On behalf of the entire chamber, if Senator Ayres would like to move that as a formal motion, I can tell you right now: forget two minutes, mate. Let's let Jane go for the rest of the afternoon so that the Australian people—

Senator Cash, resume your seat. Senator Cash, you will come to order. That is not an appropriate interjection. Neither was Senator Ayres's.

They owe me a two-minute statement out of that little rant! Recently WA welcomed our Special Envoy for Men's Health, my colleague Dan Repacholi from the other place, and what a great visit he had, from the Men's Shed in Melville to a roundtable hearing about men's health. It's such an important issue. I'll collect my two-minute statement later.

(): We'll now move to question time, and I shall call Senator Chandler.

I would like question time to start in silence, thank you, Senator Watt and Senator Cash. Let's just pretend we're starting on silent. Senator Chandler.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In the December quarter, public sector demand grew more than twice as fast as private sector demand. This is the second quarter in which the public sector has outgrown the private sector. That means that over the last six months, the period that the RBA has blamed for hiking interest rates, public sector demand grew faster than private sector demand. Minister, at a time when households and businesses are tightening their belts, why is your government pouring debt petrol on the inflation fire, forcing the Reserve Bank to consider keeping interest rates higher for longer?

I thank Senator Chandler for the question, and I congratulate her on her appointment into the shadow finance portfolio. I congratulate the opposition for getting around to asking a question about the economy on day 3 of this sitting week. The opposition have never seen a set of economic data that they didn't want to come in here and bag—and talk down the Australian economy. That is their setting. That is their standard setting, as opposed—

Senator Wong?

I wonder if Senator Cash could perhaps just dial down the volume.

Is that a point of order?

Sorry, I apologise. A point of order—I wonder if Senator Cash could do us the courtesy of dialling down the volume.

The minister is entitled to be heard in silence. Minister Gallagher, did you wish to continue?

I did want to continue, yes. Thank you very much. In this data today we have seen the strongest economic growth across the economy, broad based growth, as explained by the ABS, in three years.

I am surprised by Senator Chandler, who seems to be adopting the shadow Treasurer's hysterical language that he seems to want to use all the time. I am surprised that those opposite want to come in here and argue against defence spending, because that is essentially at the heart of the question that Senator Chandler has asked today—that those opposite, who supposedly want to spend more on defence, would come in here and criticise the public investment that we are making not only in defence infrastructure but also in consumption through the recruitment of additional staff to the Defence portfolio. It is clear—if you had read the national accounts—that defence and the state and territory governments' spending, primarily on health infrastructure, contributes to public demand in this national account. I am surprised, because I thought the opposition supported investment in defence— (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, first supplementary?

Under Labor, public sector demand is at its highest level in Australian history. When public sector demand surges ahead of private demand, it crowds out businesses, drives up costs, fuels inflation and makes the RBA's job just that much harder. Minister, when will you accept that it is your government's spending that is contributing to inflationary pressure and pushing up prices for Australians?

Well, we don't accept that. That's a political point that you're trying to make. This government doesn't apologise for investing in Medicare; we don't apologise for investing in defence; we don't apologise for investing in veterans and pensions—all of the things that Senator Chandler's party criticised and were going to cut if they were in government. This government—

You can't just make up things.

Well, you can't criticise the spending and then say you're not going to cut. You cannot criticise the spending and then not accept that that means you are going to cut, Senator Henderson. That is the argument that you are putting.

Minister, please resume your seat. Honestly, Senators McKenzie, Henderson, and Nampijinpa Price: you are drowning out the minister. It is not appropriate. You are being disrespectful to me and to the Senate. Minister, please continue.

Thank you. Now, if you look in the national accounts you can see that the big story across the economy in 2025 is the recovery of the private sector, which is a very good thing, and the pace of annual growth in private demand continued to pick up in 2025. The national accounts— (Time expired)

Senator Chandler, second supplementary.

Minister, why are you happy for Australians to pay the price for Labor's reckless spending through higher prices, higher borrowing costs and weaker living standards?

Well, that's a political point that you choose to make. We do not accept that, and the national accounts do not reflect that. So let's be clear about that. The government has managed the budget responsibly and has made sensible investments where they are needed across the economy, in stark contrast to the way you managed the budget when you were in government—which is that you didn't fund things in an ongoing sense to try to make it look better, knowing that those costs were coming, so you couldn't believe the set of numbers that you released, and we saw that.

We're fixing the budget. We're making sensible investments. We're finding savings, when you found none. We're paying down debt. We're paying less interest on that debt, because debt is $176 billion lower than it was under your forecasts. And we're doing all of that at the same time that we are seeing the strongest economic growth in three years.

I draw attention, in the public gallery, to former Western Australian senator Chris Back.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Conflict in the Middle East over the past few days has continued to destabilise an already unstable and unpredictable region. Iran has now attacked 10 countries in the region, with missile and drone attacks continuing daily. Minister, can you provide an update on the Albanese Labor government's assessment of the current state of conflict in the Middle East?

Thank you, Senator Dolega. Conflict in the Middle East over the past few days has continued to destabilise the region. However, we have had some positive news with confirmation that a plane with more than 200 Australians onboard is on its way from Dubai. However, with 10 countries under attack by Iran, the situation in the Middle East could get even worse, and the conflict is still spreading. Bahrain, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have all been struck by Iran. The US consulate in Dubai, not far from the Australian consulate, has also been attacked, and I can confirm that our personnel across the region are safe and accounted for. I'm also pleased to advise the Senate that Emirates Flight EK414 has taken off from Dubai and is en route to Sydney with more than 200 Australians onboard.

But the government is very clear. We know there are many more thousands of Australians who are in the Middle East and are waiting for flights to come home. This will be a challenging time for many Australians. Travel disruptions could go on for some time. Commercial flights continue to be the fastest way to help Australians leave the Middle East at scale. Of course, the government has been working on contingency planning, and that continues, and DFAT has continued to surge consular capacity to where it is needed. I announced before question time today that we are deploying six crisis response teams to the region over the next 24 hours. These teams will support on-the-ground consular efforts, as our No. 1 priority remains the safety and security of all Australian in the region.

Senator Dolega, first supplementary.

Thank you very much, Minister. As you mentioned, airspace closures and disruptions to travel have been occurring because of the conflict in the Middle East. Like many travellers around the world, Australians have been experiencing flight delays and cancellations. How is the situation evolving for Australians in the region?

Our first priority is keeping Australians safe, and we are working around the clock to help Australians who need it. I'm in touch with our partners in the region to engage in efforts to support Australians impacted by travel disruptions. Prime Minister Albanese spoke to the UAE president yesterday, and I also spoke to the UAE Foreign minister, who confirmed that the United Arab Emirates is working hard to facilitate flights, the first of which we have seen take off this morning headed for Sydney.

However, we have seen many flights cancelled and diverted as the situation on the ground and in the air changes. I want to say to Australians that we are engaging closely with airlines and the travel industry through what we know is a challenging period for many Australians. I continue to urge all Australians who are affected to ensure that they keep apprised of the information and travel advice.

Senator Dolega, a second supplementary?

Although there have been some positive developments in recent hours, it's said that disruptions could go on for some time. What other actions is the Albanese Labor government taking to support Australians in the region in response to this crisis?

This conflict is unlikely to come to immediate resolution. Obviously that has implications for the people of the region, and it has implications for the global economy and therefore for Australians at home as well. Around 20 million barrels of oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz every day—the equivalent of about 20 per cent of the global oil supply. The crisis will obviously have implications for the global economy, including for commercial shipping and energy. I want to make it clear the government are doing all we can to support Australians at this time. Our nation is fuel secure, and we have more fuel than at any time over the last 15 years. I can also indicate, and the Treasurer has indicated publicly, that he's written to the ACCC to ask for their assistance. The government has made clear this crisis should not be an excuse for retailers to gouge customers or to increase prices opportunistically above and beyond the impacts of events in the Middle East.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Real wages are 2.1 per cent lower today than the day that Labor took office. According to the RBA's own forecasts, they will continue to fall throughout the year. Under this government, Australians are not treading water; they're going backwards, and many families and businesses are going under. Minister, after three years in office, will you finally admit that real wages are lower under your government?

Congratulations, Senator Hume, on your new role as Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I am surprised that the first question you would ask us is around wages considering your record on wages, the fact that you wanted to sack 41,000 workers, the fact that you've criticised a lot of the investments we have made into aged care and early childhood education and care and into the wages of those individuals and the submissions that we make to the Annual Wage Review each year to get wages moving again—when your record was that annual real wages fell for five consecutive quarters before we came to office.

Real wages were going backwards 3½ per cent at the election in May 2022, and we have turned that around. We have had strong and consecutive quarters of real wage growth. This government supports people earning more and keeping more of what they earn, which is why we took tax cuts to the election too, which you opposed—because we wanted workers to keep more of their earnings and pay less tax on it. What was the position of the opposition on that? 'No, we are going to the election promising a tax increase for every working Australian—14 million Australians.' Not only were women 'bludgers' who had to go back into the office and were not allowed to work from home; that wasn't enough. Then, 'We would actually increase taxes on every worker at the same time that we are criticising the investments we have made into working peoples' lives.' (Time expired)

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Since Labor came to power, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, Chile, Spain, the United States, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Czech Republic, Belgium, Austria, Finland, Germany and Sweden have all managed to grow living standards—so have the G7 and so has the OECD. Australia stands alone as the only developed economy in the world where living standards have gone backwards. Minister, what is Labor's explanation for that?

The senator asked me about living standards. I'll remind Senator Hume that, in the last quarter they were in power, living standards fell by 1.5 per cent. That is what we inherited when we came to government, and every decision we have made since then has been to address that and to turn that around. Annual nominal wages have grown above three per cent for 14 quarters in a row, the longest streak in more than a decade and a half. This comes after eight consecutive quarters of annual real wage growth, the longest period of consecutive growth in more than a decade.

Living standards, including real incomes per capita, grew 2.1 per cent through the year to the September quarter, and they are growing faster than in every G7 economy. I accept that it is our responsibility to keep focused on all of the issues facing— (Time expired)

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Australians are poorer under Labor, and they deserve a straight answer from you, Minister. By how much have living standards fallen under your government?

I thank Senator Hume for the question. As I just said in my previous answer, which you might not have been listening to, living standards grew 2.1 per cent through the year to the September quarter. We can add in the December data on top of that as well. I would say that this government's focus has been on dealing with inflation, looking at how we drive productivity and, now, managing some of the global uncertainty we see across the world, particularly since the weekend, with the events in Iran and the Middle East. That will be the focus of the government's thinking: How do we help people with cost-of-living pressures? How do we manage the budget responsibly? How do we make the key investments we need to make, whether it be in defence or on the social services side of the budget, in a world where the global economy is more uncertain? They are the challenges facing the government, and we will deal with them responsibly.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It is ordinary people who suffer from war, whether it's civilians being killed throughout the Middle East or Australians feeling more economic pain, whilst big corporations make money off that suffering. In 2022, in the wake of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the global gas crisis that followed, Woodside's profits doubled and Santos pocketed $3½ billion. Already we've seen Woodside's and Santos's share prices rise more than seven per cent in just four days since the illegal strikes on Iran, and investors expect more windfall profits for gas companies. Your government was the first to support this illegal war. What will your government do to stop big corporations profiteering off Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war?

The first point I'd make is the numbers I've been focused on have not been anybody's share price. The numbers I've been focused on are the numbers of Australians who are in the Middle East—and what we can do to support them and what we can do to facilitate them getting home. That is the first point I'd make. The second point is you're right; ordinary people do suffer in conflict. I'd invite you to consider the number of citizens who have been killed or injured by Iran's actions over decades. This did not start with the strikes on Saturday. This has been a long period of destabilising, aggressive terrorist sponsorship by Iran over decades, including of Hamas and Hezbollah, and we all know what that has meant. That is a reality that I understand you don't wish to engage with, but it is a reality.

The second point I'd make is—you referenced Ukraine. I don't think anybody in this chamber would think that Iran is Ukraine. Iran is not Ukraine. Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism, including in this country—in your country. It has participated in attacks on Australians in our country. In terms of civilians, from the very first moment we called for and we will continue to call for international humanitarian law to be observed by all parties. We have done that consistently because we do believe that the protection of civilians matters. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Oil and gas companies profit from war, but they also profit from the elaborate con that is the petroleum resources rent tax. The PRRT is readily gamed by the gas industry, who are destroying the planet and profiteering off war and global unrest while the rest of us foot the bill for the damage. This government gives gas exporters more than half the gas they export royalty free. In the next five years, that's $170 billion. Why won't the government tax gas at 25 per cent or even higher?

I would ask that the President consider how that is possibly a supplementary question to the primary.

An honourable senator interjecting—

Government works on, with respect—I suppose it's a point of order. Is it? Do you want me to take a point of order?

Yes.

Perhaps I should take a point of order.

An honourable senator interjecting—

I'm trying to respect that. On the point of order—

I asked you in your capacity as minister.

Senator Waters!

The fact that the Greens political party have a particular view about the motivations of certain companies does not make a supplementary question relevant to the primary. This is a different portfolio. We have segued from a national security issue and an assertion about that.

Point of order.

I haven't finished. I'm on the point of order.

Oh, I thought you were wasting your time.

Senator Hanson-Young, withdraw that.

I withdraw.

It doesn't make it relevant to then go to the Treasury portfolio. I'm just making a point about, maybe, people asking questions in the way the Westminster system envisages.

A point of order—the question was asked to Senator Wong in her capacity as representing the Prime Minister.

Yes, thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. I have sought the advice of the Clerk, and the question is relevant to the primary question.

Senator Waters, I think the minister is still answering.

I've accepted the ruling, and I'm moving on, Senator Waters. I would say to you that I am advised that the oil and gas industry contributed almost $12 billion in taxes in 2023-24.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Australians' hearts will break from the toll of this war and so could their wallets. In the extremely likely event that we start to see corporate price gouging as a result of this illegal war, peoples' groceries and power bills will go through the roof again. Will the government finally agree to work with the Greens and make corporate price gouging illegal?

Again, I think that's a topic that, I assume, would be in the Treasury portfolio—price gouging. My recollection is—

An honourable senator: You're repping the PM. You've got this. You can answer.

Uh-uh, you need to come to order, thank you. The minister has the right to be heard in silence. Minister Wong, did you wish to continue?

Honourable senators interjecting—

That's a very gendered comment from your colleague. You might want to mention to him. Senator—

Order! Minister Wong, I've got another senator on their feet. Please resume—

Just a moment, Senator Ayres. I haven't called you. Senator Ayres.

The point of order is that it continued all through yesterday. It's happening again. I just ask you to request that the Greens senators have a little bit of decency.

You will note that I did ask for order. I expect there to be order.

Again, this is probably a matter for the Minister representing the Treasurer. My recollection, Senator, and I will check if I'm wrong, is that the Treasurer has made a series of announcements around price-gouging, including working with the ACCC and the grocery code of conduct.

While she's on a roll, my question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today's release of the national accounts provides an update on the economy, at a time of increasing global uncertainty. The data shows that the Australian economy remains strong, as a result of the Albanese Labor government's approach to responsible economic management. Can the minister outline today's national accounts and what they tell us about growth in the Australian economy during 2025?

I thank Senator Dowling for the question on the national accounts and the question around what the accounts tell us about growth across the Australian economy during 2025. Today's national accounts show strong, broad based growth, and an ongoing recovery in the private sector. The Australian economy grew 0.8 per cent in the December quarter, to be 2.6 per cent higher through the year. These are really encouraging numbers, and they're a very robust foundation from which we confront some of this intense global economic volatility, made worse by the dramatic escalation of hostilities in Iran and across the Middle East.

The accounts show that we've seen the strongest pace of annual growth in almost three years. They confirm that the Australian economy outperformed in 2025, with faster growth than every major advanced economy. This is in addition to Australia's record of stronger jobs growth and higher labour-force participation than any major advanced economy since we came to office.

We also acknowledge: there are challenges facing us, but advantages as well. We're not immune from the extreme global volatility, but our unique combination of economic strengths means we are well placed to manage the challenges coming at us.

The pace of annual growth in private demand picked up in 2025. Private demand grew faster, and contributed over three times more to economic growth, than public demand, in annual terms. Within a year, annual private demand growth more than tripled, but annual public demand growth more than halved.

Real GDP per capita increased by 0.4 per cent in the quarter, to be up 0.9 over the year. That's, again, the strongest that we've seen in more than three years.

Whilst we do acknowledge that quarterly movements can be volatile and the job is far from over, productivity was also up over the past year. It was flat in the quarter but up one per cent higher, in annual terms, above the 20-year average. These are results that we should welcome. (Time expired)

Senator Dowling, first supplementary?

Today's national accounts show the Australian economy performed strongly in 2025, with the private sector continuing to recover. Can the minister outline what other insights the data provides about the performance of the economy, including trends in dwelling and business investment?

I thank Senator Dowling for the question. The defining story of the Australian economy in 2025, as the Treasurer has outlined today, was the pick-up in private sector activity, which the national account figures confirm. It's really encouraging to see more growth in business investment, dwelling investment, market-sector productivity and household consumption, even though household consumption was slightly weaker than expected. New private final demand grew by 0.4 per cent, to be 3.2 per cent higher through the year. There were contributions from all those three components of private demand in the quarter, including household consumption, dwelling investment and business investment.

Really, because of the government's housing agenda, it's great to see that, for the first time in a decade, dwelling investment has now grown for eight consecutive quarters. It rose 0.6 per cent in the quarter to be 5½ per cent higher through the year. This is a substantial turnaround from what we inherited—

What matters is completions.

before you get going, Senator Bragg—with annual dwelling investment going backwards by 3.6 per cent, when the— (Time expired)

Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

The national accounts data reflect a deliberate strategy of budget discipline, at a time when economic leadership matters.

Budget discipline?

Yes. Can the minister outline why the Albanese Labor government's approach to responsible economic management—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

It's not the Bernie Madoff school of economics over there! Can the minister outline Labor's approach to economic management and why it's so important during a period of increasing uncertainty around the world?

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm waiting for silence before I call the minister. Sorry, Minister. I haven't called you, because there's not silence across the chamber. Minister Gallagher.

We will continue our measured and responsible approach to managing the budget, which has seen significant improvement in the underlying cash balance, which has seen debt lower and which has seen interest payments on that debt lower. All of those are areas where we inherited a mess from those opposite. We know, from their own election costings documents, that deficits would be higher and debt would be higher. They were the architects of the economic team of the worst election defeat in the coalition's history, and now are the new leaders of the team. It's unbelievable. We have those architects of higher debt, higher taxes and higher deficits—we know that that was all that was published. What do you do when you have a failure like that? You elect the architects as leaders of your party. Well, good luck to all of you.

Senator Henderson, you are one of the first to stand and call for order. You were well and truly disrespectful—pointing, shouting and carrying on. I'm asking you to sit and listen in silence.

My question is to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Minister Farrell. The government campaigned on a message of restoring trust in politics, moving away from the culture of secrecy of the coalition. Yet, as the PM conceded last year:

… this is a time when trust in governments and institutions is under challenge.

This is backed up by data. Australians' trust in government has gone down even more since the 2022 election. Data from the Mapping social cohesion report shows that, in 2024, 33 per cent of adults thought the government can be trusted to do the right thing by the Australian people all or most of the time, down from 44 per cent in 2021. I ask the following: what action is the government taking to increase the trust in the community, to increase transparency and to demonstrate it is doing the right thing for Australians and not vested interests, like gas companies.

I thank Senator Tyrrell for her question. You can trust us, Senator Tyrrell. We are a really trustworthy government because, if we say we're going to do something, then that is what we will do. Can I give you some examples?

Senator Tyrrell?

I trust you, Senator Farrell, but it's about the people of Australia trusting you.

The minister is being relevant to the question.

Thank you for that confidence in me, Senator Tyrrell, but can I just give you some of the examples of what this government has done to build the trust of the Australian people? I probably should note that, at the last election, Labor significantly increased the number of representatives in the parliament, which I take as a sign that the Australian people do trust us. Why is that? Well, let me go through some of the things we have done. We've established a National Anti-Corruption Commission. We have strengthened the ministerial code of conduct. We have strengthened protections for whistleblowers. All of these things were done in the Attorney-General's portfolio.

We've increased the funding of the ANAO. For instance, one of their inquiries was into PEMS. I don't know if you recall the PEMS, but it was a system set up by the other side and completely failed to do what it was supposed to do. We restored transparency at the AAT appointments and established the ART. We reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner. We implemented the recommendations of the Bell inquiry into Morrison's multiministries. Is there anything that we haven't done to restore— (Time expired)

Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary?

These actions clearly aren't working. With a near refusal to release the jobs for mates report and then this week trying to pass a FOI bill, which is universally opposed by human rights and legal experts for eroding transparency, how is the government being more transparent than the previous lot by reintroducing FOI exemptions, by reintroducing application fees and by banning anonymous requests for FOIs?

(—) (): I thank Senator Tyrrell for her first supplementary question. The problem with the FOI system is that it's simply not fit for purpose anymore. You might recall one of the former senators who was in this place who ran as a candidate for the Lambie party in South Australia at the last election, Senator Rex Patrick. He has set up a business model where he goes to members of parliament and says, 'Look, if you pay me money, I can get FOI requests answered for you.' This is a complete abuse of the FOI system. We want the FOI system to work but— (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

Order!

Senator Henderson, I have called order about three times.

Senator Henderson, once again, you are being extremely disrespectful towards me. Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary?

A point of order, though, I have never used the transparency warrior once. As the Centre for Public Integrity states, the FOI bill would make it harder for journalists, whistleblowers and the public to hold government to account. We're facing a cost-of-living crisis with rising inflation and income tax being too high. If the government wants to help regular working people and be a more transparent government than the last, why are you making people pay to access information they have a right to? How does this help the regular working Australian and the health of our democracy?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for her second supplementary question. Well, we are a government that looks after ordinary working people. I mentioned the number of seats that we won at the last federal election. One of the reasons we did so well at that election was because, unlike the opposition, we were focused on cost-of-living issues that affected ordinary Australian voters. I mean, I could list all of the things that we did but there are so many. In the 24 seconds that I have left to answer the question, I couldn't go through all of them. We could just read the Liberals' report, which has now finally been released. You talk about transparency but what about that lack of transparency? They weren't even going to tell the— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Yesterday you were asked by Sky News host Andrew Clenell on the issue of ISIS brides: did you or your office have any involvement in helping Jamal Rifi obtain 34 passports for them? In your answer, you very precisely said, 'Look, the issue of passports, I have not engaged with Mr Rifi on this.' Minister, did your office engage with Mr Rifi in any way on this issue of passports for the ISIS brides cohort?

I wasn't aware personally of Mr Rifi's engagement in the way you describe until that had become more public. I think Minister Burke has made clear he had no knowledge of Mr Rifi's actions and whereabouts other than what he had read in the media. I again say to you: Australians who are eligible are entitled to a passport. That's not a decision by my office. It's a decision under the legislation. There are circumstances in which, for security reasons, a passport might be cancelled or suspended. I think you referred belatedly to the appropriate section yesterday, and I—

Sorry! You referred to the appropriate section yesterday, and I made clear to you that the advice from ASIO or another competent authority which enables the minister to cancel or suspend was not provided.

Are you on a point of order, Senator Duniam?

It was just in relation to relevance. I did ask whether the minister's office had engaged with Dr Rifi or not.

The minister has responded to that. She is being relevant. Minister Wong, did you have anything further to add? If not, Senator Duniam, first supplementary?

Minister, have you engaged with Mr Rifi about any matters in relation to the ISIS brides cohort?

No, I have not.

Senator Duniam, second supplementary?

Minister, has your office engaged with Mr Rifi about any matters in relation to the so-called ISIS brides cohort?

I do not believe so. I have no knowledge of it, and I will confirm.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Murray Watt. Recent reporting suggests the Australian government may be negotiating an enhanced border security partnership with the United States which could allow US agencies, including ICE, access to Australians' biometric data and identity records as a condition of maintaining access to the visa waiver program. Can the minister confirm whether the Albanese government has agreed to share Australians' biometric information, including facial images, fingerprints or identity document data, with the United States government?

Thanks, Senator Payman. I don't have any information about that one way or another, so, if there's anything that I can provide the senator with, I will come back to the chamber and do so.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

While you're at it, I'd also like to know, if there isn't any agreement made, if such negotiations are underway, because Australians want to know what legal safeguards and limits are in place to prevent US authorities from accessing their biometric data. How will the government ensure the agencies like ICE cannot use Australians' personal data for domestic immigration enforcement in the US?

Thanks, Senator Payman. Since your first question, I've got a little bit of information here. I gather some of these allegations were made in a Crikey article about a month ago. I'm not sure if that was the source of your questions. What I can tell you is that I'm advised that the Department of Home Affairs does not share with the United States the biometric data of Australian citizens applying for a US visa. The Australian government has not made any commitments regarding an enhanced border security partnership with the United States. This requirement was introduced by the United States in 2022 for visa waiver program countries. That's the only information that I have.

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Given the serious privacy implications, it's obviously good to hear that we haven't committed to anything, but, Minister, will you commit to tabling the agreement or any negotiations or conversations around the privacy impact assessments and governing data-sharing framework before any arrangement takes effect, so Australians know exactly what personal information may be shared with foreign governments?

Well, I'm not able to do so, because no such agreement has been made. All I can do is repeat that the Department of Home Affairs does not share with the United States the biometric data of Australian citizens applying for a US visa, and we have not made any commitments regarding an enhanced border security partnership with the United States.

Let's talk about that great Labor legacy—it may be the greatest Labor legacy—Medicare. That's a bit controversial, but I think it's a good call. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Delivering affordable health care when and where Australians need it is a key priority for the Albanese Labor government. How is the government making it easier for Australians to see a doctor or a nurse when they need urgent care?

Thank you very much for the question, Senator Ananda-Rajah. Our commitment to the Australian people is very clear, and you are part of that, Senator, as a key advocate for public health in our caucus. We are a government that seeks to strengthen Medicare. We are a government that seeks to rebuild our system of universal health care, and there are now 130 Medicare urgent care clinics open across Australia.

Australians have made 2.6 million visits to urgent care clinics, and they are game changers for families. One-third of patients are under the age of 15, and the clinics are giving more and more working families across our suburbs access to the urgent care that they need. Once we open the full range of urgent care clinics, four out of five Australians will live within a 20-minute drive of one of these clinics. These services are making and will make a material difference to people's lives. But it turns out that what some people see as commonsense, practical policy draws out some pretty notable distinctions across the chamber.

We say that urgent care clinics help free up space in our hospital emergency rooms and local general practices for the people who need help most. Those opposite and the new leader of the opposition say that funding for urgent care clinics is wasteful spending. We say that the only card you should need to access the care that you need is your Medicare card, and those opposite and the new shadow treasurer say that we ought to see—

Opposition senators interjecting —

You might want to listen to what your shadow Treasurer has said. He said that we ought to see the transfer of healthcare funding from government to individuals. It's an interesting idea because, if the shadow Treasurer gets his way, the only card that will get you health care might be a platinum Amex. That might work well for the shadow Treasurer, but it won't work for the vast majority of the Australian people.

Senator Ananda-Rajah, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. A hundred and thirty urgent care clinics is something to sing from the rooftops. When it comes to getting quality health care, all you should need is your Medicare card, not your credit card. How is the Albanese Labor government's record investment in Medicare helping more Australians see a GP?

That's pretty borderline, Senator Ruston. Not only were you rude in interjecting but that's a term we don't use in this place.

Thank you for the question. The Albanese Labor government's historic $8.5 billion investment in bulk-billing has delivered a historic result. You can see that the bulk-billing rate has gone up in every state and territory across the nation. Again, what would seem to be a commonsense policy draws out some really interesting distinctions between us and those opposite. We say, 'We'll expand the bulk-billing incentive across the board.' The opposition leader says, 'Let's freeze the Medicare rebate for six years,' and advocates for extending this approach to the entire health system. We say, 'More people should be able to access a bulk-billing doctor and see a GP.' The shadow Treasurer says, 'People should have an individual health account that they contribute to on a periodic basis with their income.' What a marvellous idea from Mr Wilson—treating health care like a time share in a chalet! (Time expired)

Senator Ananda-Rajah, second supplementary?

I note that those opposite stare at their phones when we talk about Medicare. That's how interested they are in Medicare and the Australian people. The Albanese Labor government—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Ananda-Rajah, please resume your seat. I need silence because I can't hear the question. Please continue.

The Albanese Labor government delivered cost-of-living relief to all Australians by strengthening Medicare and cutting the cost of medicines on the PBS in its first term. How is the government helping more Australians access cheaper medicines via the PBS? Are there any risks to these important measures?

Thanks to the Albanese Labor government, PBS medicines are now the cheapest that they've been for 20 years. The last time they were this cheap was 2004. That is a 20 per cent cut in the maximum cost of medicines under the PBS. And it means that Australians will save around $200 million a year. But, if the Liberals and the Nationals and One Nation had their way, the maximum PBS general patient co-payment would have been more than $50 in 2026. Under those opposite—they're all very quiet—families right across the country would have been paying twice as much as they are paying now.

Again, you can't help but notice the emerging theme. Under the Albanese Labor government, medicines are cheaper. There are free Medicare urgent care clinics and more and more bulk-billing practices. Under those opposite, you'd need to take out some kind of bizarre timeshare subscription to see a GP.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Senator Wong, your government is imposing a carbon tax on Australian fuel refineries under its so-called Safeguard Mechanism. That impost amounts to over $1 million for each refinery today. To get to net zero, those refineries are potentially facing a bill of up to $1 billion. Minister, at a time of unprecedented global instability, why is this government making it more expensive and more precarious to refine fuel on Australian soil?

It does feel somewhat like groundhog day: the National Party in the Senate are again asking inaccurate questions about energy and being very successful in dragging the Liberal Party to the economically irrational Right. If I may congratulate you, you've certainly managed to get the Liberal Party to pick up your irrational policies! I think they are irrational. They are not good for the country, but, as a political strategy, you've certainly managed to get them there.

Unfortunately, it isn't good for the country, and what we know is that, under the uncertainty that your government imposed on the Australian economy as a result primarily of National Party engagement and National Party campaigning, you had so much policy uncertainty that there was an effective investment strike. You had 22 out of 24 coal-fired power stations close—I'll correct that if I'm wrong.

A government senator interjecting—

Twenty-four out of 28 closed.

I have a point of order on relevance. Australians are very concerned about uncertain fuel supplies, and, as much as I'd love to discuss coal-fired power stations, the question was about our fuel security and the government's tax on Australian fuel refineries.

I think the minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully.

Four-out-of-six refineries closed under whom? Under you. Four-out-of-six refineries closed under you, and then 24-out-of-28 coal-fired power stations closed under you. The problem is you have irrational economic policies which do not help Australians. And we see that in the closure of the things that you care about—on this front, refineries closed under you, just as coal fire closed under you because there was a lack of investment.

Minister Ayres made clear yesterday that we hold more fuel now than at any time in the last 15 years. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators McDonald, McKenzie and Ayres, when you've quite finished—Senator Canavan.

Minister, the Safeguard Mechanism is not free. Its costs are passed through to transport, to logistics, to groceries—to every good that is moved across Australian roads. Your own government's review found that petroleum carries the second-highest risk of investment leakage under your Safeguard Mechanism policy. So the choice your government has made is this: to tax Australian refineries, drive investment offshore and import more fuel from overseas. Can you name a single Australian who's better off because of your carbon tax?

Senator, I'd remind you that Kwinana closed in March 2021, Kurnell in October 2014—

I've a point of order on direct relevance. The minister seeks to continually talk about—

Senator McKenzie—

previous governments' policies instead of answering—

Senator McKenzie, I'm not going to keep calling you. Resume your seat. Resume your seat! Senator McKenzie, I had to ask you three times to resume your seat. The minister had barely spoken four words by the time you stood to call a point of order. There is no point of order. I'm going to request that you listen in silence or leave the chamber.

I'm asked about fuel. I remind you that the federal energy minister on 11 February 2021 said the Altona closure 'will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings'. Who was that? Was it Mr Taylor? It was Mr Taylor! So I do want to remind you, Senator, that you come in here now complaining about fuel refineries when four out of six closed under you. The issue is that four out of six closed under you. You know that, you know what has happened and you also know that this government and this energy minister have ensured that we have more fuel now than we have had in 15 years.

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

I note the minister made no attempt to defend their government's own policy. Minister, a permanent exemption for fuel refining from the safeguard mechanism would protect Australian jobs, protect our fuel security, guarantee investment to protect Australian jobs and put downward pressure on fuel prices. Why won't the government do it?

Senator, I think you should be upfront—and you generally are. Your position is not a single exemption. Your position is you don't want any action on climate.

It is actually the position of the whole coalition.

Oh, yes, that's true—congratulations! And how do you feel, Senator Sharma, sitting next to him? You used to argue for action on climate change, and now what we see is the National Party leading the coalition on energy policy. They wonder why Australians throughout our cities and our suburbs look at you and go 'no way'. It would be good if, at some point, people in the Liberal Party who used to believe in markets and sensible economic policy might stop listening to Senator Matt Canavan.

Why don't you get a mirror, you goose!

Senator Ayres, withdraw that comment.

I withdraw.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Since the election in May 2022, a key priority of the Albanese Labor government has been building new energy generation and storage. How important is it for the government to secure Australia's energy system, and what are alternative views in the community about energy security?

Thank you, Senator Brown. I think we got a fair bit of exposure to what the alternative views are just a minute ago. We say as a government that energy security, fuel security, is industrial policy; it is economic policy. It means, as our unreliable coal-fired power station system collapses around its ears because of the failure of the show over there, that we need to rebuild our electricity system in a responsible way. It's not the way of One Nation and some of their friends in the Nationals and the Liberals; they're retweeting propaganda.

While we've got to a position, in this country, where our fuel reserves are the best they've been for 15 years, far-right extremist scaremongering from over there has had people lining up at petrol stations when there was no need. People over there talk about war profiteers. The show over here are political war profiteers. They love creating a sense of crisis, they love creating a sense of drama and—

Senator Nampijinpa Price?

President, could you please ask the senator to address his answers through the chair?

I certainly will; thank you, Senator. Minister Ayres?

The Morrison government did more than any other government, with Mr Taylor leading on energy, to undermine Australia's energy policy security. The dimmest bulbs in that government then came to occupy the frontbench during the course of the last term, and the architects of last term's genius economic policy, the low-watt dim wattage bulbs, are now in charge. The shadow ERC of last term are the geniuses who are now in charge of driving this show right over a cliff.

Senator McKenzie?

As much as I want to recall sitting on that side of the chamber, this minister—

Senator McKenzie, resume your seat! That's twice I've had to call you today. You are well accustomed to the standing orders. You don't just stand up and start to make a statement. Minister Ayres, I think your time has expired. Senator Brown, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government's energy policy backs in private investment in the energy system. Why is providing investors with confidence important for building a modern energy system, and how does it help ensure energy policy is fiscally responsible?

It is important, and it's an important question because, if you get that right, it means the cost of investment doesn't fall wholly on the federal budget. The private sector does need policy certainty to invest, and that's something that the Liberal Party's recently released election manifesto, or review, makes clear. If you decide that you're going to publicly fund a $600 billion nuclear fiasco, not only does the market desert you—not only does investment disappear—but the public desert you as well.

On a point of order, could you please ask the minister to address his answer through the chair.

I will remind the senator to address his comments through the chair.

You would think, President, that the shadow ERC, referenced in the election review, would have picked up on this risk. That would be until you realise that the shadow ERC included, as former prime minister Turnbull said, 'Australia's best qualified idiot', Mr Taylor—Dead Cat Bounce Taylor—and, of course, Senator Hume.

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Building a modern energy system is a major undertaking. The Albanese Labor government is working hard to ensure the Australian people understand our energy policies and our rationale for the policies we implement. How important is it to explain major policies like energy to the public? What are some risks if this does not occur?

This is a question, of course, that goes to coherence when it comes to energy policy and energy policy leadership. What you need to have—and the Liberal Party review that you should all read. Mr Taylor, as Ms Savva points out, was completely immoral—I think the phrase she used was 'completely foolish and naive'—in seeking to hide it from you, but it makes clear that if you are trying to sell a $600 billion nuclear fiasco, what you need as a minimum is communication between the leadership and the party machine. You need a shadow ERC that's up to the task. You need political leadership that's focused not on hard-right preoccupations and imported ideologies but on the interests of ordinary Australians. That's what Australia needs. That's what the Liberal Party needed. (Time expired)

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I would like to add to the answer I gave to Senator Duniam. During question time today, I undertook to provide further information in response to Senator Duniam's question about whether my office engaged with Mr Rifi about any matters in relation to the so-called ISIS brides cohort. I can confirm that the answer is no.

I wish to add further to a question today from Senator Hume on living standards, where I said in my answer that they are growing faster than every G7 economy. The latest OECD data shows that living standards in Australia are growing faster than the average of G7 economies.

In question time on 3 March, yesterday, Senator Wong undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of her by Senator David Pocock in her capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister relating to international relations. In my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, I've written to Senator Pocock to provide additional information, and I table my letter to Senator Pocock for the information of all senators.

I move:

That the Senate note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by me and Senator Hume on the economy and wages.

I would have thought that today with the national accounts data being released that this government would have been prepared to come into this chamber and answer the questions that Australians have on their minds, because Australians know that they are not better off now than they were four years ago when this government came to power. They know that they are struggling to pay the bills. They know that the price of everything is going up and their ability to pay for everything is not going up consistently with that.

We heard in the national accounts data today that public sector demand is growing more than twice as fast as private sector demand. That is a very troubling statistic, because that means that this government is merely fuelling its inflation fire by pouring debt petrol on that fire. To come in here today as the new shadow minister for finance and ask questions of the government about this issue and receive the complete lack of response that I did—the complete equivocation, the constant pivoting to talk about what might have happened when other governments were around and the failure to engage with the substance of the question specifically—is incredibly disappointing. I'm sure Australians listening along at home were disappointed, like me, by the responses that they heard from Labor ministers.

We know that under Labor living standards have declined. Australia has had the biggest fall in living standards, in terms of household disposable incomes, in the developed world. We know that Australians have less purchasing power today than they did four years ago. We are facing higher inflation and higher interest rates. Labor's reckless spending is keeping inflation higher for longer. What I and Australians want to see from this government is a plan to tackle that inflation, to get the economy back under control and to get the budget back under control.

It seems completely lost on this government that they are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of government debt. They will make many comments about where this debt came from. They'll talk about the pandemic. We know they were unprecedented times that required unprecedented levels of government spending; we recognise that. But this government came into power in 2022. They have had four years, and they have gone nowhere near even trying to tackle that government debt. And let's not forget that during the pandemic it was the Labor opposition that wanted to spend an awful lot more money to deal with the problem than the coalition government did, so they really don't have a leg to stand on. But they've been in power for four years now, and they have no plan to get that trillion-dollar debt bomb under control.

As someone who considers herself still, sort of, a young Australian, I find it disappointing, for me and my generation and those Australians younger than me who are going to be left paying the bill on this trillion-dollar debt bomb, to hear that this government has no plan to deal with it, has no plan to deal with the inflationary pressures we're seeing throughout the economy. It has no plan to get its government spending under control, which we know is fuelling inflation. Their government spending is making life more difficult for Australians. It is making life more expensive for Australians. Australians are sitting at home, looking over their household budgets, thinking: 'How am I going to make ends meet this week? How am I going to deal with the fact that insurance is up by 39 per cent, energy costs are up by 38 per cent, rents are up by 22 per cent, the cost of health care is up by 18 per cent, education is up by 17 per cent and food is up by 16 per cent?' Everything keeps going up and up, and they look at the household budget and think: 'How am I going to deal with this? I'm going to have to rein in spending.' That's what Australians will have to do. They will have to make sacrifices.

But this government shows zero inclination to make their own sacrifices. It shows zero inclination to look at its budget and say: 'Hey, where can we start trimming a bit? Where can we start trying to get the trillion-dollar debt bomb under control?' That is going to be a millstone around this government's neck. I know the Treasurer is talking a big game, when it comes to the budget that he will be handing down in May, about trying to get government spending under control. But the proof is going to be in the pudding. I and the rest of the shadow economic team are going to be looking very closely to see exactly what plan Jim Chalmers has to get the debt bomb under control, because, frankly, I think that plan is non-existent.

I know quite often those on the other side don't listen to the answers to the questions they put to our ministers, so I just want to remind you, when you come in and manipulate the information and figures to suit your own political ends: in this data today, Senator Gallagher said, 'we have seen the strongest economic growth across the economy—broad-based growth as explained by the ABS for the strongest growth in three years'. They're actually the facts. But I think what the Australian people very much understand about those opposite is that what they say to them in the community and what they do in here are often very different things.

It is in your political playbook to ask questions about the debt, but you never actually accept the debt you left. You never accept the high inflation when you left office. The responsibility of a good opposition is to learn from the mistakes they made when they were in government, but you haven't learnt anything. If you had in fact learnt anything from the worst defeat of the Liberal Party's history at the last election—if you had learnt anything at all during that time about running the economy, about being there for the Australian people—you would not have rewarded the leaders of that election campaign strategy, that economic strategy, who are now the leaders of your party. That says to me and to the Australian community that you haven't learnt anything.

In the almost 10 years you were in government, how many surpluses were there? I can't remember how many surpluses you delivered.

It was zero!

Zero! You've come in here and reminded everyone about these four great years of a Labor government that's actually providing for the Australian people. How many surpluses in these four years have the Treasurer and this government delivered? There's no response from those over there. Was it one?

More!

Two?

More!

Three! Three surpluses were delivered by this Labor government. This was at the same time as we were paying down the debt that you left behind.

When we talk about the cost of living—which is an important issue that we are working on every single day—let's just remind those in the gallery, those who are listening and those who will read the transcripts that those opposite went to the last election promising to increase taxes. What did they do in this chamber when we put through the legislation for each of our tax cuts for Australian workers so that Australian workers could actually keep more of the money that they earn? They voted against it. They talk about our investment into Medicare to provide real cost-of-living benefits for the Australian community. Australians can go and see a GP or they can get urgent care at our urgent care clinics. We've reduced the cost of medication so that mums, in particular, don't have to say, 'I can't afford to fill my script, because my kids need medicine more than I do.' We have lowered that. They're the real measures of a government that understands what's happening in the community.

When we talk about Australian workers, what did you do when we passed legislation to increase the pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers—aged-care workers? You came in here bleating about aged care because you wanted to make political points. What did you do when we wanted to support early childhood educators? What did you do with those two pieces of legislation? You voted against them because you're all very hypocritical in what you do and say.

Senator Polley, please resume your seat. Senator Henderson, on a point of order?

I have a point of order. I did hold off for quite some time, but the senator is continually referring to 'you'. I ask that you direct her to direct her comments through the chair.

Senator Polley, you should direct your comments through the chair.

You always know when you're actually talking about—

Senator Polley, don't stand up and ignore what I've asked you to do.

Sorry, Deputy President. I didn't mean to do that. The opposition, through you, Chair, won't accept that what they did when they were in government was not actually appreciated by the Australian people. The Australian people make their judgements based not on what you say but on what you do and what you plan to do. (Time expired)

The question we have to ask is: why is the government spending so much time talking about the opposition? They're the government. They've been the government for the last four years, and yet those people listening to question time would have heard repeated references to the opposition, to our leadership, and to our election review, for goodness' sake.

What is the Labor government doing spending time talking about the election review undertaken by the Liberal Party? It's extraordinary. The people in my region, greater Ipswich in South-East Queensland, are the ones going to food banks for the first time in their lives. Even people with jobs are going because they can't afford to pay their mortgages. They can't afford to pay their rent. They can't afford to pay their electricity bills. They can't afford their groceries, let alone provide for their children to engage in sporting activities and cultural activities. That's what the government should be focused on. They shouldn't be focused on the leadership of the opposition or, for goodness' sake, an election review undertaken by the Liberal Party of Australia. It's just absolutely absurd. I think it says everything you need to know.

The second point I'll make is, continually, they refer to the level of debt during the height of a global pandemic. I was proud of how the coalition government responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. In my region, there were small businesses on their knees. There were business owners who were having sleepless nights pondering how they were going to keep their employees on. Under Josh Frydenberg, our then treasurer, we introduced JobKeeper and took that pressure off businesses small, medium-sized and large. It lifted that pressure. Do people remember? I remember seeing the photographs of people turning up at Centrelink offices around the country—the queues going around the corner—and the coalition government acted. We acted. Sure, there was an economic consequence in terms of the debt, but that was something we had to face. That was the right thing to do, and we make no apologies for that. That was in the national interest. I hate to think of the consequences there would have been had we not undertaken that action. That was the fit and proper thing to do in those circumstances.

The government needs to spend less time talking about the opposition and more time talking about the Australian people. One of the biggest issues facing the Australian economy at the moment is inflation, and I want to read to you from a book called Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell, on inflation:

Inflation is in effect a hidden tax. The money that people have saved is robbed of part of its purchasing power …

What do we know about inflation? Inflation in this country is now running at 3.8 per cent. What does that mean? The real wages of Australians today are 2.1 per cent lower than on the day Labor took office. The purchasing power in Australians' pockets is 2.1 per cent lower today than it was four years ago. It's lower than in Poland, Portugal, Hungary, Chile, Spain, the United States, Denmark et cetera. That inflation figure, which is eating into the purchasing power of every single Australian family, is what the government should be focused on.

They shouldn't be talking about the opposition. The Australian people don't want senators in this place talking about themselves and issues inside the Canberra bubble for a few laughs and a few gags. They want us focused on the issues of concern to them, and those are inflation, high interest rates and how they're going to make ends meet. That's the expectation of the Australian people.

Times are tough out there. After nearly four years of Labor, insurance is up 39 per cent, energy is up 38 per cent, rent is up 22 per cent, health care is up 18 per cent, education is up 17 per cent and food is up 16 per cent. Those are the facts, and the focus of the Australian Labor Party should be on the Australian people, not on the internal machinations of the opposition. The focus of the Labor government should be on the Australian people.

For those who are watching along in the gallery and those who might be listening at home, this is the part of the day where, after question time, the opposition determines what topics they want us to discuss. I'm delighted that we're able to talk today about what's going on with matters economic. This is Wednesday, we've been back for two days already, and this is the first set of questions that the opposition has decided to ask about the economy and what might be happening for Australians. I do want to congratulate the two women in these portfolios who asked the questions. It's an honour to serve your nation as a person on the frontbench in a shadow capacity. I recall my period of time doing that very happily, so I want to congratulate Senator Chandler and Senator Hume.

But, in my assessment, the two things they asked that were really important for people to understand were questions about real wages and about the public-private spend. Senator Gallagher, in her response, made it very, very clear that, unlike the opposition, who were in government for 10 years and who left this country with an interest rate at 6.1 per cent, we have responsibly managed the economy and taken on the challenge of turning that economy around, like turning around the Queen Mary, to make it work again for Australians, and real wages have been growing.

Senator Scarr made a point about the challenge that we, like every nation around the world, face in regard to dealing with the consequences of the COVID reality that hit every country across the globe. He said increasing spending to cover that period of time was 'the right thing to do'. Labor believes that you need to spend on the right things, and our version of what is right is vastly different from that of those on the other side, and it has become even clearer in this last little period since we've had the love-in and the Liberal and National parties have kissed and made up—again, for the second time. I predict it's going to be like a MAFS breakdown very soon, though. Since they got in, they have given us a few signals that they don't agree at all with many of the challenges that we are facing and with our responses to the challenges that the Australian people are telling us matter to them.

I will just say that, in spending Australian taxpayer dollars for Australians, our investment goes to things like veterans' affairs. It's no good showing up on Anzac Day with your best clobber on and putting a wreath down when you're not looking veterans themselves. Veterans aren't something that belong in a movie or in our memory from history. Veterans need attention from us right now. So let me tell you about one of the public spending things that they want us to cut. They want us to cut public spending on Medicare and veterans.

This was the situation in regard to the way they spent money, the way they didn't handle debt and the way they selected what money would be spent on. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide's interim report said it had serious concerns about a massive claims backlog. That's what we inherited from the Liberal and National parties when we got to government.

Order! Senator Henderson.

There were 42,000 veterans—

Senator Henderson!

Forty-two thousand veterans—

Senator Henderson!

in mid-May of 2022 under Mr Morrison, and we knew that they weren't getting attention.

Order! Senator O'Neill, you have your leader on her feet. Senator Wong?

Point of order—

No, Senator Henderson!

I think, actually, the duty minister is permitted to sit here and be called. A point of order, Chair: you did call Senator Henderson three times, and she ignored you. My suggestion is that Senator O'Neill sits down until Senator Henderson is able to comply with your request.

Thank you for your assistance, Senator Wong. I did call Senator Henderson to order. Senator Henderson, interjections are always disorderly. Senator O'Neill, you have the call.

I am used to ignoring a lot of noise that comes from that side, because my focus, like the government's, is razor-sharp on serving the Australian people, and no-one deserves our respect and attention more than those veterans who've served our nation and the cause of democracy. Forty-two thousand of them were left hanging under the Liberal and National parties, and they say they want to cut funding. When they were there and they cut spending, we ended up with that backlog.

As of 31 January 2024, the number of claims that were yet to be allocated had fallen from 42,000 to 3,697. That is a good investment of Australian taxpayers' dollars. It is about doing the right thing, and it's just one policy area that Labor is attending to that will increase, and will continue to increase, in the national interest.

The coalition wants Australia to be a place of opportunity, aspiration, freedom and safety—an Australia where life is affordable, where young Australians can buy a home, where you can raise a family because you have confidence in the future and where getting a fair go is the reality of the Australian experience, not a dream. To do this, the coalition will fight against Labor's bad taxes—Labor's taxes on your house, taxes on superannuation and taxes on your children's future. The coalition will require the government to live within its means. If Australian households have to live within their means, why shouldn't the government have to live within its means? The coalition will remove Labor's carbon taxes, which are pushing up the cost of food, pushing up the cost of cars and pushing up the cost of housing.

Under Labor, living standards in Australia have gone backwards. Under Labor, we have seen the largest collapse in living standards in the developed world. Under Labor, inflation remains out of control, driving up interest rates and hurting Australian families with mortgages. Under Labor, government spending is at the highest level in 40 years and Australia is on track to tip into $1 trillion worth of debt—a debt that is a tax on the next generation of Australians, a tax that the next generation of Australians will be forced to pay.

And Labor says that it's tackling inflation. Well, Labor is failing Australian households when it comes to inflation. Just today, we had released the national accounts for our country. The national accounts are like a health check on the economy, and the national accounts say that the Australian economy is sick. On a per capita basis, the Australian economy remains poorer than in March 2022, when Labor was elected. The national accounts demonstrate that this results in Australia experiencing the largest collapse in living standards in the developed world. They reveal that, according to the latest figures from the OECD, Australia has expressed the largest collapse in living standards amongst all developed countries and that Australia has made no progress in improving living standards against the OECD average, remaining down 10 percentage points. And Labor likes to talk a lot about wages. Well, let's hear the truth about wages. Real wages are more than two per cent lower today than when Labor took office and are falling as I speak. The RBA expects real wages to continue to fall all year, all through to December 2026.

What is the consequence of Labor's failing economic management? It means that, in times of crisis, the economy is weaker, the economy can't respond and Australian families and businesses pay a high price. That is exactly what we're experiencing and living through just this week. Labor's poor economic management has left Australia exposed to international crises. Even before the Iran conflict, inflation and interest rates were rising and forecast to rise further. Whatever impact the Iran crisis may have on the Australian economy and on Australian households, it will be compounded. That economic cost, that economic catastrophe, will be compounded because Labor has failed over the last four years to get the economy right.

And Labor has been warned. The RBA has regularly warned that Australia may continue to suffer from high inflation and high interest rates if it's not suitably prepared for the possibility of growing geopolitical risks and international crises like the one we have seen.

The health of the Australian economy is sick. Australian households are now being forced to pay a very high price for that, and the next generation of Australians will be forced to live with higher taxes as a result of increasing national debt.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the fossil fuel industry.

More than 100 schoolgirls killed by a missile strike, a death toll mounting every single day now to over 800, hospitals bombed, homes reduced to rubble, unilateral attacks by Israel and the US in breach of international law—it is always civilians who suffer from bombing, violence and upheaval. While ordinary people pay the price, whether with their lives or from their own pocket, corporate profits soar. Within hours, share prices skyrocketed for fossil fuel companies. In 2022, in the wake of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the global gas crisis that followed, Woodside's profits doubled to $6½ billion and Santos's rose to $3½ billion, up 160 per cent. Since the illegal US-Israel strikes on Iran began this week, Woodside's shares are up 7.7 per cent, and Santos's shares are up 7.8 per cent. Fossil fuel corporations are raking in megaprofits while paying no tax on the gas that they get for free. And they're not the only big corporations benefiting. There are also Lockheed Martin, Palantir, drone companies, RTX—the same companies that our government is- handing billions to in defence contracts. That's not to mention that Labor is investing billions via the Future Fund in the shares of companies like Elbit Systems. This is all happening at the same time as we funnel $368 billion dollars to the US via AUKUS for nuclear submarines that we we'll probably never see.

War has always made billionaires and big corporations even richer. It is just another business model for them, while everyday people pay with their pockets and their lives. Yet this Labor government, who has so completely sold out any principles it once had for peace and for people, was the first to support this illegal war. When asked what they're doing today to support big corporations profiteering off it, they can only say they've written a letter asking the ACCC nicely to monitor for price gouging. Pathetic. They could just vote for the Greens bill to stop corporations price gouging, but they voted against that a few weeks ago. Our message to Labor is this: stop backing Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war. (Time expired)

In the last few hours, senators in the US have come out of a classified briefing to Congress, and they've said that it's very clear now that there was no imminent threat and no intelligence—nothing—to justify the US's and Israel's illegal strikes on Iran. Senators are saying as well that the information they've been given behind closed doors is actually leaving them more confused than when they went in as to not only the justification for this illegal war but what the plan is and what the endgame is. They're saying that it's clear that it's not going to make people in the US any more safe. I would argue that it's not going to make Australians, whose government has tied us to the hip of Trump's US government, any more safe either.

The Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency has also confirmed now that Iran was not weeks or days away from having a nuclear weapon. This is sounding very much like a repeat of Iraq, an illegal war started with no justification. When my colleague asked in question time what the government will do to stop big corporations profiteering off Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war, the minister said they're not focused on prices; they're focused, rightly, on getting Australians home. Well, maybe they should have thought about that before they were first out the gate in the world to support an illegal war that is now putting the lives and the travel of Australians at risk. Then the minister went on to say that they agree that ordinary citizens are hurt in conflict. Again, maybe that means that they should have been doing absolutely everything they could to stop the conflict escalating instead of supporting an illegal war which is now spreading across the Middle East. And then the minister said, 'Iran is not Ukraine.' That is outrageous. Are we resorting to vigilantism now? We only follow international law depending on the country that is being bombed? Labor has lost its way, and the Australian public know it, and they see it.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

Yesterday and in February, a number of votes were deferred. I understand that it suits the convenience of the Senate that these votes be held now. I'm beginning with a deferred vote on general business notice of motion No. 359, standing in the name of Senator Henderson. That was moved on Thursday 5 February.

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, I will put the question on the government amendments to general notices of motion Nos 357, 358, 361 to 367, 371, 372, 374, 375 and 382, moved yesterday. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

I shall now deal with the remaining questions on each motion listed at item 13 of today's Senate Order of Business. I will first deal with general business notice of motion No. 356, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 356, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 357 standing in the name of Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 358, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 361, standing in the name of Senator McGrath, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 362, standing in the name of Senator McGrath, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 363 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 364 standing in the name of Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

I will now deal with general business notice of motion No. 365, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 366, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 367, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 371 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 372, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

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

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 382 relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme.

Leave granted.

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

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 after motions to take note of answers on Thursday, 5 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.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 382 standing in the name of Senator Bragg as amended be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Thorpe, move:

That—

(a) the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026: Whether, in line with recommendation 10 of the Set the standard: Report on the independent review into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (Set the Standard report), any changes to the language and interpretation of the standing orders are required to:

(i) eliminate language, behaviour, decision-making and practices that are sexist, racist or otherwise exclusionary and discriminatory,

(ii) improve safety and respect in the Senate chamber, and

(iii) clarify unclear and inconsistent types of behaviour and enforcement of standards;

(b) the Senate notes that:

(i) successive governments, working across the Parliament, have taken strong action to implement all 28 recommendations of the Set the Standard report, which was tabled on 30 November 2021,

(ii) the Government and the Parliament have taken action to implement all recommendations of the Set the Standard report, working through the Parliamentary Leadership Taskforce, and recommendations from the report are now all ongoing or completed, with a review to take place 18 months after the commencement of the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service,

(iii) the President referred an inquiry into recommendation 10 of the Set the Standard report to the Procedure Committee in October 2022,

(iv) the Procedure Committee presented its report in response to this referral on 12 September 2023,

(v) the Senate unanimously adopted the behaviour standards for Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces (behaviour standards) and codes of conduct for Australian parliamentarians and staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 on 10 October 2024, which commenced on 14 October 2024,

(vi) specifically, the behaviour standards require that people 'uphold laws that support safe and respectful workplaces, including anti discrimination, employment, work health and safety and criminal laws' and states that 'bullying, harassment, sexual harassment or assault, or discrimination in any form, including on the grounds of race, age, sex, sexuality, gender identity, disability or religion will not be tolerated, condoned or ignored', and

(vii) the Parliament established a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Parliamentary Standards on 10 October 2024; and

(c) the Senate reaffirms that all parliamentarians have a role to play in upholding appropriate standards of behaviour in the Parliament, including those outlined in the behaviour standards.

by leave—The government agrees that the conduct and behaviour of senators in this place has deteriorated to an unacceptable level; however, we do not believe that a motion simply referring this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Procedure is a solution to remedy that behaviour, so we will not be supporting part (a) of the motion. The recommendations of the Human Rights Commission's Set the standard report have been met with broad support in this place, particularly given the concerning findings that indicated that, as a parliament, we must do better.

Over the past few years, in response to this report, the Albanese government has reformed the frameworks that seek to improve workplace culture in this building. We, as elected members of this Senate, have a serious and enduring role to play in setting and upholding these standards, but it also means we must be conscious of the impacts of our behaviour and our words. When a senator behaves in a disorderly way, it's up to the chamber to manage this behaviour. I would also encourage those who are moving this motion today to reflect honestly about their own conduct towards others in this place.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 3, standing in the name of Senators Thorpe and Faruqi, part (a) be agreed to.

The question now is that the remainder of business of the Senate No. 3, standing in the name of Senators Thorpe and Faruqi, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion circulated in my name.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving me a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to cultural safety in the Senate to be moved immediately and determined without amendment.

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

The President has received a message from the House of Representatives inviting senators to attend a meeting of the House on Thursday 5 March 2026 for an address by the Rt Hon. Mark Carney, Prime Minister of Canada.

I move:

That on Thursday, 5 March 2026, the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 10.10 am till the ringing of the bells, to enable senators to attend an address by the Right Honourable Mark Carney PC OC MP, Prime Minister of Canada.

The question is that government business No. 1, standing in the name of Minister Gallagher and moved by Minister Chisholm, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 370, standing in the name of Senator Cadell.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 10 March 2026, the following documents in the period 30 June 2023 to 30 June 2025:

(a) finalised disclosures of interest relating to external work undertaken by the ANU staff involved in the development of the Improved Native Forestry Method, submitted under the Australian National University's (ANU) disclosure of interest framework;

(b) executed or operative agreements between the ANU and the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation, including:

(i) consultancy agreements,

(ii) funding agreements, and

(iii) research agreements;

(c) substantive written communications (including emails and letters, excluding purely administrative scheduling correspondence) between the ANU staff involved in the development (or overseeing the development) of the Improved Native Forestry Method (or an Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) method that seeks to cease native forestry harvesting) and members of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Fund Board and staff in relation to the development of this method;

(d) substantive written communications (including emails and letters, excluding purely administrative scheduling correspondence) between ANU staff involved in the development (or overseeing the development) of the Improved Native Forestry Method (or an ACCU method that seeks to cease native forestry harvesting) and any New South Wales (NSW) government staff in relation to the development of this method;

(e) substantive written communications (including emails and letters, excluding purely administrative scheduling correspondence) between ANU staff involved in the development (or overseeing the development) of the Improved Native Forestry Method (or an ACCU method that seeks to cease native forestry harvesting) and the Commonwealth Electrical Regulatory Authorities Council secretariat and relevant Department of Climate Change Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) staff in relation to the development of this method;

(f) executed or operative consultancy, funding, or research services agreements between the ANU and the NSW DCCEEW, including the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service;

(g) executed or operative consultancy, funding, or research services agreements between the ANU and the Australian Government DCCEEW, including agreements connected with the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee; and

(h) gift deeds or gift forms where the stated purpose of the donation was to support work undertaken by the ANU staff involved in the development of the Improved Native Forestry Method.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

(c) the Minister for Education does not possess documents, which the senator would know if they had used other avenues to seek these documents prior to moving a motion in the Senate.

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required. The division will be deferred to the end of today's formal motions.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than midday on 10 March 2026, all written or digital documents, correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes or other records of interaction from 10 December 2025 to 2 March 2026 in the possession of the eSafety Commissioner or their office relating to the process of verifying the claim by the Government that 4.7 million under-16 social media accounts have been deactivated, removed or restricted under its ban.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required. The division will be deferred to the end of today's formal motions.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, all correspondence between Treasury and the Treasurer's office on the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Regulatory Guide 97 between May 2025 and March 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required. The division will be deferred to the end of today's formal motions.

At the request of Senator Hanson, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 May 2026:

The adequacy of Australia's domestic fuel reserves, refining capacity, supply chains and related national security arrangements in light of the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran, with particular reference to:

(a) Australia's current and projected stocks of liquid fuels (including petrol, diesel, aviation fuels, marine fuels and critical lubricants), their compliance with International Energy Agency obligations, and the resilience of those stocks under scenarios of prolonged disruption to global oil and gas supplies;

(b) the capacity, distribution and ownership of Australia's domestic refining infrastructure, import terminals, fuel pipelines, rail and road freight networks, and their ability to maintain national supply during regional or global crises;

(c) the vulnerability of Australia's fuel supply chains to disruptions arising from conflict affecting key maritime chokepoints, including the Strait of Hormuz and other critical sea lanes;

(d) the dependence of the Australian Defence Force and allied operations in the region on assured access to liquid fuels, including the suitability of existing Defence fuel storage, distribution networks and contracting arrangements to support sustained operations in high-threat environments;

(e) the likely economic, social and regional impacts of a severe or prolonged fuel disruption on essential services, food and medical supply chains, agriculture, mining, manufacturing, transport and households, particularly in rural, regional and remote communities;

(f) the effectiveness of existing Commonwealth legislation, regulations, policies and agreements, including minimum stockholding obligations, and emergency management frameworks, in ensuring fuel security and price stability during crises; and

(g) options to strengthen Australia's fuel resilience and sovereignty, including:

(i) expansion and geographic diversification of on-shore strategic fuel reserves,

(ii) Australian domestic liquid fuel exploration, production and refining, and

(iii) alignment of fuel security policy with broader defence, energy, and industry strategies; and

(h) any related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Hanson and moved by Senator Bell, be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Shoebridge, move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by midday on 5 March 2026, the complete unedited version of the 'independent audit of the Defence estate' as provided to the Government in December 2023.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute "the Senate notes that the 'Delivering the future estate: Defence estate audit report' and the government response were publicly released on 4 February 2026".

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to. A division is required. We'll move that one down.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Industry and Innovation and/or his office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in relation to engagement with stakeholders for the purpose of discussing the Government's domestic gas reservation scheme policy, announced on 22 December 2025; and

(b) a document which lists all meetings held by the Minister for Industry and Innovation in relation to the domestic gas reservation scheme policy, detailing the date of each meeting and the attendees of each meeting.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required, and we'll move that one to the end.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Resources and/or her office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in relation to engagement with stakeholders for the purpose of discussing the Government's domestic gas reservation scheme policy, announced on 22 December 2025; and

(b) a document which lists all meetings held by the Minister for Resources in relation to the domestic gas reservation scheme policy, detailing the date of each meeting and the attendees of each meeting.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the power to order 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 the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required, and we'll move that to the end.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 15 April 2026:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Industry and Innovation and/or his office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Australian Space Agency in relation to the decision to abolish the Australian Space Agency Advisory Board; and

(b) the final written report of the 2024 review of the Australian Space Agency's governance arrangements by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

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

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

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. A division is required, and we'll move that one to the end.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 388 be withdrawn.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 313, agreed on 3 February 2026, relating to wage theft, and

(ii) in a letter to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Minister for Employment and Workplace relations advised that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has indicated that 'additional time is required to consider the request and consult with the Fair Work Ombudsman'; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to comply with the order by no later than midday on 17 March 2026.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the power to order 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 the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. The required division will be deferred.

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 Wednesday, 18 March 2026:

(a) copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and/or his office, the Department of Industry, Science and Resources and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water in relation to engagement with stakeholders for the purpose of discussing the Government's domestic gas reservation scheme policy, announced on 22 December 2025; and

(b) a document which lists all meetings held by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in relation to the domestic gas reservation scheme policy, detailing the date of each meeting and the attendees of each meeting.

by leave—I move:

Omit all words after "That", substitute:

(a) the power to order 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 the amendment as moved by Senator Chisholm be agreed to. The required division will be deferred.

I move:

(1) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Gallagher, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 10 March 2026, a copy of the document titled Building a New Life in Australia Release 6.1 (Waves 1-6) in full, including datasets and without redaction.

(2) If the Senate is not sitting when the documents are ready for presentation, the documents are to be presented to the President under standing order 166.

by leave—I move:

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

(a) page 662 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice 14th edition states 'It has long been recognised that there is information held by government that it would not be in the public interest to disclose'; and

(b) it is not appropriate for senators to propose orders for the production of documents where documents must be produced 'without redaction'".

There are now two deferred votes. We will now deal with the deferred amendments. Pursuant to order agreed to earlier today, I will now put the question on the government amendments to notices of motion Nos 368, 370, 383 to 385, 387, 389 to 392. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.

I will now deal with the main questions on the motions moved today, those are the motions at item No.14 on today's Order of Business. I'll begin with the general business notice of motion No. 368 standing in the name of Senator Lambie and Senator Shoebridge. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 370, standing in the name of Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 383, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.

The question is that notice of motion No. 384, as moved by Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 385, as moved by Senator Payman, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 387 standing in the name of Senator Payman be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 389, standing in the name of Senator Payman, be agreed to.

I will now deal with general business notice of motion No. 390, standing in the name of Senator Payman. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 391, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 392, standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.

The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

Senator Dean Smith has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red.

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

"The Albanese Labor Government is presiding over the largest decline in living standards in the developed world, driving up inflation through record spending and nearly $1 trillion in debt, and leaving Australian families worse off with falling real wages and higher interest rates."

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 afternoon, we are going to debate this: the Albanese Labor government is presiding over the largest decline in living standard in the developed world, driving up inflation through record spending and nearly $1 trillion in debt, and the consequence is that Australian families are worse off having to deal with falling wages and higher interest rates.

It's worth reminding ourselves why it is that inflation is such a menace. You would have thought that the Labor Party, traditionally the party of working families, would be highly attuned to the menace, to the risk, that inflation causes to families, to businesses and to the economy. It is a menace because it reduces people's purchasing power. It is a menace because it disproportionately affects low-income households. It's a menace because it creates economic uncertainty and makes it harder for families to plan and to save, for businesses to plan and to save, and for businesses to grow.

Inflation is not an abstract statistic. It is the weekly grocery bill that keeps creeping higher. It is rent and mortgage repayments swallowing more of household income. It is electricity, healthcare and insurance costs all rising faster than wages. Earlier this month, it was another interest rate rise. Labor promised Australians interest rates would not need to rise again. Instead of confronting the economic reality, the government prefers to operate in a state of denial. Ministers complain that this is not a high-spending government and some ministers even tried to rewrite history by blaming the Howard government. But their own budget papers tell a stark truth. Under Labor, this government is clocking up record spending. Commonwealth spending has reached 26.2 per cent of GDP under this Labor government. That makes it the highest-spending federal government outside the pandemic in 40 years. Just think about that—the highest-spending federal government outside of the pandemic experience in 40 years. Let's just think about that by way of comparison. During the Howard government, spending peaked at 25.1 per cent and fell to 23.2 per cent when they left office. Let's compare this Labor government with the final Keating Labor budget—25.6 per cent, still lower than this Labor government. What does the Treasury project? The Treasury projects that spending will rise further, to 26.9 per cent in coming years.

This is not temporary; this is structural. This is a government who wants to deny that increasing government spending leads to inflationary pressures in the economy, which forces the RBA to raise interest rates. Who suffers? The people that suffer are Australian families and Australian businesses—the very same people who, in 2022 and 2025, trusted the Labor Party to look after their future. That trust has been betrayed; that trust has been broken.

ABS data confirms what Australians already know from their lived experience. That is that inflation is rising again. Headline inflation is 3.8 per cent. The trimmed mean inflation is 3.3 per cent, above the RBA target. Price pressures are broad. Everyone is experiencing them. Food is up 3½ per cent. Housing is up 5½ per cent. Health is up 3.6 per cent. Now the world deals with an international crisis—one that will negatively impact inflation, one that will negatively impact interest rates. 2026 is going to be a dark year for Australian families and Australian businesses. Guess what? If Labor had been more prudent over the last four years and worked harder to tackle inflation, our country would be in a better position. It is not in a better position; it is in a worse position, and Australian families are going to— (Time expired)

Australia faces a productivity challenge that has been decades in the making. This obviously has implications. It has implications on our standards of living, on our wages and on our long-term prosperity. This productivity challenge has a direct impact on the inflationary problem that we're currently facing. We do have a stubborn inflationary problem, and it obviously impacts the cost of living, which has a direct effect on Australian households and small businesses, as well as large businesses—in fact, right across our economy.

But those opposite would have us believe that government spending is fuelling inflation. In fact, at the heart of this inflationary problem is a productivity challenge, and they know it. They know it, but they did nothing about it when they were in government. In fact, the decade of government under the Liberals and the Nationals was the lowest period of productivity growth in 60 years. That's on them. Then they stand here and have the temerity to lecture the rest of us as if we've somehow had a lobotomy and forgotten about history. Well, that is economic history.

In addition, in the first term of the Albanese Labor government, they had every opportunity to support a huge suite of cost-of-living measures that we introduced. We were supporting this economy that we'd inherited and that was on its knees after a decade of Liberal dysfunction and delay on a number of fronts. We were supporting this country as inflation hit six per cent within months of us taking government. Has everyone forgotten that? It almost hit eight per cent at the end of that year. We brought in a range of measures, and we delivered, thanks to the enormous work of our Treasurer and Prime Minister, a soft landing. But, in this second term, we have seen what the neglect of productivity has done over many decades. That is why it is at the heart of our economic agenda. Our May budget will be focused on productivity. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have said so.

While those opposite believe that productivity means working longer hours for less, we take a completely opposite view. We see this productivity challenge as an opportunity to invest in our people and their skills—like through free TAFE, which has seen over 725,000 enrolments Thirty per cent of those enrolments are actually in regional Australia. This is a story of regional Australia. Our young people, and older people, are deciding to reskill, for jobs that will deliver security, will be well paid and are going to be immune to the disruption caused by the AI wave that we know is coming.

In addition, we have supported Australians by strengthening Medicare. We saw a historic injection of $8½ billion into Medicare in November last year. We have seen a huge uptick in the number of practices that are now bulk-billing. Before this investment, there were about 1,600 practices that were bulk-billing. There are now 3,400. You will find one in your community. Go to healthdirect.com and have a look. You will almost certainly find a bulk-billing clinic in your community. And that's not all. There have been 130 urgent care clinics, now visited by 2.6 million Australians.

Affordable housing is also at the heart of our productivity agenda. There's no getting around this. We have to deliver housing. Businesses cannot function without workers living near their place of work. It has a huge cost-of-living impact on Australians if they are having to commute long distances, paying tolls and paying for fuel et cetera. That is why we have invested heavily in a housing agenda which is $43 billion. It's a sprawling agenda. And one of the golden, bright points of light in that agenda has been the five per cent home deposit scheme. Two hundred and twenty thousand Australians have taken up that scheme. Two-thirds of those buyers are under the age of 35, and over half of them are singles. This scheme is delivering the great Australian dream, which has been out of range for so many Australians for too long. This is at the heart of our productivity agenda and feeds directly into cost-of-living relief. (Time expired)

Today, Treasurer Chalmers has taken to social media to claim credit for the 2.6 per cent increase in annual GDP, calling the rise the strongest growth in the Australian economy for three years. Has the Treasurer forgotten he's been in office for almost four years—meaning the Treasurer took over the economy and made it worse!

Putting that aside, how did the Treasurer create this increase? To haul GDP out of negative territory, the Treasurer has spent like a drunken sailor. Almost all of the increase in employment and economic activity in the last year has come from increased government spending, which has to be paid for with? Higher taxes. In effect, the Treasurer has taxed everyday Australians more, and then spent their money faster than the taxpayers would have. As a result, the money supply has expanded 11 per cent in the last year, and our national debt has now passed $1 trillion.

A funny thing about spending other people's money: it eventually runs out. Already, the government is looking for ways to raise taxes. Capital gains tax increases and increased taxes on superannuation are on the agenda. Even worse, the government is selling off the silverware. The sale of Defence Force property has already been announced—$3.5 billion in extra cash. What was once a strategic asset, which didn't add to the money supply, will be cash in the bank for the Treasurer to spend—more solar and wind subsidies; more money to the Taliban. Already this government has given the Taliban $320 million.

Selling off the silverware to keep the GDP out of recession leads straight to even higher inflation than we have now. To counter this inflation, already the Reserve Bank has been forced to increase interest rates. The result will be a loss of spending power for everyday Australians, who will have to spend more of their income on their mortgage or rent. Government spending is approaching 28 per cent of our GDP and is heading to over 30 per cent, which offsets the reductions in private sector spending that have resulted from overregulation and a lack of confidence in this Labor government. In the short term, this approach makes the data look better. In the medium term, inflation spikes, and wage growth goes negative, as it has been for much of the Treasurer's term. If everyday Australians feel like they're going backwards and working harder, it's because they are going backwards—especially if they're paying off a home or renting.

One Nation will solve this vicious cycle of economic decline with our policy to shrink the government to fit the Constitution and to fit our means. One Nation took a policy to the last election to reduce the size of government by $90 billion in our first term. That number, from what we can see from Labor, is now looking much, much bigger than we can save. Our policy will reverse Labor's deficits, stop Labor's inflation, cancel Labor's interest rate rises and leave more money in the pockets of everyday Australians.

The Albanese government's economic mismanagement has left the Australian economy in a very tricky position. We had national accounts data out today which confirm just how tricky that position is, and I will go into that in my contribution today. But I want to frame it within the context of what we are looking at currently.

The Albanese Government's is sitting on a trillion-dollar debt bomb and have zero plans to start repaying that debt. We found from the data that was released today in the national accounts that public demand is at an all-time record share of the economy at 29 per cent. Last financial year, government spending increased four times as fast as the rest of the economy. This financial year, government spending is still increasing twice as fast as the rest of the economy. There is no question that the Labor government is pouring inflation fuel on the debt fire and have no plan to start repaying that debt. They have no plan to reduce the level of government debt to a point where younger Australians, myself included, won't be paying it back with high taxes, if not now then later in our working lives.

Like I said, the Australian Bureau of Statistics today released the national accounts data for the December quarter 2025, the official snapshot of how our economy is actually travelling. Not long after those figures came out, the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, fronted up to the media. But, listening to that press conference, I did note he barely spent a minute talking about the numbers themselves. He pivoted pretty quickly to talk about other issues of concern. He said in that press conference that stronger, broader growth provides the best foundation to deal with what's coming at us. That sounds reassuring. But he focused on the headline figures, not on what is actually going on underneath.

Here in this chamber today, I want to look a little closer at those numbers that the national accounts are flashing up at us, because they are a very clear warning of the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. These numbers reflect that this financial pressure has not passed, but the government doesn't seem to be paying attention to that. The household saving ratio climbed to 6.9 per cent in the data released today, which is the highest since September 2022. This isn't the behaviour of confident households; it is the behaviour of families who are putting money aside because they're unsure about what lies ahead. Higher mortgage repayments? We've seen plenty of those under this government. Higher rents? Again, plenty of that under this government. Rising cost of insurance? Again, an awful lot of that under this government. And there's ongoing global uncertainty.

Spending tells the same story. Household spending rose just. 0.3 per cent in the quarter. Discretionary spending ticked up 0.4 per cent, helped along by various sales, like Black Friday and Boxing Day, towards the end of last year. But spending on essential goods and services grew only by 0.2 per cent. So, yes, Australians spent a little bit during the sales, as they are well within their rights to do. Overall, growth in consumption is remaining modest, and the rate of savings is rising. Again, that tells us that confidence is fragile. Just look at energy costs. The ABS reports that out-of-pocket spending on electricity, gas and other fuels fell sharply.

But, in the data in the national accounts today, the ABS makes clear that this was largely due to government rebates which were recorded as government expenditure in the national accounts. That distinction matters because, when government pays part of the bill, the underlying cost hasn't disappeared; it has just shifted. This relief today doesn't necessarily mean lower structural costs tomorrow, and we've certainly seen that in the energy market since the Albanese government has been in charge. We cannot forget that relief measures manage a symptom; structural reform fixes the actual problem. If electricity remains expensive to produce and deliver, no amount of short-term assistance is going to fix the underlying problem. If housing supply remains constrained, rents will remain elevated. If productivity growth remains weak, wages cannot sustainably outpace inflation.

As I said from the outset, the Albanese Government's economic mismanagement has left our economy in a very delicate position. Even before the conflict we have seen in Iran this week, inflation and interest rates were rising and forecast to rise further. Whatever impact that crisis has on the economy— (Time expired)

The cost of living is biting every Australian out there, and we hear it day in, day out from Western Australians, who I had the pleasure of speaking to outside my office. They were ranking the cost of living and housing as the two biggest issues that are keeping them up at night. This isn't just mums and dads who are trying to put food on the table or a roof over their kids' heads and making sure that they're juggling various priorities of mortgage repayments, transport costs and fuel prices and energy bills but at the same time making sure their kids have a reliable future that isn't subjected to the lack of opportunities that we are seeing, especially when it comes to housing.

Labor, in both the state Labor Party in WA and federally, have massive majorities and can actually push for progressive reforms to ease the cost-of-living pressures on families, yet we have seen literally nothing when it comes to any form of relief to combat increasing groceries, housing, power bills and transport. Australia isn't a poor country. We need to be doing more. We've seen that there have been consistent calls by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. That's one example that the government can actually do something about. We're seeing really nothing. If they want to address the cost of living, there are options there. You've just got to be brave enough. (Time expired)

This MPI is another breathtaking example from a coalition that has learnt nothing from its mistakes. Imagine having the gall to come to this place and lecture anybody on economic management with a record as bad as theirs. This MPI comes straight out of the 'Don't go there, girlfriend' files, but here we are.

The Liberals love to call themselves good economic managers, which is impressive, given the amount of debt that they racked up when they were last in government. They stood in front of the Australian people last year and said: 'Here are our economic policies: billions of dollars on subsidised nuclear plants, thousands of dollars to boozy lunches for the bosses. Let's ban working from home while we're at it!' But, not content with driving themselves into a brick wall, they said,' Let's step on the accelerator.' They said, 'You know what, let's oppose government tax cuts; that'll be popular!'

Compare that with this Labor government. The Albanese Labor government has delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, with another tax cut due in July this year. Those opposite opposed those tax cuts. They opposed them. The coalition went to the last federal election with a policy to deliver higher taxes for the Australian people. They talk a big game in this place about economic management, but we've got the receipts. The now very leaked copy of the Liberal Party election review called the policies the Liberal Party took to the last election completely incoherent. The Liberal Party election group reviewers went on to say that the coalition's economic policies 'defied the party's values, such as the opposition to an income tax cut.' They don't like to hear it—

I'd like to make a point of order. I think these matters are not germane to the MPI.

I'm listening carefully, and I believe Senator Mulholland is being relevant.

Thank you very much. Those economic policies defied the party's values, such as the opposition to an income tax cut and the denial of working-from-home arrangements. It's there in black and white. The review goes on to say that as part of the budget the government announced it would provide an income tax cut for low-income workers in 2026-27 as part of its cost-of-living relief. The opposition announced that it would oppose that tax cut on budget night and voted against it when the legislation was introduced. We all know how that turned out. I'm not surprised Senator Bragg doesn't want to hear it, but we've got the receipts, and every time they want to talk about the economy, we're happy to talk about their record.

But let's look at wage rises for Australian workers. When the coalition were last in government, they said low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture. Almost three million award-wage workers received a 3.5 per cent pay rise last year under this government. And across the life of this government those same workers have received an increase of $9,000. But we haven't stopped there. This government has delivered a historic pay rise for 250,000 aged-care workers, and up to 200,000 early educators are receiving pay rises. Those opposite mocked those pay rises, but we know it's making a real difference. You cannot walk into a lunch room at an aged-care facility or a childcare centre without being told by their workers how much these pay rises mean to them; $100 a week extra is the difference between putting sports shoes on your kids' feet and not. And those opposite mocked it.

Let's go through some other economic achievements of this government: working hard to drive down the cost of living, and 30 per cent off home batteries to permanently cut power bills, with the highest take-up in Queensland, in Liberal held seats: the seats of Wright, Fadden, Longman—the list goes on. And teaching, nursing, social work and midwifery students are now all being paid for their practical placements; 50,000 students are already benefiting from that. We've boosted Medicare, with $1.8 million in extra hospital funding, helping Australians to get the quality affordable health care they deserve. We've expanded the five per cent deposit scheme to all first home buyers; 250,000 Australians, including 50,000 Queenslanders, are now benefiting from that.

But the Liberal Party and the Greens don't like it. We know they don't like this policy. They would much prefer that people were stung with LMI of up to $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000, rather than being able to get into a home of their own. They opposed our policy, because they don't want to see Australians get into a home of their own. They want to lecture us on economic policy, and it's a disgrace.

This is a very good MPI, because it allows us to consider the failure of the government to deliver on the economy, and that is measured not by me but by the federal budget, delivered by Mr Chalmers, who I think spent more time learning about Paul Keating's communication style than he did about Paul Keating's substantial and positive reforms to Australia. The sad truth is that we're looking at a $36 billion deficit this year and cumulative deficits over the forward estimates of $143 billion as we head towards $1 trillion of debt. Today's accounts show that 38 per cent of the contribution of growth comes from the public sector. There's something wrong at the Reserve Bank, because they don't seem to know this, or they seem to be covering up these facts, when they put out these statements. But it's very clear that the government sector, the public sector, is massively contributing to the economic growth in Australia. That is why it's contributing to inflation and higher interest rates. This is the reality that Australians now have to live with.

I feel sorry for all the Australians who have taken out 95 per cent mortgages, at the behest of this government, that are uncapped. It has been marketing that like a financial product. Those Australians will now have to pay vastly higher amounts in interest costs because of the government's forcing up of interest rates because of their failure to contain inflation because public sector spending is out of control. As I said, there was a $36 billion deficit this year, $143 billion over the forward estimates, on the way to $1 trillion. And Dr. Evil's not even in the building!

We have a massive problem with waste in the country, and if you want to see the waste, come and see this government in action in Canberra. We sit here in this Senate, day in and day out, and nothing happens. There's no passing of legislation. We don't do anything. The government tries to obstruct the opposition from getting access to documents. How shocking it is that we are trying to do the jobs that we are well remunerated to do: getting access to information, exposing maladministration, exposing waste! That's the job—to find out stuff, to work for the people. But, no, don't do that. Don't get to the bottom of anything. Just try to obstruct and obfuscate. That's what we do here in Canberra. It's a huge waste of money.

I take the points that the government speakers have made about housing. The government have had three gimmicks. Let me remind you of the housing scoreboard. After spending $80 billion on housing, the government is giving the country 30,000 fewer houses each year. They've crashed housing construction in this country from 200,000 houses a year on average down to 170,000 houses a year on average. That's the value the country gets from $80 billion.

They've had three gimmicks in these four long years. The first gimmick is the Housing Australia Future Fund. With 10 billion bucks and after 2½ years, apparently it has built about 800 houses, but I'd say most of those have been bought. The second gimmick is five per cent deposits, a free-for-all where the government is underwriting the mortgage insurance of even the wealthiest Australians, and what you now see is a massive uptick in prices for entry-level houses. With their reckless five per cent deposit scheme, which is just pushing up prices, they are hurting the people who are trying to get into the market. With their third gimmick, they're now canvassing the idea of new taxes on housing, because they hate the idea of mums and dads providing rental stock to other Australians. Their solution is to get the institutional investors in to provide rental stock to Australians, because that's their mates.

Ultimately, this is a government for mates. Most of their economic policy is designed for their friends and their vested interests. They want mums and dads out and they want the super funds to be the big corporate landlords. They want them to own the houses. So far, they have three housing gimmicks: the Housing Australia Future Fund that builds no houses; the five per cent deposits, which have been a disaster for young people; and they're now looking at high taxes, which apparently will help build more houses. If you can tell me how more tax will build more houses, then I'm open to that discussion, but so far this is crazy economics from a government which has crashed the budget and crashed the economy, and the Australian people are now paying a very, very heavy price indeed.

The time for the discussion has expired.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Lambie, which has also been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

The Labor Government's lack of transparency and misuse of amendments to formal motions waste time and resources and undermines the Senate's most serious powers of scrutiny and accountability.

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.

Last night in the lower house, the Prime Minister made a joke about being asked about transparency, and then he tabled a leaked Liberal Party report and said:

I'm asked about transparency. They don't get to read their reports, so I'll table it for them so that they can read the report …

The Prime Minister should know that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. According to the research from the Centre for Public Integrity, in this government's first term more FOI requests were refused than were fully granted. The rate of outright refusals has nearly doubled and average processing times for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner increased from six months to 15 months.

When they were in opposition, the Albanese government promised transparency and integrity. But, once again, they got into power and they embraced secrecy. Prime Minister Morrison never promoted transparency as a good thing, but the Albanese government promotes transparency while trying to kill it off at every opportunity.

Remember what happened last year? The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet prepared a document. It was leaked to the ABC. This document gave public servants advice to help them dodge tricky questions during estimates. This document also directed public servants on how to provide vague answers to questions on notice filed as part of the Senate estimates accountability process. In September 2025, the Prime Minister told the UK Labour Party:

We all know this is a time when trust in governments and institutions is under challenge.

When the Prime Minister delivered this speech, it was in the context of major parties like Labour in the UK and in Australia responding to the threat of minor parties. Well, they should be worried, because their primary vote for both major parties is at a record low—and that would include the Labor Party. So why is the Prime Minister clamping down on FOIs, why are they blocking documents from the Senate and why are they pushing an FOI bill that makes it even harder for Australians to know what their government is up to? How is that building trust with Australians? How does that do that job? Seriously—you're not helping yourselves. The sort of games that we see Labor playing in the Senate won't reassure Australians that you are a trustworthy government. You are far from it.

An OPD is an order for the production of documents. In other words, Australians, it's how the Senate gets access to a document that the government doesn't want us to have. It is one of the Senate's most important oversight powers, and this is how it works. A senator goes in for an order for documents and, if a senator gets enough votes—a majority—only then does the government have to cough up the document and bring it to the Senate chamber. When the politicians came back to Canberra on 4 February, the Albanese government decided it was going to try and amend every order for the production of documents being proposed to make them absolutely meaningless. In doing so, it inserted a complaint in each of its amendments, stating:

(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 …

The problem with the statement is that it is completely wrong and completely disrespectful of the 200 years of history of this power and where it fits into the parliament's constitutional role. There is no authority to suggest that it is a power to be used after processes have been exhausted. That is rubbish. The point is that the order for production is to go 'fishing' into the affairs of your government, especially when your government doesn't want the Senate to look!

This is the Albanese government arrogantly seeking to be the sole decision-maker of senators' inquiry topics. The power to order the production of documents is not one that can be used by a single Senator. The order can be made only when the order is supported by the majority of the Senate. It is the Senate, not the government, that decides what documents the government must surrender. If a senator is being reckless and playing politics, the proposed order may not get up. So this is what they were up to last night, Australians. The government attached the same time-wasting amendments to each OPD, wasting hours of the Senate time and treating senators like annoying schoolkids. We are a house of review and we are elected to hold the government to account. It is that simple.

Minister Gallagher told the Senate again this morning that the coalition and the crossbench were using OPDs as fishing exercises. She accused us all of abusing our power and wasting the Senate's time. What absolute hypocrites they are. If the government would just release these documents in the first place, we wouldn't have this problem. The reason there are so many OPDs is that your government keeps blocking them—not to mention the way you drag your feet on FOIs. To be clear: this government is saying to the Australian public, 'You don't deserve to know what is in these documents, you don't deserve transparency, you don't deserve accountability and you sure as hell don't deserve the truth.' They say we should all just let the government get on with it, ram its crap through and that's it. That's what they're here for. Well, I'm sorry, but we are not.

Senator Lambie is right when she says one thing, and that's that the order for the production of documents is one of the Senate's most serious powers of scrutiny and accountability. It's a power intended to be used sparingly, in good faith and only once every other avenue for information has been exhausted. Yet what we have witnessed by senators is not a principled use of that power but an unprecedented abuse of it. In the 47th Parliament, 436 OPDs were proposed and 336 were agreed to. In this 48th Parliament, 190 OPDs have been proposed in just 32 days. With the addition of this sitting week, that number is now well above 200. Compare this to the 198 OPDs proposed in the 46th Parliament under the previous Liberal-National coalition government. In just 35 sitting days, we have now well surpassed that number—more OPDs in 35 days than in 139 days of the 46th Parliament, an average of 4.6 per sitting day, in contrast to just 1.22 previously.

This is not scrutiny. This is an abuse of the OPD process. Not only has this quantity of orders exploded; but the character of orders is now completely removed from the power's original intention.

The consequences are real. We have seen orders demanding responses within timeframes that are not just unreasonable but impossible. I remind the chamber of the OPD of former senators Hughes and Davey, an order covering 1.85 million documents with a mere eight days to comply. Meanwhile, freedom-of-information requests and questions-on-notice processes designed for transparency are afforded 30 days as a matter of course. We have seen OPDs seeking documents that are already publicly available—reports that can be found online, reports that have been discussed at press conferences, in media interviews, in this very chamber. We have seen OPDs used where a simple briefing request, a conversation or even a Google search would have sufficed.

So what is being demanded here: that public servants abandon their core work? that they drop their policy development, service delivery and regulatory oversight to chase down documents that are already in the public domain? that they work around the clock to meet arbitrary deadlines on expansive, unfocused requests that do nothing to advance the interests of everyday Australians?

This government takes transparency seriously. We respect the constitutional and legislative role of the Senate in holding the executive to account, but accountability must be meaningful, appropriate and proportionate. It must be grounded in the conventions that have guided the chamber for decades, conventions clearly articulated in Odgers'. There are countless avenues available to senators seeking information, from briefings to questions on notice, question time, estimates and FOIs. These mechanisms exist precisely to ensure transparency without overwhelming the system, yet senators opposite choose to flood the chamber with OPDs and then feign outrage when the Public Service cannot meet impossible demands.

I ask those across the chamber to reflect on what they're asking for. Reflect on whether Australian taxpayers should fund overtime for public servants to expedite requests that have little meaning to the public. Reflect on whether this is truly about accountability or whether it is about political theatre. The amendments that the government has made to OPDs reflect the very fact that Senator Lambie identifies. They put on the record for all to see that those across the chamber are engaging in a ridiculous misuse and abuse of the Senate's most serious power.

On the question of the transparency of the Albanese government, the answer is simple. Over the course of the 47th Parliament, the government complied with the highest number of OPDs in a single term of parliament on record. That is the record of this government.

Well, it's pleasing to be able to speak again on this very important issue, which we touched on a bit earlier today. I think it is important for all listening to this debate tonight—and I'm sure there are many—to understand exactly what it is we're talking about. OPDs mean nothing to the average punter—orders for the production of documents—but it is about transparency. I'll pick up where Assistant Minister Chisholm left off, and that is this claim the government make around being transparent. It was a promise they made. It's a promise they've made at successive elections now—

Twice.

That's right, on multiple occasions at both of those elections—that they would be more transparent than the previous government.

Well, you only have to ask the Centre for Public Integrity, who say this is the most secretive government in history—that their approach to the release of information, that their approach to being transparent, to being cooperative with those seeking information, is worse than that of any government on record. Now, I don't think the Centre for Public Integrity is a group you could call friends of the Liberal Party or the conservative cause or right-of-centre political parties. I think they are genuinely interested in this issue of transparency. For them to label this government the most secretive does rather put paid to this promise the Prime Minister made that this government would be the most transparent ever—it would be a new era of openness from government. Well, in fact, it is quite the opposite, when you see claims like that.

Today, as Senator Lambie has alluded to, we were able to debate exactly what this government is up to. They talk about wasted time and wasted resources associated with this—'It's an abuse of process.' Well, I'm afraid it's not. Let's just examine the road that it takes to get to this point around this issue of orders for the production of documents—that is, the Senate asking for information, on behalf of the people of Australia, from the government. The assistant minister, in his contribution earlier, talked about question time. Yes, that's a great opportunity to ask questions. The pity is that we don't get answers—not fulsome answers but just political babble.

Questions on notice: in my own experience, you put in questions on notice at, for example, Senate estimates; you go to the committee and say, 'Minister, could you tell me X,' and the minister says, 'Oh, I can't tell you that; I'll have to take it on notice,' or the official might do the same. Yet we're told that at Senate estimates we're putting too many questions on notice. That's because they're taking them on notice! They're refusing to answer the questions. So we're left with nowhere to go. In some of them I might ask a series of questions—say, 10 questions on similar issues—and the answer I'll get back might just be from the department: 'The department does not hold that information.' That's the kind of answer we're getting back to questions on notice.

Freedom of information: earlier today Senator David Pocock presented a document and showed it to the chamber and indeed the people in the gallery. It had more black ink than you could even imagine could exist on an A4 page, and that was freedom of information; that was information being released to the public. It was all redacted. So here we are, left with all these things the assistant minister said that we as senators should go to first, where we get zero information at every stop, and we're left with orders for the production of documents.

Again, this Labor government, which has united everyone from Lidia Thorpe to Pauline Hanson and everyone in between in opposition to its approach to transparency, has been moving amendments to these motions that, as I said earlier today—and we'll have to add to the time—have taken 6½ hours. Six hours and 31 minutes were wasted on formal motions relating to orders for the production of documents over the past four days alone. We could have been doing government business. We could have been dealing with matters Middle East. We could have been dealing with foreign policy. We could have been dealing with national security. But no: instead, we saw a government so desperate to not provide the information that Australians deserve that they moved the same amendment, motion after motion after motion.

So I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this matter forward as a matter of public importance, because it is important to highlight the continued flouting of this government's responsibility to be open and transparent, of this government's promise to the Australian people that they would be a more open government. The facts, from the report of the Centre of Public Integrity through to their conduct this week, are that this is not an open and transparent government.

I rise to contribute on Senator Lambie's very important MPI. We can't stress enough how important it is to treat this place with the respect it deserves, with dignity, and not treat the item of business that is formal motions as a joke. Currently that's what's been happening. For the past few sitting weeks, the past few sitting days, all we have been hearing is the same lines being repeated by the minister. I mean, if the government minister claim that we're going on a fishing expedition—well, that's what the Senate's job is: to fish for information that the government is trying to hide.

Again, Australians out there want to know: Why are you trying to hide something if there is nothing to hide? Why are you being so secretive if you've got nothing to hide? I was part of the Labor Party and campaigned heavily on transparency. The National Anti-Corruption Commission was the go-to discussion point in every conversation, at every door knock, basically saying that this was the government that was going to come in and bring transparency. In opposition they were pointing fingers at Scott Morrison for being secretive. Yet we find ourselves ordering documents that are within our rights as senators to obtain, yet either it comes back highly redacted or we don't get it at all, because it has just sat there. It's delayed, delayed and eventually deleted.

It's frustrating to hear the government say that it's quite a lot of work. Well, that's your job! You're in government. We have the right to get that information to then show it to the Australian public. And, no, we will not be accepting 30-minute briefs with the ministers, because what's that going to achieve? The public's not going to know what's going on. They want to see the documents for themselves. You talk a big game about efficiency, doing things right and being upfront, honest and open with the Australian people. They deserve to know. They deserve to know why you're standing in the way of senators in this place asking for documents and that you fail to comply. Months go by, and we have to put motion after motion asking for either compliance on OPDs or attendance by the minister. It's just turned into a circus. Again, I thought you guys were the adults in charge. It doesn't feel like it.

Do you know what I was really surprised by? Every motion yesterday had an amendment which the minister on duty read out in full, except for three motions which were moved by Senator Antic and swiftly passed. I was surprised. I thought, 'What's going on here?' Those motions wanted documents which related to Australians in the Epstein files to be produced. It's probably because the government is slow to show information on things that people actually want to know, like on housing, defence, the cost of living and price gouging, but, when it comes to the Epstein files, I think you are very curious in wanting to know which Aussies are in the files.

These delaying tactics are not based on any solid principles. They're based on the grievances that the government holds against certain individuals in this place that dare to ask the tough questions. Let me tell you, we're not going to stop asking them. We're going to keep putting these OPDs. We're going to keep demanding the answers that our constituents have sent us here to ask for. If you don't like it, tough luck. You're in government. Deal with it.

If there are no more contributions on this matter, we will move on.

() (): At the request of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 2 of 2026 together with ministerial correspondence. I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation—Standing Committee—Delegated legislation monitor 2 of 2026, dated 4 March 2026, and ministerial correspondence.

The document was unavailable at the time of publishing.

I present the 514th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

I present executive minutes relating to various reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

I present the first report of 2026 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and the committee's 89th annual report.

I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, together with accompanying documents.

I present the 2024-25 annual report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. At the request of Senator Ciccone, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present six government responses as listed on the Dynamic Red and seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics References Committee:

Personal Choice and Community Impacts—Interim Report: Sale and Use of Marijuana and Associated Products (term of reference c)

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in the Personal Choice and Community Impacts—Interim Report: Sale and Use of Marijuana and Associated Products (term of reference c)

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with the states and territories, undertake an objective assessment of prohibition, decriminalisation, limited deregulation and legalisation, including a full cost-benefit analysis, based on the outcomes of these options in other parts of the world.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme inquiry into the operation of the National Redress Scheme Report:

Redress: Journey to Justice

November 2024

INTRODUCTION

The Australian Government (the Government) welcomes the Final Report of the Joint Standing Committee (the Committee) on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Scheme). The Committee tabled its final report titled Redress: Journey to Justice (the Report) on 26 November 2024. The Government acknowledges the significant contributions made by survivors and stakeholders over the course of the inquiry. The participation of survivors and stakeholders is critical to ensure the Scheme delivers redress to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The Report delivers important recommendations and insights informed by over 50 submissions and 11 public hearings through the course of the inquiry. The Government is committed to the implementation of a number of recommendations made by the Committee and acknowledges that several of the recommendations require ongoing engagement with the Scheme's state and territory partners.

Of the 29 recommendations made in the Report, the Government:

As of February 2026, the Scheme has received over 74,500 applications, with around 46,500 applications on hand and being processed. This Scheme has now surpassed the total number of applications initially estimated by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Scheme is legislated to close to new applications on 30 June 2027, operating for a further year to assess applications by 1 July 2028. In 2024-25, the Scheme made 5,035 decisions. In the same year, 19,729 people applied to the Scheme.

There is dignity in a prompt response and the Department of Social Services (the Department), as the Scheme administrator, is committed to positioning itself to meet the challenge of increased applications.

This will be achieved by cultural, innovative, evidence-based and performance reforms, as well as engaging with risk. Significant efforts have already been made to enhance the quality of decision making through the introduction of new Statement of Reasons templates, administrative law training for Independent Decision Makers and procedural fairness advice. In 2026 and beyond, the Department is focused on finalising applications as efficiently and as quickly as possible. This will be achieved through tangible, innovative and evidence-based initiatives such as the Multi-Disciplinary Team, which has been established to complete multiple aspects of application processing and fast-track simpler applications—this focus will extend to applications received from funded support services, whose applications are more complete and easier to progress.

The 2023-24 Budget provided an additional $80.1 million to extend Redress Support Services to 30 June 2027 and as part of the 2024-25 Budget, support for redress applicants was strengthened, with $26.1 million over four years to provide targeted support to applicants who submit incomplete or otherwise unactionable applications. The 2025-26 Budget has also included $27.2 million in additional funding to support services for applicants.

In April 2024, significant legislative amendments came into effect to improve the Scheme's accessibility and transparency for survivors. The amendments included removing the restriction on survivors applying from gaol, refining the special assessment process for survivors with serious criminal convictions, allowing applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review of their redress offer and establishing reassessments for applicants who named an institution that subsequently joins the Scheme after their application has been finalised.

The Department has also redeveloped the Scheme website and provided easy-read factsheets and explanatory animations to support survivors engaging with the Scheme. Work will continue to raise awareness about the Scheme with a particular focus on First Nations people, people with disability, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and people living in regional and remote Australia.

Recommendations made by the Committee

Recommendation 1

1.30 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government seek agreement from state and territory governments to extend the National Redress Scheme beyond 2028,

including agreement on extending existing state power referrals to the Commonwealth.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government recognises and appreciates the strong interest from survivors, institutions, and other impacted stakeholders regarding the legislated closure date of the Scheme.

The Government notes the Committee's new inquiry into the continuing operation of the Scheme and is committed to supporting this inquiry and considering its findings.

As outlined in responses to recommendations 26 and 27, the eighth anniversary review of the Scheme may also provide a mechanism to explore options and advice on the management of Scheme closure, in consultation with the Scheme's state and territory government partners.

Concurrently, the Government remains focused on ensuring that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse are supported to apply for redress before the legislated application closing date of 30 June 2027. The Scheme continues to prioritise timely, trauma-informed outcomes for survivors, and is committed to progressing applications with care, clarity, and respect.

Recommendation 2

1.31 The Committee recommends that if extending the National Redress Scheme in all respects is not agreed, the Australian Government and state and territory governments should consider:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

As noted in response to recommendation 1, the Government is committed to ensuring that all eligible survivors who apply to the Scheme prior to the legislated application closing date of 30 June 2027 receive redress outcomes, including redress payments.

In addition, the Government remains committed to providing eligible survivors with access to counselling and psychological care, and the opportunity to receive a direct personal response. These components are central to the Scheme's trauma-informed approach and reflect our ongoing commitment to supporting survivors with dignity and respect.

Recommendation 3

1.32 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should provide additional funding to the Department of Social Services, Knowmore Legal Services and Redress Support Services to ensure all redress applications can be finalised on time.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government, through the Attorney-General's Department, funds Knowmore Legal Services (Knowmore) to deliver free, trauma-informed, culturally sensitive advice to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse on their legal options for accessing redress and assistance from the Scheme.

The Government also funds 42 Redress Support Services. These services provide coverage in each state and territory, including outreach to regional and remote areas.

The 2023-24 Budget provided an additional $80.1 million to extend Redress Support Services to 30 June 2027. The 2024-25 Budget provided an additional $7.2 million for Knowmore and $26.1 million over four years to provide targeted support to applicants who submit incomplete or otherwise unactionable applications. The 2025-26 Budget also included an additional $27.2 million in additional funding to support services for applicants with additional funding in 2025-26 of $11.5 million for Knowmore, and $15.7 million for Redress Support Services.

To support the Scheme's operation additional funding has also been provided over the past three Budgets:

Recommendation 4

1.33 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should begin a public awareness campaign to ensure:

The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.

The Department employs a targeted communication strategy to raise awareness of the Scheme and its support services, including tailored advice for First Nations people, people with disability and people who speak languages other than English. This strategy will be further co-designed with Redress Support Services, noting the increasing application numbers suggest there is growing awareness of the Scheme in the general community.

Recommendation 5

1.51 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services should:

1.52 This should include:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Scheme continues to develop and implement ways to ensure submitted applications contain all required information. Recent inclusions are:

The Government funds 42 Redress Support Services nationally, to provide practical and emotional support for people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse and wish to apply for redress through the Scheme. Of these, 21 provide specialist support, including to people with disability, and 14 have been provided additional funding to support applicants receiving correspondence under section 24.

The Scheme has adapted to allow applicants to upload photo versions of documents, such as acceptance letters, through MyGov instead of submitting scanned copies.

This makes it easier for applicants who may not have access to a printer or scanner, or who face other challenges like homelessness or living in remote areas, to submit the necessary documentation. Procedures are established to confirm an applicant's identity electronically through their Centrelink Customer Reference Number or Department of Veterans' Affairs number. Certified identity documents can be electronically submitted to the Department to confirm identity.

The Scheme continues to provide alternative options to support for submitting an application, including, but not limited to:

The Scheme continues to improve the accessibility and usability of its processes for survivors and their nominees. Over the life of the Scheme, actions have been taken to streamline the application process as much as possible and support applicants; this includes a guidebook in plain English and audio and videos, to support applicants and their nominees to complete the application form. The Scheme's website and instructional materials are now in accessible format, multilingual, Auslan and easy to read versions to cater to different audiences.

Recommendation 6

1.53 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

From 12 October 2024, applicants who have their Redress application linked to their myGov account can receive updates on the progress of their application, in addition to being able to seek this information from the Scheme by phone.

The Department is continuously improving written communication products and styles for applicants in line with trauma-informed principles, as outlined in response to recommendation 5.

The Department is trialing a process with Redress Support Services to receive applicants' nominee forms electronically, instead of in hard copy only. This has assisted in expediting the establishment of nominee arrangements with Redress Support Services and reduced contact with applicants to confirm their nominee arrangements.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges some survivors may find the process of initiating a direct personal response a challenging and confronting experience.

In May 2023, the Government released the Final Response to the Report of the Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme (the Government's response). The Government's response supported recommendation 4.7 to increase accessibility and support for survivors wishing to engage with a direct personal response and committed to the creation of a Direct Personal Response Action Plan. As a result, following a successful pilot which began in 2022, the Direct Personal Response Information and Support Service was established in April 2023. Survivors can find more information about how to access a direct personal response on the Scheme's website.

Recommendation 8

1.55 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government publish six monthly data updates regarding trends in the Scheme, including:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to providing transparency to survivors, institutions, Government partners and the Australian public on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Scheme's implementation. Since February 2019, a monthly report has been published on the Scheme's website, providing updates on Scheme changes and relevant aggregated data to indicate how the Scheme is performing. This reporting function has evolved over time to reflect new and emerging Scheme trends.

The Department has commenced releasing additional data points recommended by the Committee in an aggregated form on the Scheme website as part of our monthly reports. The Act requires that aggregated data be provided in a form that does not disclose, either directly or indirectly, information about a particular person or institution.

Consideration is also given to how best to present data for readability and accessibility purposes.

Recommendation 9

1.56 The Committee recommends that all decisions regarding redress eligibility be determined by panels of independent decision makers. Each panel should have a minimum of three members.

1.57 If this recommendation cannot be fully implemented or agreed upon, then the Committee recommends that all ineligible determinations should be automatically escalated to a panel review. Each panel should have a minimum of three members.

The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.

All applicants who receive a determination for redress can request a review of that decision under section 75 of the Act, including in circumstances where they are found ineligible or disagree with their monetary award. The Act does not allow a decision to be made by 'panels' of Independent Decision Makers and instead require the decision to be made by one Independent Decision Maker. This is the case for any determination—including original (section 29), review (section 75) and reassessment decisions (section 71D).

Recommendation 10

1.59 The Committee recommends that the Minister for Social Services and the Department of Social Services continue to hold regular survivor roundtables, including in regional locations.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to holding regular Survivor Roundtables for the life of the Scheme, in addition to the six held to date, and acknowledges the important information sharing and interactions that Roundtables provide for survivors, Redress Support Services, advocacy groups and Redress Scheme staff. The location of Roundtables, including in regional locations, will be considered as appropriate.

Recommendation 11

1.64 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services urgently undertake a public information campaign to increase awareness of the Scheme and redress support services. This should include:

The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation. The Government is committed to ensuring survivors are aware that free

Redress Support Services are available to assist them to complete a redress application and support them while their redress application is progressed by the Scheme.

The Department is committed to implementing its targeted communication plan, as outlined in response to recommendation 4.

Recommendation 12

1.74 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should publicly disclose and report on:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to working with institutions to ensure that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have access to redress.

As of February 2026, 20 institutions have declined to join the Scheme and are publicly disclosed on the Scheme website. These institutions may be restricted from accessing future Commonwealth Government grant funding (underpinned by the National Redress Scheme Grant Connected Policy) and risk losing their charitable status and associated tax concessions and benefits, if applicable.

The Scheme website also includes a list of the participating status of institutions, including those institutions that are intending to join the Scheme, see www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions-landing/institutions-have-not-joined.

The Government commits to disclosing aggregated data on the number of applications that name an institution which has declined to join the Scheme, where total applications exceed 20. This protects the privacy of applicants who have named the institution and is consistent with the protected information provisions of the Act.

Recommendation 13

1.76 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider, before the Scheme closes, what penalties will continue to be directed towards responsible institutions that did not participate in the Scheme.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to working with state and territory governments, as Scheme partners, to give further consideration to this recommendation through existing Scheme governance mechanisms in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Intergovernmental Agreement).

As noted in response to recommendation 12, the Government is committed to working with institutions to ensure that survivors of institutional child sexual abuse have access to redress.

While the vast majority of institutions have worked in good faith with the Department to determine their ability to participate in the Scheme, a small minority have declined to join the Scheme despite meeting the participation requirements. These institutions are subject to non-legislatively prescribed penalties. Where institutions indicate financial concerns, the Scheme has a range of options to support their participation, including part-participation.

Any decision to continue to impose current penalties or implement new penalties beyond the end of the Scheme will be a matter for all governments to consider and will take into account the voluntary nature under which institutions are requested to join the Scheme, and their moral obligation to survivors to support their access to redress.

Recommendation 14

1.92 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services update the

'application for review of determination' form to:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government supports the Department to undertake further work to review the 'Application for Review of Determination' form to simplify language for applicants, including legal and technical language where possible, to ensure communication to applicants is accessible. As part of this work, the Scheme also ensures that all are trauma-informed.

Recommendation 15

1.93 The Committee recommends that legislation be amended to expressly provide that review of a redress determination cannot result in:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

In May 2023, the Government agreed to recommendation 5.1 of the Second Year Review of the Scheme and committed to enabling additional information to be provided to inform a request for review of an application, and ensuring review determinations cannot be less than the original determination when based on the same evidence.

The Government implemented these measures through the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Act 2024 which came into effect on 4 April 2024. As of 17 February 2026, and since the commencement of these measures, no determinations have caused an applicant's eligibility to change from eligible to ineligible and no determinations have caused a reduced payment to the survivor.[1]

Recommendation 16

1.101 The Committee recommends that a consistent approach to virginity testing in Australia should be articulated. The practice should be the subject of a separate inquiry.

The Australian Government agrees in part to this recommendation.

In May 2025, the Department provided additional guidance to Independent Decision Makers on virginity testing, ensuring the Scheme applies a consistent approach to critically assessing redress applications describing virginity testing. This additional guidance includes contextualising virginity testing with the Scheme's definition of 'sexual abuse' under the Act and the United Nations Interagency Statement on the Elimination of Virginity Testing.

Given the Scheme's additional guidance and positive reception from impacted stakeholders, the Government does not support a separate inquiry into this matter. The Scheme is prioritising progressing applications describing virginity testing in an efficient, consistent and trauma-informed manner.

Recommendation 17

1.114 The Committee recommends that the National Redress Scheme pay a fixed sum to delegated legal practitioners where a survivor elects to receive legal advice:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

As noted in response to recommendation 3, the Government continues to ensure the operations of the Scheme are adequately resourced to support survivors in accessing free, trauma-informed advice through Knowmore. Survivors can engage with Knowmore before, during, or after their involvement with the Scheme.

The Scheme recognises that some survivors may choose to seek support from private legal practitioners. The Scheme will continue to explore appropriate avenues to engage with private practitioners to support redress applicants, while ensuring survivors are informed and supported throughout their redress journey.

Recommendation 18

1.115 The Committee recommends that before redress offers are accepted, the Department of Social Services encourages in writing for survivors to seek:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Department encourages survivors (and their nominees) to access the Scheme's free legal advice and financial counselling support services provided by Knowmore. Information about these free services is included in all written correspondence to survivors and has been available from the Scheme's website since it commenced on 1 July 2018.

Recommendation 19

1.116 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services take additional measures to protect redress payments from inadvertent loss, including by:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Scheme has implemented mitigating process improvement initiatives, including:

Recommendation 20

1.117 The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth encourages state and territory governments to urgently change laws to address claim farming and exploitative practices, including by:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government strongly condemns exploitative practices by legal service providers which seek to profit from survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The Government encourages all state and territory governments to implement legislation to curb sharp practices such as claim farming.

The Government notes legislation passed by the Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian Governments (noting these may not be specific to or encompass redress).

The Government also supports continued leadership by the Ministers' Redress Scheme Governance Board to identify opportunities to further support survivors engaging with the Scheme. The Department also regularly engages with state and territory governments to share insights and mitigation strategies available, where possible.

Recommendation 21

1.118 The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth encourages state and territory governments to codify in legislation the basis on which the courts may grant permanent stays.

1.119 This should be consistent with the High Court's ruling in the GLJ case.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

In response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, all states and territories removed statutes of limitation for historic child sexual abuse matters to ensure access to justice for survivors.

Any response to the High Court of Australia's decision in GLJ v the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (2023) 414 ALR 635 (GLJ), is the responsibility of state and territory governments who are responsible for respective civil liability legislation.

Recommendation 22

1.125 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government:

1.126 The Department of Social Services should coordinate outreach efforts among redress support services.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Government is committed to funding culturally appropriate and accessible Redress Support Services for survivors through its existing established network, as outlined in response to recommendations 3 and 4.

The Department has existing mechanisms in place to coordinate Redress Support Services' outreach efforts by encouraging referrals between services and convening regular meetings of Redress Support Services operating in each jurisdiction. These arrangements will continue and are periodically reviewed to ensure they are effective.

Recommendation 23

1.127 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government extend funding terms for redress support services until 2 years following the extended expiration date of the Scheme.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

As outlined in response to recommendation 3, the Government recognises the importance of ensuring survivors can access free support from a Redress Support Service and Knowmore.

Recommendation 24

1.132 The Committee recommends that:

The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.

When considering an application from a person with a serious criminal conviction, the Scheme Operator may choose to implement the special assessment process in accordance with subsection 63(3) of the Act.

Receiving a Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check conducted by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) is a necessary step to inform the special assessment process, including the Scheme Operator's determination of a person's entitlement to redress.

By consenting to the sharing of their information with the Scheme for the purpose of a Criminal History Check, a person acknowledges their personal information may be used by police agencies for the purposes of law enforcement. Existing legislation permits information to be used in this way, including subsection 96(3) of the Act and the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002.

The Government also notes that applicant (and institutional) information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for child safe reporting purposes (set out under section 96 of the Act). This is an important mechanism to ensure the protection of children.

Recommendation 25

1.133 The Committee recommends that the Department of Social Services develop a framework for enforcement of protected information provisions.

1.134 The framework must be published on the Scheme's website together with advice on how to report suspected breaches.

The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.

The Department is developing an internal unauthorised disclosure policy and framework to codify the Scheme's process for managing and once finalised, consideration will be given to the publication of additional information on the Scheme's public website, including via updates to the Scheme's existing suite of protected information factsheets.

Recommendation 26

1.137 The Committee recommends that the Eight Year Review of the National Redress Scheme consider:

The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation, noting:

The Government is committed to encouraging institutions named in applications to join the Scheme and will continue to use Funder of Last Resort provisions to ensure eligible applicants are offered redress and, where appropriate, public naming of institutions and associated penalties for institutions that do not join the Scheme.

The Government strongly condemns exploitative practices by legal service providers which seek to profit from survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. The Government encourages all state and territory governments to implement legislation to curb sharp practices such as claim farming. The Government notes legislation passed by the Queensland, New South Wales and South Australian Governments (noting these may not be specific to or encompass redress).

The Government is also committed to improving application processing timeframes for all applications received by the legislated application closing date of 30 June 2027.

Recommendation 27

1.138 The Committee recommends, that subject to the National Redress Scheme being extended, the Eighth Year Review of the Scheme consider:

1.139 If an extension is not possible, the Eighth Year Review should consider what

is needed to close the Scheme as planned, including how to ensure all existing and future redress applications are processed on time.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of planning for Scheme closure in a way that is transparent, consultative, and responsive to the needs of survivors and participating institutions. The Government remains committed to supporting survivors to apply before the legislated closing date of 30 June 2027 and ensuring all applications are processed in a timely, trauma-informed manner.

Recommendation 28

1.140 The Committee recommends that the respective Senate and House of Representatives procedural committees should inquire into the accessibility of parliamentary committee processes, including:

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The government thanks all people who provided evidence to the Committee, including and particularly those survivors of institutional child sexual abuse who participated in-person and via written submissions.

Recommendation 29

1.142 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments on a national framework for redress and/or reparation schemes. This could include developing knowledge around best practices, scheme design and administration.

The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.

The Government supports the exchange of knowledge and use of best practice to inform similar redress and reparation schemes. The Government will further consider this recommendation in partnership with state and territory governments.

[1] Only one case over the life of the Scheme has had a reduced payment on review—this was before the described measures came into effect, and was due to a correction in prior payment calculations.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report:

COVID-19, Criminal Activity and Law Enforcement

November 2025

Recommendations made in COVID-19, Criminal Activity and Law Enforcement

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate whether clear chains of movement and possession can be established in the home food delivery industry to reduce its potential for exploitation by organised crime groups.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police retain the Joint Intelligence Group, while any COVID-19 security risks remain, so they can continue to coordinate efforts across Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and international partners.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with Australia's law enforcement agencies, canvass specific programs to assist Pacific nations to target and detect counterfeit pharmaceuticals, vaccines and COVID-19 related materials such as personal protective equipment.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends the Australian Government undertake public education campaigns on the prevalence and risks of scams and fraud.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider whether new legislation is needed to address the rapidly evolving use of end-to-end encryption and anonymising technologies by organised crime groups, and ensure greater prospects of successful prosecution of those involved in malicious cyber activity.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in consultation with Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement and police representative bodies, explore the proposal to establish a National Police Reserve Force to be utilised during national emergencies, with appropriate standards of operation and training to ensure community acceptance.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that Commonwealth and state and territory governments jointly undertake to review and ensure adequate provisions exist to enable offenders to be mandatorily tested if they knowingly expose a law enforcement officer to a communicable disease through the act of biting and spitting.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that the Australian Institute of Criminology and Australian New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency undertake an analysis of domestic and family violence, and consider the escalation of domestic violence during the pandemic, best practice training requirements for police first responders, and culturally appropriate responses to First Nations and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse communities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement:

Inquiry into Crystal Methamphetamine (ice)—First Report and Final Report

November 2025

Recommendations—First Report

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that all progress reports and the mid-point review provided to the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum and Council of Australian Governments on the implementation of the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 and its sub-strategy, the National Ice Action Strategy (NIAS), are made publicly available, and include but are not limited to:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments commit long term funding for the implementation, maintenance and ongoing use of the National Criminal Intelligence System.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

5.41 The committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as a matter of urgency, agree and enact nationally consistent unexplained wealth legislation.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that, subsequent to the national review of drug diversionary programs articulated by the National Ice Taskforce and in the National Ice Action Strategy, states and territories commit to improving, expanding, or where no drug diversionary program(s) currently exists, implementing such programs across their jurisdictions.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that Australian governments implement the electronic End User Declaration System as soon as practicable.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government strengthens eligibility criteria for Aviation Security Identification Cards and Maritime Security Identification Cards to address current inadequacies, particularly the use of criminal intelligence where a person may have links with serious and organise crime.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that the Australian government expand its leadership in relevant international fora and considers:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that Australian law enforcement agencies, in addition to the number and volume of drug seizures, assess and report on the availability, purity and price of illicit drugs, particularly at the street level, to better determine the impact of law enforcement and other strategies on the illicit drug market.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendations—Final Report

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Department of Health and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare establish an expert group and progress their work to develop an alcohol and other drugs treatment waitlist item as part of the Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Services National Minimum Data Set.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory health departments ensure adequate pre- and post-care services are provided in partnership with residential treatment programs.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that Australian governments individually and collectively develop and implement plans to increase the capacity of residential rehabilitation across Australia in a way that ensures equitable access.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as a matter of priority, establish a national quality framework for all alcohol and other drug treatment services including public, not-for-profit and for-profit residential rehabilitation.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends that the development of a national quality framework for alcohol and other drug treatment services is undertaken in partnership with representatives of the alcohol and other drug treatment sector.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends Australian governments, in partnership with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, establish nationally consistent datasets and regular reporting of illicit drug use in Australia's correctional facilities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that Australian governments continue to advance collaboration with Indigenous communities and Indigenous health experts to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate alcohol and other drug treatment services.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends Australian governments ensure specialised alcohol and other drug treatment services are available to people with young children in all jurisdictions.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 9:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government ensures that future public awareness campaigns engender compassion towards drug users, and are targeted at and inform those people with the objective of encouraging them to seek treatment and support.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 10:

The committee recommends that the Australian Press Council develops and implements media reporting standards for coverage of drug use.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 11:

The committee recommends that the Department of Health considers using 2016 Census and National Wastewater Drug Monitoring Program data to determine the allocation of National Ice Action Strategy funding for 2019-20.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 12:

The committee recommends that the Department of Health ensures that Public Health Network's conduct future tender processes with realistic timeframes and at appropriate times of year.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 13:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments re-balance alcohol and other drug funding across the three pillars of the National Drug Strategy (supply, demand and harm reduction strategies).

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 14:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government refers to the Productivity Commission an inquiry into the costs and benefits of the National Drug Strategy as it is currently implemented.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 15:

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government, under section 298 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ensures Confiscated Assets Account funds are equitably allocated to crime prevention, law enforcement, drug treatment and diversionary measures.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement:

Examination of the Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2015-16

November 2025

Recommendations made in the Examination of the Australian Federal Police Annual Report 2015-2016

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police considers including in future annual reports examples of the complaints corresponding to the categories of breaches outlined in Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report:

Inquiry into Financial Related Crime

November 2025

Recommendations made in the Inquiry into Financial Related Crime

Committee Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The committee recommends that the government review the operations and outcomes of each law enforcement taskforce approximately 12 months prior to its conclusion in order to determine whether it should be made an ongoing taskforce.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 2:

The committee recommends that the government introduce amendments to the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 to give the RBA administrative responsibilities and the AFP law enforcement responsibilities with respect to counterfeit note collections and investigations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 3:

The committee recommends that subject to appropriate safeguards including adequate privacy and oversight arrangements, the government designate the ATO as a 'criminal law-enforcement agency' under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, for the purpose of protecting public finances from serious criminal activities such as major tax fraud.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 4:

The committee recommends the Government consider the extension of the AML/CTF regulations to cover 'second tier' professions in the current Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 review.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 5:

The committee recommends the government introduce amendments to the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to enable AUSTRAC to become a full member of the ACC Board.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 6:

The committee recommends that the government review the penalties prescribed under financial services legislation administered by ASIC, with a view to achieving a better balance between non-compliance by licensed operators and unlicensed operations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 7:

The committee recommends that ASIC consider and then implement mechanisms to make its response to internet-based financial related crimes far more expeditious.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 8:

The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office conduct a performance audit of ASIC's technological capacity, and provide a report to the Parliament outlining ASIC's technological requirements and capabilities, and the extent to which any deficiencies may hamper ASIC's regulatory responsibilities.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 9:

The committee recommends that ASIC strive to improve its relationships with the private sector in order to better detect and deter financial related crimes.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 10:

The committee recommends that AUSTRAC consider and then implement mechanisms to increase its regulatory oversight of the activities of unregistered remitters.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 11:

The committee recommends the Attorney-General's Department review the arrangements for victims of identity crime to obtain a Commonwealth victim certificate.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 12:

The committee recommends that financial institutions which issue debit and credit cards create an 'opt in' function that requires customers to consent to contactless payment technology features being activated on their cards.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 13:

The committee recommends the government fund targeted financial literacy education programs for Indigenous communities. These programs must be translated into local Indigenous languages, be specific to the local community circumstances and be delivered in a culturally appropriate manner.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

Recommendation 14:

The committee recommends the government implement the recommendations from the National Indigenous Intelligence Task Force report relating to the prevention of financial crime and improved governance in Indigenous organisations.

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate.

by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Zambia and Mauritius, which took place from 21 to 27 September 2025.

I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning social media minimum age, bail and remand reports, bank closures in regional Australia, supermarket price gouging, ministerial travel, the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, and the Grok chatbot.

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—

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

Returning integrity, honesty and accountability to government has been a focus of reform efforts for the Albanese Government.

In July 2023, we established the National Anti-Corruption Commission -an independent, statutory agency to investigate serious or systemic corrupt conduct across the Commonwealth public sector.

In September 2023, we established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service as a statutory authority to make Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces more safe and respectful.

In May 2024, we made ambitious and enduring reforms to the Australian Public Service. These changes codified an expectation that the APS builds its capability and institutional knowledge and supports the public interest now and into the future. In making these changes, we ensured the APS was impartial, committed to service, accountable, respectful and ethical.

In October 2024, we abolished the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, replacing it with the Administrative Review Tribunal, to ensure effective administrative review of decisions made by the Australian Government.

In December 2025, we released the Australian Government Appointments Framework, setting out the principles and guidance to strengthen and support the merit-based selection and appointment of individuals to public offices across the Commonwealth.

Ultimately, these reforms have been about restoring the public's trust and faith in government and institutions.

But there is still work to be done.

That is why the Government is proud to present the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 today.

The Bill makes changes to strengthen appointment safeguards, accountability and integrity of statutory office holders in the Australian Centre for International Research (ACIAR), Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade), Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC).

Existing arrangements have limited provisions for accountability where conduct or performance are unacceptable.

The amendments would expand and clarify the grounds for termination of the statutory office holders and introduce a power to suspend relevant office holders from their duties.

The amendments are sensitive to the inherent independence of decision-making by statutory authorities, particularly in relation to the Director of Safeguards at the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office.

The Bill also permits the relevant Minister—being the Attorney-General—to exercise a new directions power for the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. Importantly however, directions issued under this power can only be general in nature—respecting the independence of the OPC.

The community expects public officials to perform their duties with the utmost integrity—particularly those that operate at the highest level by leading our statutory authorities.

Breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, discrimination, bullying and harassment, and corruption are types of behaviour that are unacceptable in a modern workplace.

Failing to prevent or stop that type of behaviour is a failure to keep people safe in their places of work.

These amendments will ensure statutory office holders with direct management responsibilities for staff can be removed from office where their behaviour is considered serious misconduct.

Statutory office holders should also be held accountable for their performance. If their performance is unsatisfactory, then the Government should have options to terminate them from their position.

This is the standard expected of most working Australians. It should apply to statutory office holders too.

The Bill treats the role of the Director of Safeguards differently because of international standards for the chief regulators of nuclear and chemical non-proliferation. It is important for Australia's global standing that the Director operates without suggestion of political interference.

For this reason, and in keeping with the principles of regulator independence, the Bill limits termination of the Director of ASNO to serious misconduct that is found through a statutory inquiry for breaches of the APS Code of Conduct, or findings by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

Through these continuing efforts to strengthen appointments provisions, the Government has a clear focus on maintaining the public's trust, faith in our institutions, and ensuring the Commonwealth remains a model employer.

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

Debate adjourned.

The Matildas have become more than just a football team to all Australians. Not only are they role models for young women across our nation; they are proof that investment in women's sport pays dividends, not only in trophies but in national pride and the progress of women's rights.

The AFC Women's Asian Cup, which is on right now in Australia, brings together the very best of talent from across our region. It's a competition that demonstrates skill, speed and tactical brilliance, and it is also a competition that celebrates women's sport in nations where opportunities for female athletes continue to grow stronger every single year. The first AFC women's cup was held in 1975 in Hong Kong. It has become known as one of the oldest international women's football tournaments in the world. What started as six teams in that first tournament has grown to a competition double that size, with Asia's best players battling it out on the soccer pitch for continental glory.

For our Matildas, though, we must always remind ourselves that their success was no accident. We know that, like all athletes, their success is a combination of incredibly hard work from these players; dedicated coaching staff; backing from Football Australia; continual support from families and volunteers; the support of fans, from right around this country; and, of course, a little bit of support from our government as well. Their success represents the long fight that many women in sport have faced and continue to face: the struggle to receive recognition, resources and respect. However, today, the Matildas are filling stadiums and breaking records. And they will fill another stadium tomorrow night, when they take on Iran. The last time the Matildas played their semifinal here in Australia, the game drew over 11 million followers and gripped the hearts of Australians. And this one, this tournament, will be one for the books.

What we see continually from these players and from this competition is that sport is not simply entertainment; it is nation-building. The women's Asian cup proves that, when women are given the opportunity, they do not simply participate; they excel. So to the athletes competing in this remarkable tournament: please know that you are not just representing your countries; you are shaping the future of sport in Asia.

And what's so special about this tournament is that this is a chance for the Matildas to win a gold on home soil. The last time the Matildas won this competition was in 2010, and one player still remains from that squad. Sam Kerr was part of the winning squad back in 2010, and hopefully she will be winning again here in Australia.

But one of the things I wanted to point out to the Senate, as I finish off this contribution, is that one of the very special parts of this football family that we've managed to build here in Australia is that another person who was part of that 2010 squad, one of the champion Matildas team, is Sarah Walsh. Now Sarah Walsh isn't playing side by side with Sam Kerr. She's the tournament director. So we've got a Matilda from that 2010 squad currently playing, who scored the winning goal against the Philippines the other night, and we've got a Matilda from that squad who is literally running the tournament. That just doesn't happen in women's sport. It happens in men's sport. But we know that these pathways to careers after athletes finish up are also so important. I am so proud of what the Matildas have done for women in this country. They have fought for equal pay and they have made sure that everyone in this country will pay attention to what they do on the field tomorrow night.

In closing, can I just say: President, thank you for the small infraction on the Senate's rules around wardrobe. This is the first time I've had permission, slightly, to wear my Matildas shirt in the chamber tonight. I know that it's not allowed, but thank you for turning a blind eye.

I want everyone in Australia to put on your Matildas jersey tomorrow and cheer on Sam Kerr and our girls, because it's the young girls that will be watching on and seeing what these girls do who will be inspired to pick up their football boots and will know that, if you play hard and you work hard, you can achieve almost the impossible—winning the Asian women's cup.

Hear, hear. Go the Matildas. I rise today to speak about the conflict in Iran and the Middle East. Amid mixed feelings about the war, many Iranians around the country and those in my home state of Victoria have taken to the streets, celebrating the death of Iran's despotic leader Ali Khamenei and expressing hope that freedom may finally be within reach.

Australia's position could not be clearer. We stand with the people of Iran against the brutal regime. We support the decisive action to ensure that the Islamic regime does not acquire nuclear weapons. Let us be clear about who we are dealing with. The Islamic regime—or the Islamic Republic of Iran—has slaughtered its own citizens, jailed women for showing their hair, executed dissidents and crushed protesters with bullets and prison cells. When brave Iranians rose up, demanding dignity and self-determination, thousands were killed and thousands more were detained.

The world watched a regime turn on its own people. The regime has destabilised its own region for decades, funded armed proxies and exported violence beyond its borders. We have seen its reach here in Australia, with at least two orchestrated attacks on our soil back in 2024—the arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne and Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney. In response, Australia expelled Iran's ambassador, strengthened our laws to list the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism and imposed targeted sanctions. Since the Second World War, only one government has forced Australia to take extraordinary diplomatic and legislative steps, and that is Iran.

When the United States and Israel act to prevent this regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, we must understand what is at stake. A nuclear armed Islamic Iranian regime would embolden repression at home and aggression abroad and threaten global security. Preventing that outcome is important. Yet we have seen this week from the Australian Greens and prominent voices a rush to condemn Australia for supporting action, claiming international law has been violated. This is the same international law that has allowed Iranian backed terrorism to destabilise not just the region but also the world for over 40 years. This was the same international law that was silent as tens of thousands of civilians were murdered by their own government just a few weeks ago.

The same voices that routinely slam the failures of international law elsewhere in the region are now ignoring its failure of the Iranian people. This is naked hypocrisy that undermines our nation and its values. These voices constantly ignore the horrific nature of the Islamic Iranian regime. They seize every opportunity to criticise our allies rather than confront this reality. Some have even branded the Prime Minister's words as 'political propaganda'. This is an extraordinary claim, as if standing with women beaten in the streets is propaganda, as if opposing the execution of protesters is propaganda, as if resisting nuclear blackmail is propaganda.

If this is the case, then we have lost our moral compass. What is truly political is neutrality in the face of evil. Where were these voices when thousands of Iranians were slaughtered? Where was their outrage when women were dragged from the streets for refusing to cover their hair? Where was their caution when peaceful protesters were executed? This is not principled restraint; it's ideological reflex, choosing slogans over solidarity, comfort over courage and moral vanity over moral clarity. Standing with the Iranian people is not interference; it is solidarity. Of course civilian lives must always be protected, escalation avoided and Australians in the region safeguarded, but none of that alters the fundamental truth: the greatest threat to the Iranian people is not external pressure. It is the Islamic regime that rules them. The US and Israel have made it clear they are not seeking to choose who governs Iran. The Iranian people deserve the opportunity to determine their own future, free from brutality, fear and blackmail, and when the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, 'We unequivocally stand with the Iranian people,' he was right, and this moment is for moral clarity. We stand against the brutal regime; we stand against nuclear proliferation, and we stand with the Iranian people.

Back in 2024, Senator Faruqi and I moved a motion to deal with racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination in this place—here, in the Senate. Parliament should set the standard for the rest of the country. But, with what goes on in this chamber, it's no wonder that racism is on the rise out there. We wanted an inquiry to look at how the Senate's rules could be updated to deal with language, behaviour, decision-making and practices that are sexist, racist, exclusionary or discriminatory. This was about making sure that women and people from different backgrounds can be safe at work—people like me, Senator Faruqi and Senator Payman, and there are many more in this place.

It was about setting the standard for the rest of the country. It was exactly what recommendation 10 of the Set the standard report called for. The way we proposed it back then was we wanted a public hearing with people who are affected. We wanted the crossbench to be part of it, and we wanted a report by a set date. Most of the crossbench supported this. What Labor did serves as a perfect example of the very problem we were pointing to, and it said everything about how gammon their commitment to tackling racism is. They teamed up with their coalition mates and rewrote the whole motion and then worked together to pass their weakened version, despite crossbench opposition.

They stitched it up so that Senator Faruqi, Senator Payman or I would not be invited to participate in the process. Public hearings were scrapped, guaranteed crossbench participation was scrapped and the deadline was scrapped. It was to be dealt with by the Procedures Committee, which operates behind closed doors with no transparency. The two major parties here took a plan developed by two brown women that was supposed to confront racism and handed it to the mostly white committee dominated by Labor and the coalition and completely blocked us out of the process. The only person of colour on that committee is Senator Wong, and her job is clearly to defend the government and the status quo.

Labour's shameful manoeuvre was all about trying to make it look like Labor cares, because they knew that voting against our motion wouldn't look good, but they also needed a way to make the issue go away and silence the brown women in this place who were calling for improvements in our workplace. We saw straight through it at that time. We knew it was a move to bury our concerns, and—surprise, surprise—here we are, over a year later, and the closed door committee this went to hasn't even met to discuss this. Not once have they met. The inquiry was supposed to report in March last year, well before the election, yet nothing was done at all. With the end of the last parliament, the inquiry lapsed. You can't even find a trace of it on the committee's website. It was completely swept under the carpet, and, of course, there was no attempt from Labor to restart the inquiry.

Today, in the last hour, a motion by Senator Faruqi and me to re-refer the same inquiry with exactly the same wording that Labor changed it to in 2024 was voted down by Labor. The government won't even support its own words anymore. This serves as a perfect example of the issues we were pointing to in the first place. This is about the way this Senate is run to silence, sideline, gaslight and undermine women of colour who work here, particularly when we raise issues of racism. This isn't just negligence, laziness or forgetfulness. This is exactly what systemic racism looks like in action. So there you go. We still have a racist Senate, with no action and empty words from the Labor government once again.

Senate adjourned at 19:44