If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I move:

That on the following days, following motions to take note of answers, motions proposing the disallowance of instruments be called on and considered for not longer than 30 minutes, after which the question be put:

a. Tuesday, 10 March 2026-Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025;

b. Monday, 23 March 2026-Treasury Laws Amendment (Help to Buy Exemptions) Regulations 2025;

c. Tuesday, 24 March 2026-Digital ID Amendment (Redress Framework and Other Measures) Rules 2025; and

d. Tuesday, 31 March 2026-Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

And I further move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Can I ask that the question be put separately on part (a)?

Sure. The question is that part (a) of the motion as moved by the minister be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

The Australian Greens seek leave to withdraw our request for a division and simply ask that our opposition to this part be recorded.

Leave granted.

The question now is that the remainder of the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of legislation.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of legislation to be moved and determined immediately.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

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

I move:

That a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is the question be now put.

The question is that the procedural motion moved by the minister be agreed to.

I move:

That—

(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026 be called on today at the following times:

(i) not later than 1 pm, and

(ii) following proposals under standing order 75;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put at 7.30 pm;

(c) the question for the adjournment be proposed following the conclusion of consideration of the bills;

(d) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and

(e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills.

The procedure motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate, so I'll put the question. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

I seek leave to make a short statement of no more than two minutes.

Leave granted.

To be clear, we have just seen yet again that this is a government that went to two elections saying would be the most transparent government in history. But—for those in the gallery—they have completely shut down debate on two bills that are incredibly important to the Australian people. The bills are in relation to your superannuation.

We had a number of issues we wanted to raise in relation to these bills on behalf of the people of Australia. But guess what? This government are not the most transparent government in history. In fact, it is the exact opposite. They have sided with their partners in crime, the Australian Greens, and they have yet again shut down debate in the Australian Senate. The last time I checked, colleagues, we were elected by the Australian people to come into this place and discharge our duties as, and I quote, a 'House of review'. What has just gone through, though—shame on the government, shame on the Greens—is a motion that will shut down important debate on this incredibly important topic.

There is actually another way forward, and it's a way forward that we could have supported on this side of the chamber. Instead of shutting debate down, why did you not just say, 'And the Senate sits until debate on these two important deals actually concludes'? It's because you didn't want to sit past 7.30 pm tonight. I can tell you, we would have happily sat until tomorrow morning if that's what it took to represent the Australian people properly. We take our roles as senators reviewing your legislation as an incredibly important one. We believe in transparency, and transparency means you come into this place and actually allow people to have a look at what you're proposing—to ask questions on it on behalf of the Australian people and then to cast a vote. But, yet again, you have just sided with the Australian Greens, and you have worked against the Australian people, and you have silenced debate on their behalf.

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than two minutes.

Leave granted.

I find this really bizarre. We have a bill that has the support of the Senate. This is something that I think is an important piece of work, and I thank the Treasurer and the finance minister for their work on this. We haven't even started debating this bill. It is so bizarre to have a Greens party with the balance of power in this place feel the need to guillotine a bill before it even starts debate. It's not like the government has a huge agenda to bring through this place over the next three weeks. It's very bare in terms of legislation, so let's take a few days actually look at this.

I think there are some very important elements of this bill that warrant scrutiny. There are questions that need to be answered, and I say this from a position of actually supporting this bill. I do think these are important changes to our superannuation system. I do think we've seen a misuse of superannuation by people with extraordinary balances that the average Australian could only ever dream of amassing. But we have a government that throws sand in the gears Senate, amends every motion to slow things down and really doesn't have a legislative agenda the moment guillotining a bill in a day.

I think the Greens have some serious questions to answer here. Why do you feel the need to guillotine a bill without debate, given that we know it has support and it will pass? And that is after saying no to a Senate inquiry on this bill. It's farcical. This is the house of review. We should be able to actually look at legislation, look at it through a Senate inquiry, debate it in this place and then vote on behalf of our state or territory and whether we think it aligns with the people we were sent here to represent.

by leave—I'd like to have my vote recorded the other way, because I don't believe that this is in the best interests of transparency. I didn't realise, because the Dynamic Red is never up to date.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the proposed Australian military deployment to the Middle East as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of the matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the proposed Australian military deployment to the Middle East.

The motion that the Greens are bringing to this house—no doubt, it will be opposed by the three war parties: Labor, the coalition and One Nation—is:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that the Australian public rejects Labor's push to be part of another US-led forever war in the Middle East, which has already seen thousands of civilians injured and killed and the world spiralling into economic chaos and even greater insecurity; and

(b) calls on the Government to immediately end support for the US and Israeli war with Iran, withdraw all Australian troops from the US military, prohibit the US from using Australian-based military assets, and not send any Australian troops to the region to participate in this illegal war.

I know that there will be resistance to this. The government say that they desperately think that they should get onto the 'Transitional amendments No. 4 Defence veterans bill' or that some other thing is more urgent than this motion, but I can tell you now that the Australian public are watching in horror as Labor drags them into another US forever war. Labor is doing it with the support from the other two war parties in here—the coalition and One Nation. Between you, you've never seen a US war you didn't want to back in. You've never seen a demand from Donald Trump that you haven't wanted to bend over to grant—whenever he asks! If it's 2 am in the morning—whenever he asks!

We have, today, in just one week, seen how this war has escalated—the economic chaos and the killings. This war started in the first 24 hours with a US strike on a school that killed over 100 Iranian schoolgirls and their teachers. It was a devastating strike. We see Donald Trump spinning and lying and trying to pretend that it wasn't him—the disinformation campaign. A war that started with the US killing of schoolgirls has now expanded across the region. Millions of civilians, desperate about whether they will survive the next 24 hours—and the people of Iran, who were already fearful of their regime, are now fearful of the regime and the US and Israeli bombs and missiles that are also killing them.

What does our government do? Labor was the first government on the planet to rush out and support Donald Trump's illegal wars, and then Labor said it wouldn't send troops. What do we get today? After some messaging on the weekend, today we get the Prime Minister coming out and saying that not only will Australian troops be embedded throughout the US military, in nuclear submarines and others, but today we're sending military personnel into the region and an AEW&C RAAF plane. Missiles are being redirected, Australian troops are being put on the ground. Let's be clear what this is about. It's not about defending anyone. It's not about keeping the people of Iran safe. It's not about keeping the people of the United Arab Emirates safe. It's not about safety or defence. Every military asset we send into the region is designed to free up another US military asset to be used to kill people in Iran. That's what's happening here.

The Prime Minister came out today and said that he made these decisions. Let's be clear on where these decisions are made. They're made in Washington and they're operationalised in Canberra. As I understand it, the missiles being redirected from Australia wasn't even Australia's choice; it was United States telling the US weapons manufacturers that they had to redirect it, and the Australian government are pretending it was their decision. Every time we see this: Labor, the coalition and One Nation—the three war parties—asking Donald Trump what they can do next.

This war is spiralling into evermore economic chaos. Energy prices are rising. Economic markets are in chaos. Why did this happen? This happened because the world was silent again when the United States decided that international law and common rules of decency don't apply to them.

What was worse than silence from the Australian government was that they actively backed in this war. They now own the violence, the killing and the disruption that comes from it. Why on Earth are we sending Australian troops into the Middle East at this point? We get told that it's about defence. We get told that it's to protect the United Arab Emirates. Let us be clear this is not in Australia's national interest. Australia does not have an alliance with the United Arab Emirates. We don't have key trade arrangements with the United Arab Emirates. The only reason we're sending troops there is Washington has told us to—to free up US military assets to continue the US and Israel's illegal war against Iran. The doublespeak and hypocrisy that are coming from this government are obscene. I'm proud to be in the Greens, the only party standing up against the war parties in this chamber.

Can I say on behalf of the government that we completely reject your suggestions that we are a war party, Senator Shoebridge. We're a party of peace. There's no government that wants to see a more peaceful outcome in the Middle East than the Labor government under Anthony Albanese.

Senator Shoebridge, I was very respectful during the whole time you spoke. I didn't interrupt at all. I would request the same civility when I am speaking on this issue on behalf of the government. Can I suggest, Senator Shoebridge, that you go back and have a look at the 1930s and what happens when appeasers succeed and you don't reject regimes like the regime in Iran right now. On a day when five very brave young Iranian women stood up to their government and decided to seek asylum in Australia—

And you're slamming the door on the rest of them.

Again, I listened to Senator Shoebridge in silence, and I would seek the same respect.

Iran's reprisal attacks continue to escalate. Already, the scale and the depth are not what we have seen before. Twelve countries in the region have now been targeted. The UAE—which recently, Senator Shoebridge, contrary to what you said in your contribution, signed a free trade agreement with Australia—have been forced to shoot down 1,500 rockets and drones. It's a growing wave of dangerous and destabilising attacks from Iran that puts civilian lives at risk, including Australian lives. There's something like 24,000 Australian citizens who live in the United Arab Emirates.

In response to a request from our friends in the UAE, Australia will deploy an E-7A Wedgetail to the gulf to help protect and defend Australians and other civilians. Australians will remember that these E-7A Wedgetails were recently deployed in Europe as part of our assistance to the Ukraine. As it did there, the Wedgetail will provide long-range reconnaissance capabilities, which will secure the airspace above the gulf. These are entirely defensive actions, Senator Shoebridge. A number of ADF personnel will be deployed for an initial four weeks in support of the collective self-defence of the gulf nations. Additionally, in response to a request, the Albanese government intends to provide advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to the UAE so they can defend themselves and shoot down these rockets and drones that are being aimed at them by the Iranian government.

The Albanese government has been clear that we are not taking offensive action against Iran, and been clear that we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion moved by Minister Farrell be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech es read as follows—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BUILDING A STRONGER AND FAIRER SUPER SYSTEM) BILL 2026

Today, we are really proud to be introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 to the House.

This is all about making Australia's super system stronger and more sustainable.

We are making superannuation fairer from top to bottom to help disability and aged-care workers, retail and hospitality staff, and early childhood educators and nurses get the secure retirement that they need and deserve.

This bill does two key things.

Firstly, it boosts the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO.

This will make sure low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions.

It's another important part of our government's plan to help low-income workers earn more, keep more of what they earn and retire with more as well.

Secondly, the legislation will reform super tax concessions, so that they are better targeted for large balances.

From July next year, we will increase the maximum LISTO payment by $310 to $810, and raise the eligibility threshold from $37,000 to $45,000.

These reforms will help deliver a more secure retirement for 1.3 million Australians, the majority of them women.

It will mean the total number of Australians eligible for the LISTO will increase to 3.1 million people.

Our changes will benefit all workers with incomes between $28,000 and $45,000, with an average increase in LISTO payments of $410.

These workers could receive a benefit at retirement of around $15,000, depending on an individual's income over their career.

The LISTO eligibility threshold and maximum payment amount will also automatically adjust in line with any future changes to income tax thresholds and the superannuation guarantee rate.

This will ensure low-income workers receive a fairer tax concession on their super contributions to align with the government's third round of tax cuts taking effect in 2027.

The other part of this bill reduces tax concessions available to individuals with total superannuation balances above $3 million.

This measure will affect less than half a per cent of all Australians and will take effect from July this year.

It will mean the concessional tax rate applying to future earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be a combined headline rate of 30 per cent.

Earnings corresponding to balances below $3 million will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent in the accumulation phase, and earnings will remain tax free in the retirement phase.

The concessional rate applying to future earnings on balances above $10 million will be 40 per cent.

Both the $3 million and the $10 million thresholds will be indexed.

These reforms maintain the concessional treatment of superannuation, but ensure it is provided in a more equitable and a more sustainable way.

Here, I want to thank the superannuation industry and the broader community for their engagement and feedback on this legislation. And I want to thank my colleagues in the Treasury ministers here and behind me in our team for all of the work that has gone into these important changes.

Together, these changes will maintain concessional tax treatment for super across the board.

They make the system more sustainable by better targeting concessions for the biggest balances to help fund more super for people with the smallest balances.

Voting against this bill would be a vote against a fairer super system.

It would be a vote against more super for Australians on the lowest incomes.

And it would be a vote for bigger tax breaks for those who already have millions in their super.

The Australian Labor Party built our superannuation system.

And this bill is another important part of our agenda to make it stronger and fairer and more sustainable.

It's why we've legislated the objective of super—to provide income for a secure retirement.

We've increased the superannuation guarantee so it's finally reached 12 per cent.

We're paying super on government paid parental leave to help close the gender gap in retirement savings.

We've legislated payday superannuation starting from July this year.

We've expanded the coverage of the superannuation performance test from around 80 products to more than 800.

We've legislated to align financial reporting requirements by funds with those of public companies.

We've also announced mandatory service standards and we're reforming the retirement phase of superannuation as well.

And today we're introducing this legislation to better target superannuation tax concessions and increase the LISTO.

Our superannuation system is the envy of the world.

And these changes will make it even stronger and even fairer so it continues to deliver a more secure retirement for millions of working Australians today and into the future.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

SUPERANNUATION (BUILDING A STRONGER AND FAIRER SUPER SYSTEM) IMPOSITION BILL 2026

Today I am also introducing the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026.

This bill works in conjunction with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 to make our super system stronger, fairer and more sustainable.

For all of the reasons I outlined in my speech on that bill, I commend it to the House.

Full details, once again, of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. Australians deserve stability in the rules that govern our retirement savings. They deserve confidence that when they work hard, when they save diligently and when they place their hard earned income into superannuation the government will not constantly change the rules of the game. But what we have seen from the Albanese Labor government with this legislation that we are debating today is the exact opposite.

This legislation sits within a broader pattern of behaviour from this government, creating instability and unpredictability in our superannuation system. Instead of viewing superannuation as Australians money held in trust for their retirement, this government treats it as a fiscal reservoir and something that it can dip into whenever its spending ambitions outrun its revenue. That is why the opposition has been so forceful in opposing the original format of these laws and will indeed be opposing these laws coming through the Senate today. The original proposal that the Labor government came up with represented one of the most radical and dangerous departures from the principles of Australian taxation policy and Australian superannuation policy that we have seen in decades.

These bills that we are voting on today, and the original proposal from the government in relation to superannuation changes and tax changes, are questions that Australians never voted on. That makes this a question of trust—a trust in this government. It makes it a question of whether what they had taken to the election in May last year is actually what they intend to deliver on for all Australians. As I said, this tax was never put to the Australian people. At the last election, Australians weren't asked whether they supported a new tax on their superannuation balances structured in this way. They weren't asked whether they supported a new regime under division 296. They weren't asked whether they supported a new threshold tax on retirement savings. This proposal was not part of the platform put before voters. That matters, because major structural tax changes in Australia should be grounded in a democratic mandate.

Let us not forget that the federal election last year was not that long ago; it was less than 12 months ago. Less than 12 months ago, the Labor government went to the Australian people and said, 'This is our series of policy proposals that we are putting forward,' and the Australian people voted for that. We respect that. That's part of the democratic process. But, as I said, this proposal that we are debating today was not a proposal that went to the Australian people, and it is forming a pattern of behaviour from this government.

Look at some of the other issues that they are floating around publicly at the moment: changes to capital gains tax, changes to negative gearing, changes to the trusts that manage savings for families or savings for small businesses. When this government runs out of money, it comes after yours. That's something that we say very, very often. It is incredibly disappointing for us here on the opposition benches and, I think, for all Australians to see that, less than 12 months after the last federal election, the government has already seemingly run out of ideas that it took to the Australian people at the last election. It has realised, perhaps—far too late in my opinion—that the budget is in trouble, and it's now clawing around, looking for anything to tax to bump up the budget bottom line and deal with the fact that it has a spending problem.

When governments introduce sweeping changes to the tax system, particularly changes that affect long-term retirement savings, as any change in relation to superannuation does, the expectation should rightly be that those changes are clearly explained to the Australian people before an election—not quietly introduced afterwards. Superannuation isn't a short-term policy lever; we all know that. It is a system that Australians contribute to over decades. People make financial decisions based on the expectation that the rules governing their retirement savings will not be rewritten without warning, and plenty of young Australians I speak to are rightly concerned about that. Because they have many decades left in the workforce, they want to know that the superannuation they are putting away now will remain in a setting that will be somewhat untouched by government by the time they want to retire. That is why trust matters so much in this debate. But, once again, this government has broken that trust.

Australians accept difficult reforms when they believe that governments are being honest with them. They accept changes when they are consulted, when they are informed and when those changes have been clearly explained before they cast their vote at the ballot box. But when governments introduce major new taxes after the election—whether it's on superannuation or anything else—taxes that were never disclosed beforehand, then that erodes trust and sends the message that the rules of the system can change at any time. Once that trust is broken, it is incredibly difficult to rebuild, and I'm sure that this government is going to find that out in the longer term.

The government may argue that the number of Australians affected by this legislation that we're debating here today is relatively small, but the issue isn't just about who is captured today. Like I say, the issue is whether Australians can trust that the rules governing their retirement savings will remain stable, whether it's tomorrow, whether it's next month, whether it's next year, whether it's in a decade or whether it's in 50 years time. Once governments establish the precedent that they can introduce new taxes on superannuation without seeking a mandate from the Australian people, the door is open for future governments to go further. Today, it might apply a particular threshold; tomorrow, the threshold might move or expand even further. Australians will begin to ask the very simple questions: 'What rules are going to change next? How can we save for the future when we don't know what rules will govern those future savings?' Like I say, this is a debate that ultimately comes down to trust—trust in the stability of retirement savings and the system that governs them, trust in the promises that governments make before elections and trust that Australians' retirement savings will not be treated as a convenient source of new revenue when government spending runs ahead of its means.

Australians work hard. They save diligently. They place income into superannuation so that they can support themselves in retirement and reduce reliance on the age pension. I note that they don't do this voluntarily. There is an element of compulsion that exists within our superannuation system; Australians have to set aside a certain percentage of their income each year to put into superannuation. The least that these Australians deserve—that working Australians deserve—in return is honesty from the government that the rules that apply to those savings are not going to change. When the government went to the last election saying, 'No, we're not looking at any changes to superannuation; we're not looking at changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing'—or whatever it might be—Australians rightly and fairly believed that the government were going to do that. But what we are seeing here today—and, as I said, this is a pattern of behaviour from this government; it's not just about this legislation but about everything leading up to this budget process—starts to demonstrate that this government has complete disregard for the trust that Australians have put in it. That is why this issue goes to the very heart of the credibility of the government's economic agenda, and it is why Australians are right to question it—and they are starting to question it.

In my time as shadow minister for finance, I have already spoken several times in this place about the budgetary struggles that this government is facing and its inability to be honest and upfront about those struggles and about the fact that it doesn't have a plan to get that spending under control. That is what we want to see from this government. We want to see this government getting its spending problem under control, and that is why our leader, Angus Taylor, has gone to the government and said, 'Let's set up a taskforce to start looking at government spending and figure out how it can be reined in.' That request was refused by the Labor government, and I think that is incredibly disappointing, because the flip side of this is that, if we have a government that says, 'Okay, we don't want to look at the spending side; we don't want to reduce the high levels of spending that we are addicted to,' the only way that it can ever hope to get the budget back under control is to start taxing everyday Australians. This legislation we are debating today and, as I said, the plethora of other ideas that are being floated in the lead-up to the May budget are just further grabs at the hard-earned savings and income of Australians, to try and patch up the government's own budget black hole. The reason they are doing that is that they can't get their own spending under control. They completely lack the discipline to do that.

The heart of the government's original policy in relation to superannuation, the proposal to tax unrealised capital gains—which is where this legislation that we're debating today originated from—was an incredibly extraordinary proposal. Again, it is not something that mandates were sought for in the lead-up to the election. It meant taxing people on income that they hadn't even received yet. That is a pretty huge deviation from how the taxation system has worked in this country. When I say how remarkable it is this government is clearly so willing to go after people's savings and incomes and to increase taxes to fix the budget because it has its spending addiction, this goes even beyond that because, as I say, the government made a proposal to tax people on income that they hadn't even made yet. That really is completely crazy, and that is not how income tax works in Australia. For more than a century, the fundamental principle of our tax system has been that tax is paid when income is realised or crystallised—when there is a transaction that actually produces income. The government's original proposal completely abandoned that principle, and that isn't just bad policy; it is a fundamental distortion of how taxation should operate. That is why Australians should rightly be concerned about some of the proposals that this government is putting forward when it comes to our tax system, because, as I say, it is making radical changes, or seeking to make radical changes, in relation to the taxation system because it needs to get more revenue into the budget because it can't get its own spending under control.

In the couple of minutes I have to conclude my contribution, I note that, as I said, the original format of the laws that we're debating here today represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of Australian taxation. It involved taxing unrealised gains, refusing to index thresholds, destabilising long-term retirement planning and introducing major structural changes without a clear mandate from the Australian people. Those flaws were exposed because the opposition and the Australian community demanded better. Australians deserve a superannuation system that is stable, predictable and fair, that encourages saving, that rewards responsibility and that governments respect, rather than repeatedly rewriting the rules to meet their own fiscal needs—and, to be very clear, those fiscal needs have only come about because the government has a spending problem.

That is why we will continue to oppose policies that undermine the integrity of Australians' retirement savings, like this legislation we are debating here today does. People's super should belong to the Australian people of this generation and the next generation. Superannuation doesn't belong to the government. It is not their pot of gold from which to extract when they find themselves in a tricky budget situation. If you find yourself in a tricky budget situation, find a way to rein in your wasteful spending; don't go after the retirement savings of hardworking Australians to try and bump up your own budget bottom line.

The tax system in Australia is completely and utterly broken. For how abjectly broken our tax system is, exhibit A is the fact that the worst way to get ahead in our country now is to go to work every day to earn a living, and the best way to get ahead is to be so wealthy that you've accumulated a mountain of assets and you simply live off the proceeds of buying and selling those assets without lifting a finger to do productive work in this country. If you are a nurse, a cleaner, a bartender or a plumber, and you go to work every day, you are paying double the tax of someone who makes the same amount of money buying and selling properties. Let that sink in. That is how completely and utterly broken our tax system is. This is why economic inequality and wealth inequality are spiralling in Australia, because the super wealthy are getting even more rich while working Australians are working harder and harder and getting left further and further behind, because wages are not keeping up with inflation let alone the spiralling cost of mortgages, rents and real property in this country.

This legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026, unfortunately does not change this equation. As an example, a superannuation account with $5 million in it—by the way, no working Australian who hasn't been able to rely on inherited wealth or significant capital investment, no working Australian who is simply going to work and putting in their usual superannuation contribution out of their wages, can ever hope to have a superannuation account worth $5 million. But as an example, you've got five million bucks in your superannuation account and you're an extremely wealthy Australian. It will still, even after this legislation passes, only face a tax rate of 14 per cent on capital gains, while someone who is a bartender or nurse working part-time, earning $20,000, will face a tax rate of 16c for every extra dollar earned over 20,000 bucks. Let that sink in: even after this legislation, someone with $5 million in their superannuation account will pay less tax than a nurse or a cleaner who works part-time and earns $20,000 a year. How cooked is our tax system? You could stick a fork in it and it would come out dry. It is completely and utterly cooked.

Under the changes in this tax bill, those holding the 10 biggest superannuation accounts in the country, which average $423 million, will still face a lower rate of tax, when they sell shares or investment properties, than every full-time worker in this country, including those on the minimum wage. How cooked is our tax system that the 10 Australians with the biggest superannuation accounts, averaging $423 million, will pay a lower rate of tax than the nearly three million Australians who are going to work and earning the minimum wage.

I might add, as an aside: that there would be even one superannuation account with a balance of $423 million shows how far away from its original intended purpose our superannuation system has drifted over the decades. It was brought in by then treasurer Paul Keating as a mechanism to provide for a dignified retirement for working Australians, and that is a good thing. That is an absolutely desirable objective, and, by and large, the original design of the superannuation system actually delivered on that aim. What we have seen over the ensuing decades, though—mostly, I might add, under coalition governments—is that original aim, that original system designed to provide for a dignified retirement for working Australians, change completely into a wealth-management and estate-planning vehicle. That's why we've got people with hundreds of millions of dollars in their superannuation accounts. No-one needs hundreds of millions of dollars to have a dignified retirement in Australia. The reason we've got superannuation scheme accounts worth hundreds of millions of dollars is that people are using the obscene tax breaks to manage their wealth and plan their estate. No wonder there is so much frustration amongst Australian workers, who are working harder and harder and falling further and further behind. Some people are working two, three or even four jobs, watching their wages decline in real terms and watching the great Australian dream of owning their own home disappear off into the never-never.

What the examples I've been through today show clearly is that this bill does not structurally solve any of the great wealth inequality and tax inequality issues facing Australia today. It is tinkering at the edges in classic Labor fashion. But it does tax multimillionaires just a tiny bit more, and that is a good thing. At the moment the superwealthy Australians using their superannuation as a sophisticated tax shelter are paying only 10 per cent tax on capital gains. This bill increases that, which is one of the reasons the Greens will support it. The bill marginally increases the tax that some of the wealthiest Australians will pay. Critically, it will deliver more retirement income to low-income earners, through the low-income superannuation tax offset, or LISTO. Importantly, two-thirds of the people that will benefit from the LISTO are women, who already face significant disparity in their earnings and their retirement savings, compared to men.

So the Greens will support this bill unamended, but I want to be very clear. We are supporting this bill as a down payment on broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform, and we expect to see that broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform in Labor's upcoming budget. There is a massive Labor majority, a stonking majority, in the House of Representatives, and Labor plus the Greens is enough to deliver any legislation through the Senate. The opposition is an absolute rabble, and the numbers are there in both houses of this current parliament for broad, deep, ambitious and progressive tax reform as long as the Labor Party is prepared to show courage and ambition. The only obstacle to genuinely deep, progressive and ambitious tax reform in the upcoming budget is Labor's political courage.

On behalf of the millions upon millions of Australians who are being done over by our current tax system, which is designed to favour the one per cent, the super-rich, the superwealthy in this country, I say this and the Greens say this. We cannot afford to waste three more years tinkering at the margins with bills like this one. If and when this bill passes, superannuation will still be used by the megawealthy as a tax shelter, a tax dodge, and for estate planning. However, this bill does allow and provide for some small, stuttering steps in the right direction in terms of increasing the taxation rates on the superwealthy and super-large superannuation accounts, and it does, critically, deliver more retirement to low-income earners through the LISTO.

But I want to leave senators with this thought. Our tax system—capital gains tax, negative gearing and the way that taxes operate in relation to trusts, superannuation and share dividends compared to the way we heavily tax income from work—is turbocharging intergenerational inequality. Young people are getting absolutely done over by our tax system. They are loaded up with HECS debt, the dream of owning a home is disappearing off into the never-never and they are watching superwealthy people who have already had a good crack at it and have accumulated mountains of assets get taxed far too lightly, while they, young people, who are massively overrepresented in the workforce, are paying more and more tax, working harder and harder and falling farther and farther behind.

Just to take the capital gains tax discount, only four per cent of the benefit of the capital gains tax discount goes to people under 35. It is an intergenerational disgrace. It is diabolical for young people. Along with so many other elements in the tax system, it's biased towards older Australians and wealthy Australians and biased against younger Australians, poorer Australians and working Australians.

This bill won't meaningfully correct the trajectory we are on, but it is a small step in the right direction. The genuine opportunity for the Australian Labor Party is the upcoming budget. The Greens have been very clear that we expect to see delivered in this budget strong, deep, progressive, meaningful tax reform that benefits young people, that benefits working Australians and that makes the one per cent, the superwealthy, pay their fair share of tax.

I rise also to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. But, before I get into that, I do want to say I think that that contribution by Senator McKim belled the cat for all of us. We should fear every single day the idea that the Greens have opened the floodgates to Labor's agenda of higher taxes on all Australians, whether it be higher taxes on residential property, higher taxes on investment properties, higher taxes on family trusts, higher taxes on superannuation, higher taxes that abolish negative gearing or higher taxes that are going to affect all Australians every single day. There is no problem that exists in the economy right now that Labor doesn't think it can solve by creating higher taxes. Well, how about Labor gets a little bit more creative and winds back its spending ambitions—its spending ambitions that are pushing up inflation in this country? Why is it that every problem needs to be solved with a tax? The Greens have just opened the floodgates to allow Labor to do exactly that—an 'ambitious, progressive tax reform agenda'. I fear what is in store.

Today is a day that Australians never thought was going to happen. Why? I hear you ask that question. It's because, prior to the 2022 election, Australians were told very clearly and very unambiguously that there would be no changes to superannuation under a Labor government. Yet here we are not just changing superannuation but truncating debate on those changes to superannuation too. Why would Australians have believed them? The Prime Minister said it. The Treasurer said it. Every single Labor candidate said it. There would be no changes to superannuation under this government. Mind you, they also said there were going to be no changes to capital gains tax. They said there were going to be no changes to negative gearing. They said there were going to be no changes to family trust tax. All of these things are on their way.

Just as they promised you $275 off your energy bills and reneged on that promise the moment they were elected, this is another broken promise. Here we are. We're about to witness that promise being broken. We're witnessing it in a truncated debate. If it weren't bad enough that Labor teamed up with the Greens to get this legislation passed, we've now seen them shut down all discussion, all scrutiny, of this very, very important legislation. The Greens, the champions of transparency, have assisted—aided and abetted—the government in this mission. I know that I came here because of a contest of ideas. If you can't have a contest of ideas—if you're not up for a contest of ideas, if you want to shut down that contest of ideas—you don't deserve to sit on government benches.

We had a whole series of questions that we wanted to have asked the government about this legislation—questions about the treatment of your superannuation, your retirement savings, your nest egg—and you deserve to know that. Australians deserve to know the answers, but thanks to Labor and the Greens we will now never know the answers to those questions. It's important to highlight this has not been an easy road for the government. Let's face it. The bills that are before us today are certainly not the ones that were proposed in the last parliament. The product that's in front of us is not the legislation that the Treasurer wanted to pass. It's quite different, and can I say thank goodness for that. Thanks to the sustained scrutiny of the coalition, the superannuation sector and indeed everyday Australians who were worried about their nest eggs and worried about what Labor was going to do with them, Labor has been forced to abandon the most outrageous elements of its superannuation tax proposal. That was specifically their plan to tax unrealised capital gains and to freeze indexation on the way through.

This backtrack is very much a victory for common sense, but let's be very clear about why this happened. That proposal wasn't just an attack on retirees. That was the way it was framed. It was framed that, 'Oh, these rich old people don't deserve the money that they have saved.' That's what the framing was. Certainly, the Greens have helped fan those flames. The proposal was a calculated attempt to steal the future of younger Australians but without their knowledge. The original design represented a fundamental break from very longstanding principles of the taxation systems. For generations, Australians have understood a simple truth—that you pay tax when it's realised. When the gain is crystallised, when the cash is in your hand—that's when you pay the tax.

Proposing to tax simply paper gains on a volatile asset is a very dangerous structural shift that would have set a precedent right across our entire tax base. Just imagine that you buy a share today for a dollar and that next year, in 12 months time, it's gone up by 20 per cent. What Labor were saying was, 'We will tax you on that 20c gain.' You would say: 'But I haven't the sold the share yet. I haven't got the 20c. It's still a theoretical profit, not an actual one.' They would go, 'We're going to tax you anyway.' You would say, 'Where am I going to find the money to pay that tax?' They would say: 'That's not my problem. That's your problem.' You would ask: 'What happens if the share goes down in value? What if it goes down to 90c next year?' They would say: 'That's alright; we'll just give you a credit for that.' You would say, 'You're not going to give me the money back if it goes down, but you're going to make me pay it to you if it goes up?' That's exactly what Labor had in mind, and it wasn't accidental. It was entirely intentional. Don't think they haven't got this idea in their back pocket; it's still there.

Equally concerning was the refusal to index the $3 million threshold. What this meant was that, over time, bracket creep would have captured more and more Australians, not because they became wealthier—far from it. You wouldn't necessarily have needed to become wealthier. But, because inflation erodes the value of savings, it would have meant more and more Australians would be captured in Labor's net. It wasn't flawed policy; it was intentional. It was deliberate. It was a tax grab, and it was young people that would have paid the price.

Labor's backdown demonstrates one thing very clearly. This was never a policy grounded in principle; it was grounded in opportunity. It was an opportunity to take more money from unsuspecting Australians. It was sold as something so simple: 'We're going to take money from the rich, and we're going to put it back for budget repair.' No, this was taking money from ordinary Australians, and it would be more and more as each generation matured. I think that's absolutely outrageous.

Why does this matter? All of this matters because superannuation is not the government's money. It's your money. It's Australians' money. It's your savings. It's the product of decades of hard work, discipline and saving. Australians make financial decisions based on the rules that governments put in place. They plan their retirement around those rules. They trust that governments will not simply change the goalposts, particularly on tax, after the game has begun.

Let's face it; superannuation is a contract. It's a contract that says that if you put your money away and you quarantine it—potentially for up to 40 years for young people—then we will give you a tax benefit for doing so. That's what the deal is with superannuation. If Labor change the goalposts halfway through and say that they're going to tax you more—you've put your money away, trusting your government would do no such thing. When they breach that trust, that's on them. You would have made an entirely different decision about what to do with your money if you had known that the tax was going to be higher, but they don't give you that option. That's why this is so important.

Australians make financial decisions based on the rules that governments put in place. This is exactly what this government is changing. It's changing the rules, moving the goalposts halfway through the game, and it's young people that pay the price. Superannuation has always relied on one crucial ingredient, and that is trust—trust that the system will be stable, trust that the rules will not be constantly rewritten, trust that governments will not raid Australians' retirement savings to fix their own budget problems. That's what they're doing. Labor has broken that trust, and the truth is that this is a Labor government that cannot be trusted.

At the last election, Labor did not tell the Australian people that they were fundamentally going to alter their superannuation settings or strip away indexation. In a democracy, those major structural changes must be put to the people transparently, and, instead, this proposal appeared out of the blue after limited consultation. Even Labor's own traditional allies called these 'fibs'. When Sally McManus, Bill Kelty and Paul Keating all agree that a tax policy is a bad idea, you can pretty much guarantee that it's a disaster. Sally McManus herself warned that thresholds must be indexed so that everyday people don't get caught in the net. Bill Kelty, the giant of the superannuation movement, warned that taxing unrealised gains is 'bad policy' and would destroy super. Paul Keating, the self-proclaimed father of the superannuation system, noted that ordinary workers would be caught up in this the net. These are Labor figures. These aren't Liberals; these are Labor figures.

While the government claimed it would only hit a few, industry analysis showed that this simply wasn't true. It was set to hit 1.8 million Australians, including and specifically many small-business owners.

Senator Hume, I'm compelled to move on to the next item of our business, which is two-minute statements. You will be in continuation.

South Australians will soon head to the polls after four years of a state Labor government which, based on the evidence, has failed to deliver promise after promise. On the weekend, when I was talking to locals across multiple suburbs, there was much talk of rising costs, a sick health system and ambulance ramping, which Labor said it would fix, at a new record high of 48,000 hours in 2025. It was Labor's spin that tried this week to turn a real story about patients and other people into something political. 'Despicable and inexcusable' hardly describes attempts to discredit a grieving widow who claimed the health system had failed her partner. 'I didn't do it; I didn't know about it,' is not good enough, Premier. This family has been through enough.

We have seen failure after failure and more twisting of the truth, with the Premier talking up state final demand growth when our exports are down, insolvencies are up to record levels and gross state product rose just one per cent in 2025, one of the lowest growth rates in the nation. What is your plan, Premier? Major event announcements don't pay the groceries, they don't pay the energy bills, they don't pay the rent and they don't pay the mortgage. The evidence is in. What are you doing? It's not working.

South Australia is still the greatest place on earth, but the days of it being the envy of the world are trashed through the work of state and federal Labor governments. Misrepresenting and distorting the truth is not the hallmark of a leader. Protecting your way of life and restoring your standard of living are not the reality under Labor. South Australians deserve better. The health system deserves better.

What? The South Australian Liberal Party?

No more broken promises. Senator Grogan, this is all about your government in South Australia.

Last Friday night in Freo, I joined WA colleagues and tourism champions from across the country for the 2025 Australian Tourism Awards. It was a very fitting location, with Freo having won the Australia's top Tourism Town Award just last year and the iconic Pinky Beach having placed itself in the second place for best beach in Australia.

There were many winners that night, all of whom deserve a shout-out, but to do that I would literally be here all day, so I thought I would just highlight a few of the winners. Not to be biased, but Queensland absolutely cleaned up. I want to give a special 'huzza' to the Abbey Medieval Festival, which had a gold win in the festivals and events category. South Australia, Senator Grogan, can be incredibly proud of the Big Duck Boat Tours and their gold win in ecotourism. Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance won a gold for cultural tourism, and the Western Australian Gourmet Camp Oven Experience took home two golds for their amazing work in food tourism. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to include Floriade here in Canberra. Chief Minister Andrew Barr took gold on the night.

I want to congratulate all of the winners and finalists and implore everyone to take a look at the list when planning your next getaway in our very great country. The tourism industry contributes 700,000 jobs to this great country, and these awards were all about acknowledging those workers and these businesses and the contribution that they make to the Australian economy.

As we celebrate International Women's Day, we must acknowledge the global backlash against feminism and gender equality. Sadly, Australia is no exception. Research out last week found that over a third of young men agree with misogynistic attitudes and 40 per cent believe that women lie about domestic and sexual violence. We rightly point to the manosphere of rising online misogyny, but we cannot pretend that these attitudes only fester in the dark corners of the internet. We cannot ignore what happens every day to normalise gender inequality.

When a local footballer is convicted of rape and the town shuns his victim while writing character references for her rapist, when many women complain about a doctor and the hospital does nothing, when the Prime Minister calls a powerful advocate for women's rights 'difficult', when police tell a terrified woman to cool off and to give her estranged husband a break days before he burns her to death, when Aboriginal women report violence to police and are misidentified as the perpetrator, when women stay in violent relationships rather than risk homelessness and poverty because the government has failed to invest in affordable housing, when more than 70 per cent of workplaces still have a gender pay gap favouring men, when we can't find the money for women's refuges, legal services, sexual assault counsellors and recovery centres but we can always find money for war, when bombing a girls school does not cause outrage but speaking against it does, when my colleague Senator Faruqi speaks against racism and sexism and causes a barrage of hateful comments not only online but from members in this place, fighting back against rape culture and gender inequality requires a collective effort. We must tackle online misogyny, change police and judicial attitudes, close the pay gap, model equality in this place and fully fund frontline support services. (Time expired)

Australians were promised cheaper energy under a Labor government led by Anthony Albanese. In fact, the Prime Minister promised households that their power bills would fall by $275. He made that promise 97 times. But, instead, energy bills have skyrocketed by 40 per cent under Labor. This is the reality facing Australian families and businesses every single day. Higher energy costs flow through to everything from groceries to freight, and Australians are struggling.

Labor's ideological net zero obsession is failing the nation. Their renewables-only agenda, championed by energy minister Chris Bowen, is simply not delivering the reliability or affordability Australians need. We need a sensible mix, one that keeps coal-fired power stations online and provides us with natural gas capacity while we transition to a lower-emissions future—and nuclear technology must be part of that mix. Australians do not want ideology; they want reliable and affordable power so they can heat their homes in winter and cool them in summer. If Labor continue on their path, things will only get worse—and we're seeing the results of that now, as Australians are forced to ration fuel due to shortages.

The buck stops with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese, who are taking a Marie Antoinette approach to energy: 'Rather than let them eat cake, just let people sit at home in the dark.' It is on the government, with all its support in the Public Service, to ensure Australians have adequate supplies of fuel. I can tell you that, in Queensland, people are running out of fuel and tractors are running out of fuel. It is up to this government to fix the problem.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting two international students from the University of Tasmania, Abir Khondoker and Yee Coey Hung, who are already benefiting from the Albanese Labor government's recent update to the temporary graduate visa settings. They represent exactly the kind of talent we want studying, working and building a future in Tasmania.

Six months ago the Labor government, through the efforts of assistant minister Julian Hill, made an important change to the temporary graduate visa. Hobart and surrounding postcodes are now recognised as qualifying regional areas, allowing eligible UTAS graduates to stay and work in Tasmania for an additional year after they've finished their studies. Importantly, this change brings southern Tasmanian graduates into line with the rest of Tasmania and other regional centres across the country.

Previously, graduates living in Hobart did not have access to the additional regional extension available elsewhere in Tasmania. While students studying in other regions could stay longer and build their careers, those based in Hobart missed out on that extra year. This reform fixes that imbalance and makes Tasmania a more attractive place for international students to study, work and build their careers in.

Students like Abir and Yee Coey show exactly why this matters. Yee Coey is training to become a midwife—an essential professional for Tasmanian families and one where our state faces ongoing workforce shortages in health care. Abir, nearing the completion of his degree, is undertaking a data analytics internship with the CSIRO, building skills that will support Tasmania's growing research and technology sectors. These reforms give graduates the time and certainty to build careers, contribute to our economy and put down roots in our communities. For Tasmania, that's not just good migration policy; it's a practical investment in our future workforce.

Aussies are angry about not getting a fair return on the export of our gas. I have an inquiry before this Senate to look into this—to look at why this is the case and what can be done. We have a proposal from the ACTU for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. This has broad support in the community. I've received thousands of emails from people saying that this is something the Senate should be doing, and I know that many of my colleagues in here have also received those emails. So I ask my Senate colleagues: Who is that we're in here to represent? Is it everyday Australians, the people who voted to send someone to Canberra to look out for them and their families? Or is it the gas companies who have made huge, huge amounts of money off our gas?

We have a finite resource; we are one of the largest gas exporters in the world, yet we're willing to give away half of that gas for free. It doesn't cut it, and Australians are getting angrier and angrier about the political failure on this issue. We saw some polling come out of Farrer just yesterday, and three-quarters of people polled agreed or agreed strongly that gas corporations should pay a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, and only 10 per cent believed that we shouldn't. So why is the Senate siding with the gas companies rather than with Australians who want to see us get a fair return on our resources? Those are our resources. Once they're gone, they're gone, and we're likely to see gas companies make tens of billions of dollars extra off the war in Iran.

In question time last Thursday, Minister Watt egregiously misled the Senate. He said that the coalition wants to cut the Key Apprenticeship Program. He said that I told Channel 7 that the coalition would scrap the scheme. Minister Watt repeated the same false claim made by the Minister for Skills and Training, Andrew Giles. In making this false claim, Minister Giles and Minister Watt relied on Channel 7's editorial comment, not the comments I made when interviewed. Indeed, Channel 7 has since corrected the record, and I've written to Minister Watt asking him to correct the record too. Has he had the decency or humility to do so? Of course not. Intellectual honesty is beyond this minister—and, honestly, so is intellect.

Should Australians be surprised that Labor is misleading them? Of course not. Australians are used to it. Falsehood after falsehood, fabrication after fabrication—that's of course the Labor way. Labor said inflation has turned the corner—false. Labor said Australians' power bills will come down by $275 a year—false. Labor said it has ruled out new taxes on Australians' homes and their super—false. Labor said it would build 1.2 million new homes—false. Labor said it didn't assist ISIS supporters—false. Labor said Australians would be better off under its leadership—false.

Labor has no reverence for the truth. Australians deserve better than Labor's Orwellian ministry of truth.

Sparrow Force, 2nd/40th Australian Infantry Battalion, the Battle of Timor—this is for them:

Scorched earth and sorrowed jungle gloom,

The hope you held like precious flame

Within a world of fear and doom.

You marched beside your weary mates,

Enduring loss the soul can't name,

Yet through the darkest, hardest days

You never let them break your flame.

Brave soul—unyielding, gentle heart,

You bore the weight with silent pride,

Dreaming of home through bitter nights

With memories of love your guide.

Your courage carved through pain and loss,

A legacy that lives in me,

A whisper from the Burma tracks

Of all you hope one day to see.

Grief lingers in the things unsaid,

In moments only you would know,

I bear the longing, year by year,

As seasons come and seasons go.

But love endures, undimmed by time—

A thread that binds each night and day,

And though you've gone from sight and sound,

Within my heart you always stay.

So rest now, Dad, your journey done,

No more the hardship or the fight—

May peace enfold your gentle soul

And lift you softly through the night.

Eternal love remains, unbound—

A child's devotion, strong and true.

Until we meet beyond the dawn,

I'll always keep remembering you.

This is for the Tasmanians who made up the majority of the 2/40th Battalion in the Second World War. This was attributed to Michael Polley, TX5313, for the sacrifice that they made and for their being able to survive the Burma Railway and come home.

In the past hour, the Albanese government has introduced sweeping powers to stop refugees fleeing the bombs in Iran and around the Middle East—on the very same day that the Prime Minister is offering protection to the Iranian women's soccer team, this government is now slamming the door shut for anybody else. What have we become? A country led by a government that backs Trump's bloody war and then deserts the very people we are meant to be helping. After backing Trump's escalating war, seeing schoolchildren bombed to death and innocent families killed, we are then stopping these very same people—these families; these men, women, children and babies—from being able to seek refuge. This is sick, obscene politics. The Labor government is locked in a race to the bottom with the Liberal Party and One Nation. Now we see the real politics before us: dropping bombs, cheering on Trump's bombing and then shutting the door on those fleeing the violence.

War kills people. Wars create refugees. People are fleeing because their homes, their schools and their hospitals are being destroyed. Their family members are being killed. The sheer hypocrisy of this government to rush into this parliament this week laws that give sweeping powers to keep the very people who need our help away from our country, slamming the door in their face and cheering on Trump's bombs, is disgusting. (Time expired)

Western Australians should be paying very close attention to two pieces of legislation before the WA parliament: the so-called post-and-boast laws and the new antiprotest laws. We're being told these laws are about public safety, but many across our community, from unions to civil society groups and freedom advocates, are warning that these laws go too far.

The post-and-boast bill is supposed to target people who film themselves committing crimes and post it online. Most people would agree that behaviour should have consequences, but the way this law is written is incredibly broad. A parliamentary committee has already warned it could capture things like footage from protests or demonstrations even if the purpose is to raise awareness or document what is happening. The proposed penalty is up to three years in prison, which is the harshest of its kind around the country. Even more concerning is that the law would be retrospective, meaning it could apply to things people have posted in the past before the law even existed. I have to ask: should I be worried about the Palestine rallies I attended? Should I be worried about the Curtin student encampment I visited in solidarity? Should union members be worried about sharing footage from industrial action? Should environmental activists be worried about documenting their protests? If a law is so broad that ordinary people are asking these questions, then something has gone very wrong.

The antiprotest laws raise similar concerns. They expand police powers to block or shut down protests and were rushed through with consultation with barely 48 hours for feedback. Freedom of speech and the right to protest are fundamental in our democracy. (Time expired)

To put it mildly, we have a Minister for Climate Change and Energy that is gaslighting the Australian community. Minister Bowen goes out in the media to talk about our country's liquid fuel situation, particularly diesel, and says 'nothing to see here'. This is because we have an energy minister that has an ideological policy, not a practical policy. How can you say that there is nothing to see here when I have spoken to earthmoving companies in Western Australia who have no guarantee of fuel supplies coming their way and their distributor, a small distributor in Western Australia, is told they have zero allocation at the import fuel terminal? I've got a potato farmer in the south-west of Western Australia who has got a week of fuel on farm but is being told he will not get deliveries of new fuel for three weeks,

There is a gap there. Minister Bowen cannot just keep saying 'nothing to see here'. The fact is that there are real issues that are hurting real people on the ground. We've seen these reports right across Australia—in regional Western Australia, my home state; in Queensland; and in other states—that fuel supplies are at best highly uncertain and where deliveries are at best coming at an unknown point in time. I have talked to farmers who have prepurchased fuel and have now been told, 'That fuel is simply not available.' If there is nothing to see here, how is that possibly the case? We need a government, a Liberal government, that's focused on restoring Australia's standard of living and making sure that the economy can function as it should. (Time expired)

One hundred and twenty-six years ago, history said:

First, they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.

The author of this commentary on social change wasn't Gandhi. Its 1918 author was unionist Nicholas Klein on the successful struggle to establish fair working conditions in America's textile industry. I'm reminded of this aphorism daily by constituents who draw a parallel with One Nation's recent progress. For One Nation, the 'burn you' part has started amongst the media, politics, corrupted union bosses and crony capitalists. Well, good luck with that!

Last weekend drew a sellout crowd of 600 to the Albury Entertainment Centre for the preselection of our Farrar by-election candidate, David Farley. The people have decided that our Western heritage is worth fighting for. Julius Caesar described our Celtic forebears as barbarians and noted their ferocity and individual courage that at times lacked discipline and order. How true are those words today, from the courage of our leader Pauline Hanson to the fierce determination that One Nation members show across our country? We do from time to time demonstrate a lack of discipline, which is a strength. It's our certificate of authenticity from a party that puts Australia first.

As for barbarians at the gate, One Nation does not seek validation from people who turn their backs on everyday Australians and govern from feelings, not facts. Poor governance has resulted in our young being disenfranchised from housing, from breadwinner jobs and from children. Labor and the Greens have destroyed private jobs growth and small business, created ruinous inflation and made people's lives far harder. A common Celtic battle cry translates to 'fierce when roused', perfectly describing everyday Australians of all nationalities now flocking to One Nation. (Time expired)

It's been just over one week since the US and Israel illegally bombed Iran. Let me tell you, the mission creep and the deception from this Albanese Labor government are frightening. The announcement today from the Albanese Labor government that we are sending military aircraft, surface and air-to-air missiles, and Australian Defence Force personnel to the Middle East is very concerning and yet more evidence that Australia is being dragged into another US forever war. Australians do not want to get dragged into Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war on Iran. To keep civilians safe—and that was the logic we heard from the Prime Minister this morning—we should be urging peace and diplomacy and a rules based order, not sending missiles, military aircraft and Defence Force personnel. Have we learnt nothing from history, from the mistakes of the past?

I remember when the Labor government opposed the invasion of Iraq. Like the Greens and millions of Australians, Labor back then knew it was a con. What have we have learnt from this conflict so far? In the last week there have been five different explanations for the illegal bombing of Iran, from removing a nuclear program that the International Atomic Energy Agency and US security forces said doesn't exist or the fact that Iran was going to attack us, which the Pentagon totally debunked three days ago, through to this and to that. Australians know it's a con. We know it's a lie and so do many other people around the world. That's why they are rightly anxious and concerned that we are committing ourselves, yet again, to another military conflict— (Time expired)

Right now, if you're an Aussie enjoying a hard earned schooner, you're contributing more to our national budget than some of the biggest gas companies on the planet. Treasury's own numbers show we raise more from the tax on beer—about $2.7 billion—than we do from the petroleum resource rent tax, which is expected to bring in just $1.5 billion this year. How is that a 'fair crack'? We're taxing Aussies at the pub more than the multinational corporations exporting our natural sovereign resources.

We look at Norway and wonder how they do it. They didn't get that lucky; they got smart. They decided their oil and gas belonged to the people, not just the boardrooms. They built a sovereign wealth fund now worth over 2.8 trillion Aussie dollars. That's more than the annual GDP of Australia. You heard me right. Norway saved more money than our entire country produces in a year. They were able to do this because they had the guts to tax resources properly. Norway fund 20 per cent of their national budget without breaking a sweat. That wealth flows into universal health care, free world-class education and housing treated as a right, not a speculative luxury. In Australia, we're doing the opposite. We're squandering a once-in-a-century boom while our own people struggle to find a rental or see a GP.

If the Labor and Liberal parties are serious about creating intergenerational equity, it requires more than slogans. It requires action. We must stop being the world's most generous charity for gas giants. The next budget doesn't need to cut government services to manage the deficit. We can just make the gas giants finally pay their share. If we don't, we're just failing our grandkids. We're robbing them of a future they all deserve.

March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. One in seven Australian women live with endometriosis, and I am one of them. For too long, women's pain has been ignored and dismissed. For me, it took more than a decade of being dismissed and fobbed off by doctors to be diagnosed. I think this conversation is particularly important in light of recent allegations made against a surgeon at a private hospital in Victoria who, it's alleged, performed unnecessary and harmful surgeries on women who were desperately seeking answers for their pain. I know what it's like to be desperate in the search for answers for unexplained pelvic pain, and it's sickening that in the pursuit of those answers women have been treated with such harm and subjected to such trauma. We must do better by women.

Our government has made a record investment in women's health. We have opened pelvic pain and endo clinics right across the country and added new contraceptives and menopause treatments to the PBS for the first time in my lifetime. This is about making women's health care more accessible and more affordable for Australian women, but it's also about bringing these conversations out into the public domain. It's about making it okay to say that you have endometriosis—that you live with endometriosis or another pelvic pain condition. That means everything to Australian women—those one in seven Australian women who live with endometriosis, as I do.

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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Before the 2022 election, the Prime Minister was tweeting photographs of petrol prices at $1.79, $1.85 and $1.91 a litre, demanding action from the coalition. Today, Australians filling up at Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane—and including Darwin—are paying closer to $2.20 per litre. Minister, if $1.79 per litre for petrol was a national outrage when Labor was in opposition, why is $2.20 per litre apparently acceptable now that Labor is in government?

Senator Hume, I assume you are aware that there is a conflict in the Middle East, and I assume you are aware that that conflict is wider than has been anticipated. It's a conflict that has seen Iran attack some 12 countries in the Middle East. It has seen Iran attack hydrocarbon infrastructure in the Middle East and issue public threats over the Strait of Hormuz. We are confident in the fuel holdings that Australia has. I would make that point, despite the fearmongering by some opposite.

But what I would also say, Senator Hume, is that that question demonstrates the approach that your parties have taken for too many days in relation to this conflict, which is that, where the nation looks to bipartisanship, where the nation looks to there being less politics and more public interest and where the nation looks to the parties of government behaving as such, we see yet again those opposite for too long seeking to make politics out of this crisis. I would make this point. We saw Mr Taylor, the member for Hume, stand up, as I understand it, just before question time and belatedly giving some bipartisan support, and I welcome that—a little bit late, but that's okay. We welcome it because I actually think, and I think most Australians think, this might actually be a time to try and look to the national interest, and that is the invitation to the opposition. Why don't you try, just for once, to look at national interests rather than petty political interests? (Time expired)

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Higher petrol bases are now compounding the pain for families who are already suffering under Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis, with higher mortgages, higher electricity bills and higher grocery bills—a cost-of-living crisis that existed long before the conflict in Iran. Minister, why has your government spent three years increasing government expenditure, fuelling inflation, weakening household budgets and leaving Australians exposed to exactly this kind of shock?

This from the former shadow finance minister whose legacy would have been more debt, higher deficits and higher taxes! I mean, really, Senator Hume! For you to ask a question on that when you are—and I invite you to read the election review, because I would remind you that the policy you are personally responsible for—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hume?

It's a point of order on relevance. The question was about the cost-of-living crisis under Labor's homegrown inflation.

Minister Wong, I will draw you back to Senator Hume's question.

With respect, Senator Hume, you raised the issue of government spending and you are making an assertion about government spending. There are a couple of responses to that. The first is that we invite you to tell us what you would cut. We invite you to do that. Secondly, if you cared so much about government spending, Senator Hume, why did you go to an election with higher deficits and higher debt? Why would you? (Time expired)

Order! Senator Hume, before I call you feel you for your second supplementary, I do need to hear the minister, and you were yelling more loudly than the minister. A second supplementary?

The Prime Minister clearly cared about petrol prices when they were politically useful to him in opposition. Now that Australians are paying more under Labor, what's he actually going to do about bringing prices down rather than forcing families to carry yet another cost in Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis?

Ministers are in daily contact with fuel retailers and suppliers to ensure that supplies of diesel and fuel are getting to where they need to go. We are also watching fuel prices closely.

There's an interjection from Senator McKenzie, who was first amongst those to politicise the crisis. It's unsurprising you're there and it's unsurprising representation of the Nationals in the Senate.

Order, Senator McKenzie! This is not a debate. It's question time, and the minister needs to be heard in silence.

I will go back to fuel prices. I again say what the Treasurer and other ministers have said: retailers should not be using these events in the Middle East to price gouge.

Senator McKenzie, I am trying to answer the question and occasionally it would be good—

Senator McKenzie, stop the interjections!

Retailers should not be using events in the Middle East to price gouge Australians, and the ACCC have said they will not hesitate to take action where people are breaking our laws. We are monitoring fuel prices and supply impacted by events in the Middle East. Australians will recall we did— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The conflict in the Middle East continues, with Iran's reprisal attacks now targeting 12 countries. This continues to cause economic and travel disruption for many nations and people all around the world. Could the minister, please, provide an update to the Senate on the conflict and how the Albanese government is responding to the conflict?

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for the question. The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is, and will always be, to keep Australians safe at home and abroad. This has been a difficult time for Australians in the Middle East. Iran has attacked 12 countries, and we have seen overnight that these attacks are escalating. In recent days, Dubai airport itself has been under fire from Iranian missiles and drones and, since 28 February, more than 27,000 flights to and from the Middle East have been cancelled.

I am pleased that, as of this morning, some 2,600 Australians have returned on 18 commercial flights, and further services are scheduled in coming days. We know commercial airlines remain the fastest way to help Australians leave the Middle East at scale. I am also advised by airports and airlines that the overwhelming majority of Australian passengers stranded while transiting through the Middle East have now left. However, there are many more Australians still in the region. With the airport closed in Kuwait, we have arranged bus transportation to Riyadh. Two of those buses arrived this morning, allowing Australians to continue their journey from there on commercial lights. Similarly for Australians in Bahrain, DFAT officials are working with our partners on arranging bus transport to Riyadh in coming days.

We know getting on buses and planes is a very difficult decision for Australians living in the region, but I would again make the statement that the Prime Minister and I made this morning: we encourage those who wish to leave to do so now, while commercial flights, however limited, remain available. The DFAT crisis centre remains activated. The registration portal is open for Australians in Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Qatar, Lebanon and the UAE. We continue to advise: do not travel to most destinations in the Middle East.

Senator Ciccone, first supplementary?

Minister, as you say, the government's No. 1 priority is to keep Australians safe. Could you please provide an update on the Albanese government's ongoing efforts to protect Australians in the region?

This growing wave of dangerous and destabilising attacks from Iran puts civilian lives at risk, including Australian lives. In response to requests, Australia will deploy an E-7A Wedgetail to the Gulf, to help protect and defend Australians and other civilians, for an initial four weeks and provide advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to the UAE. The E-7A Wedgetail can provide long-range reconnaissance capability to help secure air space, as it recently did as part of our assistance to Ukraine.

The Senate will also be aware that the government does not usually disclose specific information regarding Australian personnel on defence operations, for operational and security reasons. However, on 6 March the NSC met and the Prime Minister determined it was in the public interest to disclose that three Australian personnel were present on the US submarine off the coast of Sri Lanka on 5 March. We are clear today that Australia is not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

As the Prime Minister and you, Minister Wong, have said since the beginning of this conflict, disruptions could go on for some time. What is the government doing to support Australia's interest during this conflict?

Thank you, Senator Ciccone. You know that our focus has been to do all we can to keep Australians safe and secure at this time—deploying consular teams, providing options to get Australians to safety and ensuring we have fuel reserves. I again return to what I was asked in the first question of question time, which is to say: it is disappointing that the opposition has sought to play partisan politics with so many aspects of this crisis. I note they have belatedly now backed in the government. We saw Senator Paterson pretty flat-footed when he demanded on Thursday that Australia should send aircraft to the Middle East, on the same day that I had announced that Australia had already deployed military assets as part of our contingency.

No. Look at the time of your tweet. You just got it wrong, mate. The shadow foreign minister has either deliberately misled the public about travel advice or has exposed that he does not understand how it works, and the shadow's shadow, Senator Sharma, suggested repatriating Australians via Cyprus, which has been under drone attack.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Communities in regional Western Australia, including Kulin and Corrigin, are already rationing fuel and shutting pumps to motorists. On what basis does the government continue to claim that there are no supply constraints, when country towns are plainly experiencing them right now?

I will respond to that question, which, really, Minister Bowen responded to in the press conference today. He said we don't have a supply problem; we do have a demand challenge, where there is greater demand, particularly in some areas, than previously. I would encourage—

We're rationing in some areas.

We see Senator McKenzie again doing what she often does, which is to try and create fear and misinformation. I would really encourage the opposition to be very careful about how they handle this issue.

In terms of what I am advised, I can say this: we have as much fuel coming through our ports now as we did before the war began. I'll say that again: we have as much fuel coming through our ports now as we did before the war began. However, we do understand that there are some regions and farmers who are having difficulty getting the fuel that they require. As the minister said in the press conference with the Prime Minister today, the primary problem is not supply; the primary problem is changes in demand. You have some responsibility in helping to deal with that. If the country engages in spikes in demand because people are panicking, because they are being encouraged to panic by certain shadow ministers and others, that is not a good thing for the market.

I wasn't actually looking at you, Senator. I was looking over there. I'm also advised that the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the minister for agriculture and the minister for industry are holding talks with suppliers and the farming sector, I believe, today—it may be tomorrow; I'll check which is correct—because of issues raised around diesel, fuel and fertiliser.

Senator O'Sullivan, first supplementary?

When did the government first become aware that the fuel suppliers were restricting deliveries to customers in regional Western Australia?

First, in relation to my first answer, Minister Ayres just advised me that the meeting has occurred today. The second—I would have to take on notice when we became aware of that. It's obviously not my portfolio, but I would say, again, I think there is a distinction between how much supply is coming to Australia and the pattern of demand that the market is responding to. I really would encourage the opposition to be responsible in their language.

Senator O'Sullivan, second supplementary?

When Corrigin Roadhouse owner Scott Coppin describes '10 to 15 minimum cars lined up trying to get fuel and filling up jerry cans' and says, 'It was like a scene out of a movie,' how can the government claim that there are no supply issues? Why don't you just tell us the truth, or are you saying that Mr Coppin is wrong?

You ought to just give it away—just give the whole thing away!

Seriously, you just don't care. Have you been to a regional town in WA?

It's shameful—utterly shameful.

Come to Corrigin.

Order across the chamber! Order, Senator Ayres and Senator Cash and Senator O'Sullivan. Honestly, I should not have to call senators name by name to get people to come to order. I should just say 'order' and you come to order.

A responsible party of government can hold the government to account. A responsible party of government should not engage in misinformation and that was. The government is being clear. We have as much fuel coming through our ports now as we did before the war began. The challenge we have is one of demand, and I would, again, encourage the opposition to behave in a responsible manner, as the government—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, resume your seat. I'm waiting for the chamber to come to order.

I've made clear the position in terms of what is coming into Australia. I also have said, as the minister has said, that we are seeing patterns of demand which differ from the norm. That is obviously going to mean that there are some regions and communities who are experiencing difficulties. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The Australian public does not want to be dragged and into Trump and Netanyahu's illegal forever war—a war that has already seen thousands of civilians injured and killed, the world spiralling into economic chaos and even greater insecurity for the people of Iran and the region. Yet the Labor government has confirmed that we are now sending missiles and troops to the gulf, directly putting Australians in the line of fire. Is the deployment of these missiles, aircraft or personnel at the direct or indirect request of Donald Trump's administration? How, exactly, was this decision made?

Senator, I would invite you—I know that the Greens political party has a narrative about this. Unfortunately, the facts don't fit the narrative. I would really encourage you to look at what the Prime Minister and the defence minister and myself announced this morning.

Like the nuclear program, or that Iran was going to attack us first?

Senator Whish-Wilson, I'm not—

Maybe you should do better listening.

Order!

The first point I would make is that Iran is attacking countries who have not been part of striking Iran. I would make that point first. The United Arab Emirates and many of the other Gulf countries have not been taking part in the strikes on Iran, and they continue to do so. We also have Australians in the region. You speak of Australian lives. I've made clear we have 115,000 Australians in the region. A large cohort of those are in the United Arab Emirates, where there were 24,000 at the commencement of the conflict.

The capability we have announced today is defensive. It is to help Gulf countries protect themselves and their citizens, including Australian citizens who are there, from attack by Iran. We have made clear that we are prepared to take defensive action. These assets will operate according to Australian law, policy and directives. I again say what I have said previously: we are not taking offensive action against Iran and we will not be deploying Australian troops—

Point of order on relevance. The question was, 'How did this decision to deploy our troops and assets get made?' The minister has not come to that part of the question at all.

There was also a preamble to the question, and the minister is being directly relevant to the question.

This is a government decision made through the appropriate government processes.

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Australia keeps bowing to Trump's and Netanyahu's demands. In just over a week, the Labor government has gone from politically supporting this illegal war to refuelling US spy planes and now handing over missiles and troops. How can the government assert that these weapons will be used solely for defensive purposes when they will clearly free up US and Israeli weapons to make further offensive strikes in this illegal war?

This is a defensive capability which is in response to requests we have received from Gulf countries. I understand you want a black-and-white binary question on this war, and you're entitled to not support it; I appreciate that. But I think it is wrong to try and look at this as if this is a different decision to that which has been announced. What has been announced is a defensive capability responding to requests to protect Gulf countries from strikes against their citizens, including civilian infrastructure like airports, in locations where there are Australians. You might want to demonise that but it is wrong to suggest that this is not a capability about defending civilians. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Having now deployed Australians into the war zone, we've learned that the government is simultaneously shutting the door to all Iranians who have been approved to travel to Australia for things like weddings, funerals, business meetings or holidays. What justification does the government have for resourcing this war but then shutting the door on Iranian people suffering from that war?

I think you have seen, particularly in recent days, our view about the people of Iran and the brutality of the Iranian regime. I assume you're referring to the bill in Mr Burke's portfolio, and I'm sure Senator Watt can respond as to the rationale for that.

Senator, I answer a lot of questions. I'm very happy for Senator Watt to answer questions about the detail of this. I again say, in relation to the primary question, that the facts don't fit the narrative that the Greens have, and that's the truth.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister update the chamber on how the Australian economy is well positioned to manage global economic uncertainty caused by the conflict in the Middle East?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question, and it's an important one. The escalation of conflict in the Middle East has already had significant impacts on the global economy, including on uncertainty, which always weighs heavily on markets. When this conflict began, we said we expected to see flow-on effects for the global economy, and we are seeing that play out.

Oil is trading at about $90 now, I think—the last time I looked—but it got up to almost $120 a barrel yesterday. It was at $60 at the start of the year and at about $73 at the start of this conflict. It has come down since yesterday, but it remains much higher than it was prior to the conflict beginning. In addition to the comments that Senator Wong has already made, our nation is fuel secure. We are above our minimum petrol stockholding obligations. Petrol companies have informed us that their fuel stocks continue to arrive in Australia on time and in the quantities that they expect, and we are in this position because the government has acted over the last few years to build resilience. But we know the longer this conflict drags on the more significant the impact on Australia will be.

We had an inflation challenge before these developments, but the conflict in the Middle East risks making that worse, and we will update our inflation forecasts in the budget in the usual way. Markets were especially pessimistic over the last couple of days, but have begun to rebound today in reaction to comments from President Trump. The government and regulators are continuing to monitor the markets and the impact of this volatility closely. While Australia isn't immune to the global instability, we are well positioned, and last week's national accounts showed we had stronger economic growth than any major advanced economy. We've got low unemployment, high participation and strong jobs growth. (Time expired)

Senator Darmanin, first supplementary?

Minister, as you've outlined, the Albanese Labor government is closely monitoring developments, including any impact ongoing conflict may have on the cost of living for Australians. What steps is the Albanese Labor government taking to ensure consumers are being protected during this time of global uncertainty?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the supplementary. We've been clear with industry that the international crisis is not a chance to make a quick buck, and we take that seriously. That's why the Treasurer has written to the ACCC to ensure they are monitoring prices and market conduct. The ACCC have issued their own statement, putting retailers on notice, and senators will be aware that we increased penalties to up to $50 million, which is five times higher than they were.

So we've given the ACCC the tools they need, like extending petrol price monitoring powers and the ability to issue on-the-spot fines. Also, Minister Bowen, Minister Ayres and Minister Collins are convening key representatives from the farming, trucking, fuel and fertiliser industries today to ensure supply chains are well managed, and we will continue to monitor supply shipping and prices of fuel closely, with Minister Bowen convening the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee to ensure all states and territories are—

Thank you, Minister. Senator Darmanin, second supplementary?

When this government came to office, it was faced with an energy system that had been mismanaged for a decade. Can the minister explain why building resilience and sovereign capability has been such a high priority for this government?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question. Australians can have confidence in Australia's fuel security, because we have taken the action we needed to take to improve the situation from what we inherited. When we came to government, we had seen the closure of four of Australia's six fuel refineries, and Australia's emergency fuel supplies were located in Texas.

The coalition closed refineries; we've kept them open. The coalition stored emergency fuel on another continent; we are storing it here. The coalition talked about minimum stockholding obligations; we have implemented them. And the coalition talked about low-carbon-liquid fuels, like ethanol; we are investing in them. They've also voted against our coal and gas price caps and energy bill relief for Australians. The decisions we have made in the last term and over the last few years have put us in a much stronger position to deal with some of the pressures that we have seen flow out of the conflict in the Middle East.

My question is to the Minister for Science and Minister for Industry and Innovation. Big tech and their mates have been running around this place telling the government that weakening our copyright laws is the price we have to pay for a strong AI industry. What a load of rubbish. Basically they want to use all of our creative content for free. Channel 9's CEO told the Financial Review last year that AI were crawling Nine's website almost 10 times a second. That's not innovation. That's called plain-out theft. Minister, your government has said that you won't change our copyright laws and that you will protect Australia's creative industries. Can you reassure Australians that we will stand firm and protect Australian copyright holders?

Thanks, Senator Lambie. The short answer is yes. The longer answer, if I might take a little bit of the allotted time, is that of course artificial intelligence offers Australia a significant opportunity. It does come with some risks that it is the government's responsibility to manage.

The National AI Plan that the government released at the end of last year, if my memory serves me correctly, had three core components. The first was making sure that we capture the opportunity of artificial intelligence investment here in Australia not just for economic reasons but for security and strategic reasons as well as much of the technology stack here in Australia. Second is that we spread the benefits throughout the Australian community and make sure that it's captured not just for the CBDs of our inner cities but for Australians in the suburbs and small and medium enterprises in our economy, and that Australians in the regions benefit from this technology. Third is dealing with the risks and dealing with the harms, and that is what the AI Safety Institute has been commissioned to do. That is, of course, accompanied by a solid commitment from this government to not undermine copyright protections for Australian artists and other Australian content producers—you cite newspapers and television—as well. That's our approach, and it hasn't changed.

Senator Lambie, first supplementary?

Big tech like Anthropic and OpenAI are valued in the billions. In fact, Google's Alphabet is worth $4 trillion. These companies can afford to pay for Australian copyright. Minister, what plans do you have to make big tech pay and to regulate AI so they will stop getting a free ride?

There are no free rides in Australia for people who want to use—like everybody else, whether it's big tech—

Order, Senator McKim!

What about the PRRT? That's a—

It seems the usual behavioural problem is replicated again down here.

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, come to order. Minister, please continue.

As the Attorney-General said first in October last year and has repeated consistently since, the government is not considering a text- and data-mining exception for Australia. We are not considering that as an option for Australia. We stand firmly behind Australia's creative industries and will continue to do so.

Senator Lambie, second supplementary?

Minister, last week you heard the Canadian PM encourage middle powers like Australia to invest in our Australian made AI. This is not just a sovereignty issue; it's also a national security issue. It is so damn important, but we still have no minister for AI. Canada has invested $4.4 billion. Meanwhile, we're letting big tech take Australians for a ride. Can the minister tell me why we aren't investing in Australian made AI?

I just make the point, firstly that Australia is an excellent place for artificial intelligence investment, both in digital infrastructure, because of our vast reserves of solar and wind and storage backed by gas—that is what that sector wants to see; that is the power and energy equation that they want to see, because it's the lowest cost for them—and because of our significant space, because of our proximity to fast-growing digital markets in our region, and also because of our secure governance and our stable, secure arrangements, in security terms, with partner economies. That offers—

Senator Lambie?

Point of order on relevance: I'd like to know why we aren't investing in AI in Australia, in our Australian firms.

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

That's exactly the point, Senator Lambie. Australia is an attractive destination for investors.

My question is to the Minister for Finance and Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher, representing the minister for Social Services. Minister, in a very welcome move, your government released a month ago the first ever standalone plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, backed by $218.3 million in new funding over four years. How much of that funding will be invested in setting up ACCOs to deliver community led specialist support services that help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and families who are experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence in the ACT?

I thank Senator Pocock for the question. I'm not sure I've got all of the detail in terms of being able to answer that, but the majority of the allocation to that plan, 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', which was a huge piece of work that has been delivered in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women across the country, as Senator Pocock said, backed by $218.3 million in new funding over four years—my understanding of that is that that funding will primarily be provided to Aboriginal community controlled organisations to deliver community led specialist support services as a commitment to the principles that underpin the plan, which are that ACCOs are in a better position to deliver tailored support services to local communities.

So that's primarily how the funding will be allocated to the national network of up to 40 Aboriginal community controlled organisations to deliver those services. There may be exceptions to that where, for one reason or another, that's the appropriate decision. But, in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, the fundamental principles underpinning 'Our Ways—Strong Ways—Our Voices', as the first ever dedicated plan to end violence against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and children, have been to partner with those organisations that are best placed to deliver those support services. It has been a matter of significant discussion, since the national plan was implemented and agreed by states and territories, that a specific plan that responded to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women was required, which has led to this plan being agreed and the funding being allocated to it.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I really appreciate your work on this. I've been advised by the CEO of the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre that they face a cut to their funding of 60 per cent, meaning that First Nations victims-survivors of sexual violence in the ACT will lose access to the specialist Nguru Program they operate, from June. Will there be a net increase or a net decrease in support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women and families who are experiencing family, domestic and sexual violence in the ACT under this program?

I'll see if I can provide any further information, but we are putting additional resources into resourcing the dedicated plan—'Our Ways'—to make sure that we are responding to some of the level of needs that are being sought by the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community, represented by those women's organisations. I've seen the story in the Canberra Times today around decisions they are making with the funding that's sometimes provided through the Commonwealth but also their own funding to put that out to a process for an ACCO, an Aboriginal controlled community organisation, to apply for the money that has been provided, but it really is a matter for the ACT government. From our point of view, we are putting in additional resources that are being provided to organisations and states and territories. If there's anything further I can provide, I will update the senator.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. Minister, what steps is the government taking to ensure that the ACT government funds services like the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre and DVCS beyond June this year? How are you ensuring that money is actually getting to the ground where it needs to get?

Senator Pocock asks a really important question. We can provide additional resourcing, but we want to make sure that does flow on to services. That doesn't always mean that services will always get what—the arrangements they have are under contract for a certain period of time. I know the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre are an amazing service. I haven't spoken to the Minister for Women in the ACT about this particular decision, but, from reading the article, I can understand about having to look at what's being offered and looking at how we entrust Aboriginal controlled community organisations to provide a level of service in line with the commitments we've made under our plan. In relation to DVCS—again, another amazing service here in the ACT—there is an ongoing issue, which the Commonwealth is engaging with the ACT government on to make sure that that funding is provided to that organisation.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Monday, Labor's energy minister, Chris Bowen, told Australians that panic buying, not supply issues, was behind the fuel shortages across Australia, even as regional servos were already running out of diesel and turning people away. These predictable shortages are impacting our most critical food bowl in the electorate of Farrer and exposing Labor's complete failure to secure and prioritise fuel supply and distribution when a crisis hits the system. Can the minister advise whether the Prime Minister still has confidence in Mr Bowen's management of fuel security and, if so, why, under Labor's emergency management plan, farmers and truckies who feed the nation are not guaranteed to be first in line for diesel ahead of city motorists.

He loves his war! He loves the war.

Order! Senator Shoebridge, come to order. When senators are on their feet asking a question, they have the right to be heard in silence. Minister Wong.

Thank you, Senator Bell. I've been here long enough to see people campaign in the Senate for state elections and for by-elections, and I can say to you that I've never seen it actually have an effect on the ground, but you go your hardest. That's fine.

Secondly, the point I would make in terms of the track record of the government—Senator Gallagher went through it, I think, very clearly in the question she answered—is that it is our government that established domestic fuel reserves for diesel, for petrol and for jet fuel. It is our government that put a gas reservation in place so more affordable gas goes to Australian households and industries. We introduced minimum stockpiling obligations so we could withstand energy supply shocks, and that does stand in contrast to Mr Taylor's decision, while he was the minister, to put Australian fuel reserves in Texas.

Like Waco.

I would—sorry. I apologise. The minister is distracting me.

What I would say to you though, Senator, is the same thing I said to Senator O'Sullivan, which is that the advice to us very clearly is that we have as much fuel coming through our ports now as we did before the war began. It is the case that there is demand in some areas of our country, regional areas but also in some different sectors, which differs from the normal patterns of demand. Obviously, that does create a mismatch between supply and demand. It is a function of differing demand patterns, not a function of supply, and we would encourage the parliament to be responsible in how they engage with industry on this, given the national interest.

Senator Bell, first supplementary?

Minister, you claim that there is as much diesel in the country today as there was when this crisis started. But, if that is true, will the government explain why, after a very predictable rise in demand during a crisis, Labor's fuel security system has broken down and why, under Mr Bowen's watch, the very farmers who need that diesel to get this year's crops in the ground are being denied access to it?

Yes, producers of Australia's food and fibre do need the fuel that is required to produce that, which is why those opposite, including yourself, shouldn't stoke fear in the community. I suppose it is One Nation. I have to accept that that is the modus operandi, and I would note that we have already established domestic fuel reserves for diesel, petrol and jet fuel in Australia—minimum stockholding obligations.

No, people cannot get fuel, Senator Wong.

I know Senator McKenzie is desperate to intervene on your question, but you shouldn't let her. This is your question. You shouldn't let the National Party try and jump aboard the One Nation agenda, which is clearly what they are trying to do.

Senator Bell, second supplementary?

Australians have seen predictable supply shocks before, but, under Labor, we now seem to have more sovereign capability to supply toilet paper than we do to supply critical fuels like diesel to meet the demand of our farmers and critical food production. What does that say about Australia's food security policies under the Albanese Labor government, and when will the Prime Minister supply actual fuel security for the people who feed and power this country?

Your party was very silent when the coalition failed to put in place minimum stockpiling obligations. Your party was very silent when they put Texas as where fuel reserves would be.

Point of order on relevance: the minister knows that we raised this when the coalition was in government too.

That's not a point of order.

Senator, you engaged in a political attack. You're entitled to do that, and I'm entitled to respond. The reality is that you were very quiet as a party when Mr Taylor wanted to put fuel in Texas, and you were very quiet as a party when there was no minimum stockpiling obligation under the coalition. You have been very quiet as a party whilst—actually, did they vote against the coal and gas price caps and energy relief? Did you vote against those as well? That's interesting. You voted against coal and gas price caps for Australians, and now you complain about price increases. I think the hypocrisy is on display, if I may say.

My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Global energy markets have been disrupted by the war in the Middle East. The export of oil and gas through the Strait of Hormuz has largely stopped. Iran has attacked energy infrastructure across the region, and energy producers are shutting down production. Can the minister please provide an update on energy and supply chain pressures. Can the minister also outline the Albanese Labor government's actions thus far to protect the Australian economy and Australian households.

Thanks, Senator Sterle. It's good to have a question from someone with practical experience, particularly of diesel supplies in Western Australia, rather than the besuited fake political questions that came earlier on. The minimum stockholding guarantees a baseline level of domestic fuel stocks. This is held onshore in Australia or within our exclusive economic zone.

That is a very different approach to the approach taken by the previous government, where the stockholding, to the extent that it existed at all, was—like Waco, one of that team's favourite late-night documentaries—held in Texas. That was Mr Taylor's approach—to hold it in Texas.

Our current stocks have not materially changed since the commencement of the conflict: 36 days of petrol, equivalent to about 1.56 billion litres of petrol; 29 days, or 802 million litres, of jet fuel; and 32 days, or about 2.97 billion litres, of diesel. What the industry told Minister Bowen, the minister for agriculture, the minister for transport and me today is that there has been no real change in the stockholdings and the supply that Australia has. There have been some changes in some areas that relate to demand behaviour— (Time expired)

Senator Sterle, first supplementary?

Resilient domestic energy markets and supply chains are crucial for protecting households and the economy from international shocks. Minister, what action has the Albanese Labor government taken to build energy and supply-chain resilience? Is Australia more resilient to international shocks than it has been in the past?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Senators Green and McKenzie, come to order, both of you! If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Minister Ayres.

Australia is much more resilient in fuel security terms that it was when the Albanese government was first elected, in 2022. We have introduced and implemented the minimum stockpile obligation so that Australia can withstand energy shocks. We are bringing in a gas market reservation to make sure that Australian gas is there for Australian users, and during the Ukraine crisis we acted against the opposition of those opposite, who only know how to oppose.

Contrast this with Mr Taylor's record, who ignored advice to bring in a minimum stockholding obligation, who said—

We legislated it.

You legislated it, but you didn't do it. You sat on your hands and delivered nothing. You sent our fuel reserves to Texas and voted against coal and gas price caps, and you led a party that saw four out of six petrol refineries close.

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

During times of global turmoil, Australians looks to their political leaders to protect the national interest and for clear and calm guidance. Why is it important to provide this leadership and advice?

Once again, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation have disgraced themselves over the last two weeks. When Australians look to this place for calm, resolute leadership, what they see on one-half of the chamber is a desperate ploy for partisan advantage every time there is a national challenge. What Australians want to see when there is a national change is political leaders acting in the national interest.

There's a bit of a cycle here. A national challenge emerges. It is greeted by Mr Taylor and his friends with outrage, anger, division and misinformation. It moves on, and the stocks of the Liberals and the Nationals get lower. Then we meet the next national challenge; there is anger, outrage, misinformation and disinformation, and they sink lower still. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Last night the Shell service station at Upper Mount Gravatt in Brisbane ran out of Unleaded 91 and Unleaded 95. Minister, isn't that clear evidence of a fuel supply problem?

It certainly isn't. As I indicated in my answer before, it is important for these matters to be asserted calmly and with a basic level of information: Thirty-six days of petrol—that has not changed since the beginning of the war. That's 1.56 billion litres of petrol. In relation to jet fuel, 29 days worth of jet fuel—

Honourable senators interjecting—

We'll get to Mount Gravatt—don't you worry about that.

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. I'm just waiting for silence. Senator McDonald?

On relevance, the answer is going nowhere near my very tightly worded question.

Thank you, Senator McDonald. The minister is being relevant to the question.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It is incredibly disrespectful. I just had Senator McDonald on her feet, calling a point of order. She was short and succinct and to the point, which many of you are not. As I was answering the point of order, Senator McKenzie and others chose to then just start shouting across the chamber. That is rude and disrespectful to me and this Senate. Senator McDonald, I will listen carefully, and, if the minister is not being relevant to your question, I will call him to your question.

I understand why members of the coalition and One Nation find the assertion of the facts so offensive in this environment.

We just asserted the facts to you. They ran out of fuel.

That's enough from you, I reckon. Thirty-two days—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Ayres!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thirty-two days of diesel—honestly, it just goes on and on!

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! That response was absolutely out of order.

Opposition senators interjecting—

I have not finished. I've only just started. That response was out of order, absolutely out of order—shouting so loudly that you could not hear me try to bring the Senate to order. Senator Ayres, you will withdraw that comment.

I absolutely will.

And there will be silence for the rest of question time. Senator Ayres, please continue.

There is, as I was trying to indicate, 32 days of diesel supply left in Australia—2.97 billion litres of diesel. Now, those amounts have not fundamentally changed since the conflict in Iran began.

What has changed, Senator Canavan—if you are going to join the yelling over there—is that there has been some consumer behaviour that has changed. Some consumers are purchasing, as reported to me in the meeting that was held recently, four to five times the amount of diesel or the amount of petrol. Why would people be engaging in that kind of conduct?

Because they don't trust you. It's a failure of your leadership.

Because there are people over there—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. I asked for silence. Minister Ayres, please continue.

All of us have a responsibility here to conduct ourselves in the national interest—to report the facts accurately. Sure, hold the government to account, but do it responsibly. (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, first supplementary?

Last week, the resources minister claimed fuel prices were holding steady. That claim has collapsed. Prices have surged to 219.9c a litre, and petrol stations are running dry. This morning, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy warned against panic buying. Minister, isn't this just a government that cannot manage fuel disruption and is now trying to pin the blame on ordinary Australians?

What's required when there is a national challenge, like a war in the Middle East, is calm, resolute, effective leadership—not running around on social media trying to amplify problems and spread misinformation, which is what some of you have done.

Your ministers are in denial. They're saying prices haven't gone up.

Order! Senator McKenzie, I'm not quite sure which part of 'order' you think doesn't apply to you, but it does.

I suppose the thing that outrages those of us on this side is that those of you who did so little when you were in government—Senator Canavan behaves as if he wasn't there. He was the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, but, like the mouse that roared, did nothing—

This is so off topic. People are desperate for an answer, and the minister won't address it.

Senator McDonald, you can't just stand. You need to indicate if there is a point of order.

It's a point of order on relevance.

Thank you. I will draw the minister to your question.

The job here is to assert the facts calmly. We have done that. It is to work with industry, with farmers, with the fertiliser sector and with the fuel industry—we are doing that, and we will continue to do it in the national interest. (Time expired)

Senator McDonald, second supplementary?

Minister, isn't it the truth that prices are rising and pumps are running dry and, instead of admitting there's a problem, the government is lecturing motorists for trying to protect their families and their businesses?

That question did come dangerously close, I have to say, to encouraging people to go and panic-buy. It came dangerously close to that.

An opposition senator: What is going on here?

What is going on here is a group of Liberals, Nationals and One Nation who have not internalised the lessons of the last 3½ years. Every time you try and drive division, Australians walk away from you. Every time you hyperventilate with partisan division, Australians walk away from you, and you get smaller and less relevant and less effective and more hateful and more angry—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senators on my left, it is not your job to try and out-shout the minister.

The question for you is when will you start listening to Australians and, in particular, the Australians who used to support you? When will you start behaving as if you are seeking the mantle of national leadership instead of being fringe right-wing extremist rabble?

Thank you, Minister.

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

I wish to add to an answer to a question Senator Shoebridge asked me about Australian personnel embedded on US submarines in the region on 5 March. In addition to what I have outlined in question time today, I wish to add to my answer. In particular, I indicated in that answer that we do not disclose specific information regarding Australian personnel on defence operations. This is the usual practice for operational and security reasons.

On this occasion, the Prime Minister determined, following a meeting of the NSC, that it was in the public interest to disclose the presence of Australian personnel. Defence personnel have been embedded with other nations for decades, and there are longstanding and strict rules around these deployments, under which Australian personnel are required to comply with Australian law, policy and direction. I also refer you to statements in the subsequent answer. For the benefit of the chamber, I want to clarify I was referencing broader statements of the US administration about its intent for the next phase of the current conflict.

by leave—I move:

That on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, following the conclusion of the consideration of private senators' bills, senators may make statements of not more than 5 minutes each, for not more than 1 hour in total, relating to the current conflict in the Middle East without any question before the chair.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate directs the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee to hold a public hearing from 5 pm to 6.30 pm today, for the purposes of hearing from officials from the Department of Home Affairs regarding the provisions of the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions asked by opposition senators.

Wasn't it very telling today. The Australian people are hurting. The Australian people have been cut off at the knees with this fuel crisis—

Senator Stewart?

I'd like the senator to indicate what answers she is taking note of.

The senator did indicate that it's all answers to all coalition questions.

I didn't hear that. Sorry.

Deputy President, are we doing four minutes today?

That's the remainder of your time.

There was a change to the procedural—

You are correct. Thank you very much, Senator Collins. Times have been changed at the agreement of the whips. I'm just hoping that everyone in the chamber has been informed of this. I'm in the hands of the chamber. I am suggesting that we go through it as in front of me. This has opposition; government; opposition; government; opposition; Australian Greens, five minutes; crossbench, five minutes. This is part of the agreement that came out of a Senate Standing Committee on Procedure inquiry. I think everyone is happy with this. If the two whips are happy, I'm going to proceed. Senator O'Sullivan?

Can you clarify—is it four minutes, or are we going for five? There are five minutes on the clock.

It's four minutes, opposition; four minutes, government; four minutes, opposition; four minutes, government; four minutes, opposition; five minutes, Australian Greens; five minutes, crossbench. This is what I have in front of me. I'm trying to clarify, for the benefit of the chamber—this, I suspect, is an agreement between the whips based off a procedure committee report and recommendation.

(Quorum formed)

I have just been informed that the new rule has not been discussed.

I'm in the hands of the chamber. I will revert to standard procedure, which means you will get five minutes, Senator Collins. We'll reset the clock at five minutes.

To confirm, I'm rising to take note of answers to all coalition questions. As I was saying, it was very, very telling today. We, the coalition stood up to ask the government about what they are doing about fuel security, about people in the regions who have no access to fuel right now. Fuel pumps are being closed down, and prices are going up. What we got were personal attacks on coalition members. We got fingers pointing to what we were doing—not last term of government but the term of government before. We got Minister Wong asking us what we would do. But we're not the government; they're the government. It's up to the government to be helping these poor Australians with their fuel security right now, and these people are feeling insecure because they have no access to fuel out in the regions.

My colleague Senator Hume made the point that higher petrol prices are now compounding the pain for families already suffering under Labor's homegrown cost-of-living crisis. We've got higher mortgages, higher electricity bills and higher grocery bills. This all happened long before the conflict in Iran. You cannot put the blame on the conflict in Iran. Senator Hume asked why the government has spent three years fuelling inflation, weakening household budgets and leaving Australians now dangerously exposed to this kind of shock, this fuel shock that is hitting this nation. Senator Hume asked: what is Anthony Albanese, our prime minister, actually going to do to bring prices down? And what did we hear from the government? 'It's not our fault there's price gouging.' There is absolutely no admission of responsibility for putting Australians through this cost-of-living crisis and setting them up to be vulnerable when we are hit with an external shock like this.

We had some terrific questions from my colleague Senator O'Sullivan. He pointed to communities in his home state of Western Australia where fuel is being rationed and pumps are being shut down. We heard from the government, from Minister Wong, that there is no supply problem; it's only a demand problem. She put the blame on ordinary Australian for being scared, and she put the blame on the opposition for scaring ordinary Australian. All we're doing is asking what the government is going to do about this. I think it's a very valid question. How are they going to make sure that this fuel is redistributed to the places that it needs to be?

According to the government, there are no supply issues. We heard from Western Australian roadhouse owner Scott Coppin that there are 10 to 15 cars lining up trying to get fuel and filling up jerry cans every day. He said it was like a scene out of a movie. He'd had never seen it before in his whole life. We heard from the government that this was misinformation and disinformation. But this is the reality for people out in the regions right now: they cannot get access to their fuel, and the government is doing nothing about it.

We heard from Senator McDonald about Mount Gravatt. They've run out of unleaded 91 and unleaded 95 right in the heart of Brisbane. I used to live just down the road from Mount Gravatt—I know exactly where it is—about 10 minutes from Mount Gravatt, at Eight Mile Plains. It is a terrific part of the world.

You should spend more time there.

I'll take that interjection. I won't, because I'm a senator for New South Wales, and that is the best state in all of this beautiful country of ours. But Mount Gravatt, close to the City of Brisbane, has run out of fuel. This is a problem not just for regional Australia; this is a problem for all of Australia. And what we want to hear from the government is what you're going to do about it. What are you doing about it? There are desperate Australians out there—desperate, worried and afraid—and they want to know. (Time expired)

Normally, I don't really look forward to doing taking note, but today I'm really enthused, let me tell you. The reason why—and I've just got to explain this very carefully to any poor devil out there listening to this. What is going on in the Middle East is a very serious issue; let's make no mistake about that, and let's hope there's a resolution pretty quickly. But, as someone who has spent a lifetime stuck around diesel fuel pumps, I think we'd better start putting a little bit of truth into the conversation.

I'll go back to a couple of weeks ago. In my duties as a senator for Western Australia, Deputy President, you would know the amount of time that I spend in the Kimberley, and it's huge. I made my living in the Kimberley and Pilbara and in the Northern Territory as a young, very enthusiastic truck driver. There are those opposite who do know, but to the newer ones who don't: shock, horror, I still drive trucks. I still run road trains to the Kimberley, all for charity. In fact, I'll be pulling out on Saturday with three trailers for Broome and Derby. I'll be keeping a close eye when I pull into Port Hedland, where I'll put 1,500 litres into that big banger. That's just in Hedland on the way up. But, if you listened to the contribution from my colleague opposite, who's running the party line, one would think that there is absolutely no fuel in Western Australia—or no fuel in country Western Australia—or in Queensland or in the regions.

But let me come back to going up to the Kimberley two weeks ago, before the war in Iran started. I had my hire car and went into the Reddy, the old Shell express, on Ivanhoe Road. Guess what? Two bowsers were shut—no fuel. There was no war in Iran. Okay, fine. At the other end of the week, I was in Broome. I took the hire car into the BP—you know the BP opposite where you drive into the airport, Mr Deputy President. Guess what? Two bowsers of diesel had no fuel—nothing to do with the war. I'm saying this—it's a very serious issue; I won't speak for your state, whatever your states are—because it's a regular occurrence in Western Australia, where I go regionally and rurally, for bowsers not to have any fuel in them. So let's just get some truth into the argument. I heard my esteemed colleague over there say, 'There's no fuel in the regions. No-one rurally can get fuel.' Seriously? Come on.

Let's have a look at this. For my sins in my previous life, I don't know why but I've had to do two inquiries into fuel security—one in government and one in opposition. I know the arguments around this. One time, and I kid you not—I remember the argument going on when we were in opposition and I was chairing the RRAT committee—the question put to the department of industry was: how much fuel have we got in Australia? They had a guess. They said, 'Twenty-seven days or something like that,' after being told that the IEA says we've go to have 90 days worth. I said, 'Have another crack.' They said, 'We've got no idea, Senator.' And that was fine; they had no idea. But we dug a little bit deeper. I said, 'What are you basing your figures on?' They said, 'It's on fuel that's on ships coming here; we count that.' I said, 'That's great. Anything else?' They said, 'Yes, we also count fuel that we've ordered that hasn't left Japan or Singapore or wherever it may be.' Now, did I get any screaming from the rafters from the mob over there about that? They didn't give a fig. They couldn't give a damn.

What I'm trying to say is our fuel supplies are a very serious issue. From my point of view, because of my trucking background, it's an even greater issue because, when the trucks stop, Australia stops. Make no mistake about that. This mob want to focus on what political point they can make on the way through. So I will state—and I know this is more than when we were doing the inquiry, when I was in opposition—that we have 36 days of petrol. It would be lovely if we had 90 days of petrol. The harsh reality is that we have 36, because we can't have 90, because it would cost us $20 billion, because your lot over there, under Mr Taylor, who is now your esteemed leader, waved off, as part of the government, four refineries here in Australia. Did you know that? We had six refineries in Australia. Following your watch, under him over there, we inherited two. I mean, seriously! We've got 29 days of jet fuel here, with ships on the way. Let's hope there is no disruption to them. We have 32 days of that precious gold that I love, diesel, which they still tell me is running through my veins.

So, seriously, if you're going to have a conversation in the best interests of Australia's trucking industry and our farmers, let's just use some truth, shall we? Let's try not to stretch the bow out as far as we can. Yes, it is serious, but for goodness sake, as the ministers have said, when we have a national drama one would expect we would all work together, not go for the bottom drawer for the lowest common denominator, which is a trait of that mob over there.

I first acknowledge Senator Sterle's ongoing efforts to do charity work in the Kimberley region. It's something I greatly admire. However, in terms of his contribution in this debate, Senator Sterle wants to shoot the messenger, as those opposite want to do. We are raising issues with fuel supply in our home states, and I can tell you what is happening in my home state of Queensland. Here is a direct quote from Mr Pavo Walker of Walker Seafoods in Queensland. Walker Seafoods in Queensland is the largest harvester fishery dealing with the capture of wild tuna in my home state of Queensland. They have five vessels, six skippers and over 50 staff, so they're a substantial organisation. They catch and process export-grade tuna. This is what Mr Pavo Walker of Walker Seafoods in Queensland says:

… the Eastern Seaboard of Australia is running out of fuel … noone can guarantee us any fuel for our fishing vessels … We've got no fuel so we can't go to sea and we can't catch fish.

Do you want direct evidence of people running out of fuel? How's that for direct evidence? The chief executive officer of Walker Seafoods in Queensland, who run five vessels, six skippers and over 50 staff, says they do not have the fuel to go out to sea to catch fish. That's the issue, and no-one can tell them when they are going to get the fuel. There is a fuel supply problem. That is what people in my home state of Queensland are telling me.

I'd also like to quote from the Deputy Premier of Queensland. This is what he says about the federal government response, because the Deputy Premier of Queensland is at the front line of trying to deal with all of the tsunami of inquiries that are coming in from the agricultural sector and the fisheries sector into the state government. This is what the Deputy Premier of Queensland says:

Supply of fuel is a federal responsibility and the federal Labor government have not been doing enough.

Further on, he said:

We are absolutely calling on the federal government to explain how much fuel supply is in Queensland, where it's being distributed and guarantee that the bowsers will be full.

That's what the Deputy Premier of Queensland is calling upon the Labor government to do.

It is our obligation to the people of our home states to come into this place and to hold the federal government accountable for its responsibility with respect to fuel supply. We wouldn't be doing our job if we weren't telling the story of Mr Pavo Walker of Walker Seafoods or if my friend Senator Matt O'Sullivan from Western Australia weren't telling the story of the owner of the roadhouse which has run out of fuel in regional Western Australia. It's our obligation to hold the government to account. It's our obligation to convey to the government what is happening on the ground, and this is happening on the ground.

So don't come into this place and tell us that we're the ones spreading misinformation. How absurd! Pick up the phone, if you like, and ring Mr Pavo Walker of Walker Seafoods and have the conversation with him. Tell him about misinformation. He has five trawlers, all in dock waiting for fuel. He can't take them to sea. He has six skippers and 50 staff, all ready, willing and able to actually generate wealth for this country, but they can't get the fuel. There is a major problem at the moment. It is demonstrated, indicated and evidenced by the facts, so don't come into this place and shoot the messenger. Actually focus on doing your job, and your job is to manage the fuel supply in this country. If you have the fuel stocks that Senator Sterle referred to, why are we having these problems? Why are we having these problems in regional Queensland? When the conflict broke out in the Middle East and when the Strait of Hormuz was closed, you should have anticipated that there would be a change in the pattern of demand, as the leader of the Senate referred to. Of course there was going to be a change in the pattern of demand. It always happens when you have fuel shortages and conflicts in relation to major fuel-supplying countries—when the price goes through the roof. You should have anticipated that, and you should now be held accountable for failing to manage it. (Time expired)

I, for one, certainly welcome a sensible and responsible conversation about fuel in this country. No-one on the side is blaming Australians for that. We are certainly not saying that the stories that we've heard today or the stories of people out in the community are not true. What we are saying in this place is that people's response to the war in Iran is being directly driven by the words of people in this place. That is what we are saying—that we all have a responsibility to remove fear and anxiety from the community, when it comes to how we manage a national crisis.

Those opposite see a national crisis, and they rub their hands together. They can't wait to stoke further fear and anxiety in the Australian community and to make you worry about a fuel supply that has remained the same. Supply that's coming into this country through Hormuz is the same. There has been no change to the fuel that's coming into this country. That is not what you would think after listening to the questions that they asked—at all!

Instead, what we have seen today is an irresponsible so-called party of government—the alternative government over there—driving fear and anxiety in the Australian community about the state of fuel in this country. What we have seen, as a result, is people stockpiling fuel because of the words that are coming out of your mouth. That's exactly what is happening here. Each of us have a responsibility, when we have the platform in this place, to speak and lead in a way that actually gives some sense of information about what's happening, and not to drive fear in the community for things that actually aren't happening. While the alternative government over there is acting like a crossbench instead of an alternative party of government, on this side, we will act like the party of government and lead with responsibility.

What's happening around the country, when it comes to fuel demands and the cost of fuel, is not separate from the work that we have been doing since we came to government. That is trying to ease the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are experiencing all the time, and, now, fuel is adding to the pressure that people are feeling on their hip pocket. We are absolutely getting on with delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians as our No. 1 priority—we've done that since the day we came to government—whether that means strengthening Medicare or whether it's delivering tax cuts for every single taxpayer and certainly making it fairer for women. On this side, we secured pay rises for minimum- and award-wage workers, totalling an increase of more than $9,000 for minimum- and award-wage workers.

What you see over here, in this little corner over here, is Pauline Hanson cozying up to Gina Rinehart, who has openly argued for cutting Australia's minimum wage and even talked about $2-an-hour pay day as a benchmark. That's who One Nation over there, the so-called party of the battlers, is cosying up with. They're very happy to vote against workers' rights, supporting their mate Gina. On this side we've expanded paid parental leave to 24 weeks for families and, for the first time, we are paying superannuation on paid government parental leave. We're supporting tradies with a $10,000 bonus for housing apprentices, and we're cutting household power bills permanently with 30 per cent off home batteries. We've introduced paid placements for nursing, teaching and social work and midwifery students, because no student should be forced to choose between finishing their degree and paying their bills—or, even worse, not taking up that degree in the first place because they can't afford it. While on the side we are getting on with delivering cost-of-living relief for Australians— (Time expired)

Deputy President Brockman, you know better than anyone else here in this chamber what it means for rural and regional Australians to not have an adequate, reliable supply of fuel. In Western Australia we're coming close to seeding time, and farmers need to have confidence that when the rains come they can get out immediately; they've got to get out and sow their crops for, hopefully, a very good season. But right now we've got farmers across Western Australia doubtful about their capacity and ability to do that because they're not getting fuel delivered to them.

I asked a question during question time in relation to the fuel supply going into roadhouses. We've seen examples of roadhouses across Western Australia and fuel stations in regional Western Australia that don't have an adequate supply of fuel and, therefore, have had to either ration or close. This is unacceptable. We asked this question in question time, and the response I got back from Senator Wong was that we were peddling misinformation and dealing with misinformation. Tell that to the ABC, because it was the ABC that reported Mr Coppin's words. It wasn't just me parroting in question time a rumour I'd heard; it was Mr Coppin's response to an ABC journalist that was printed on the ABC website:

At any time, probably 10 to 15 minimum cars … lined up trying to get fuel and filling up jerry cans.

I was told that that was misinformation.

What's the government doing here? It's trying to blame motorists or the opposition for peddling misinformation or fearmongering. The reality is that motorists are fronting up to fuel stations across Australia, not just in regional Australia; we heard Senator Collins tell the story of the roadhouse that was part of the question from Senator McDonald—the roadhouse in Mount Gravatt, in inner-city Brisbane—that didn't have fuel. Fuel stations run out from time to time; we know that, and we've all experienced that. But when we're seeing it at the scale that's happening right now across the country, we know we've got a problem.

The problem with the answers given by the government, whether it was Minister Wong or Minister Ayres, is that they seem to suggest that the supply chain responsibility of this government ends at the port, at the distribution centre, and that there isn't a supply chain necessary to get fuel where it's needed. When you talk to a farmer or a motorist, when they think about supply chains they think about the supplier that brings it to their demand, which is their vehicle, tractor, harvester or feeder. It's not just at the port.

We keep hearing, 'You didn't do anything about it in government.' This is absolute rubbish. Of course we did something about it. When we were last in government, the coalition implemented a comprehensive fuel security package which included the establishment of a domestic fuel reserve through the minimum stockholding obligation—which safeguarded key transport stocks at a base level—delivered support to ensure Australia's long-term refining capabilities through the fuel security services payment and established a diesel storage program. As part of that, in layman terms, the minister has the capacity to get real-time access to fuel storage across Australia and the network. He has the capacity to direct wholesalers as to where they should transport fuel to ensure that there is an adequate supply of fuel. So the government can actually do something about it.

The minister is saying that every ship that has been ordered has been arriving, and that might well be true. But what seems to be happening is suppliers are hoarding or holding it and are not releasing it for distribution. The minister has the power to direct those companies to get that fuel out across the supply chain and right onto farms, into roadhouses and across Australia, but they're not acting. The problem is the minister and the government as a whole are believing their own nonsense. They keep blaming everyone else, and that means they're not taking the action that Australians need and deserve.

If we don't sort this out, this country could literally grind to a halt. You might say that's scaremongering, but why don't you take action? Then there won't be that problem.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to the Australian Defence Force.

Prime Minister Albanese, not satisfied with being the first to back Labor's masters—the US and Israel—and their illegal war, has now decided to jump right in and get Australia's hands bloody. Within a week we have gone from pledging unconditional political support for the US-Israeli led war on Iran to refuelling US spy planes and to now directly deploying troops and missiles. The Prime Minister is throwing us right into the middle of yet another violent forever war under the pretence of 'defence' and 'protecting people'. Labor have the audacity to say that they are a party of peace. It would be laughable if it weren't that serious. Missiles don't make peace. Missiles don't protect people. They kill people. Sending weapons parts to Israel to bomb Palestinians ain't peace; it is genocide.

All this violence, destruction, killing and death follow two years of unchecked genocide in Gaza. This is how the imperialist and colonisers use international law selectively—when they want it and where they want it. This is what you get when you have weak, cowardly governments like the Albanese government. You are not peacemakers; you are warmongers. You have learnt nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan, and one day you will get your comeuppance. Mark my words; one day, you will be brought down. Until then, the Greens will pursue you relentlessly and hold you to account for every single action that results in the death and destruction of innocent people around the world. You are disgraceful.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Industry and Innovation (Senator Ayres) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the artificial intelligence.

Last week I asked the Minister for Science and Minister for Industry and Innovation if submissions made to the Australian government were being assessed by AI. In reply the minister went on about how the AI Safety Institute—an institute with zero powers other than to advise—was great and would fix everything. He couldn't answer my question, basically. But my office got a call shortly after that from an insider who asked to remain anonymous, and that caller told my adviser that the minister was being loose with the truth—loose as a goose, as he put it—and that, yes, AI is being used by the government to suck up and transmit Australian data.

Today I again asked the minister why we weren't investing in Australian made, and once again he couldn't answer. Canada's PM made it very clear in his speech to parliament last week. Prime Minister Carney told the Australian people that middle powers like Australia need to invest in their own AI to avoid getting caught between China and the US. Canada is doing this to the tune of $4.4 billion—and what is Australia doing? Let me tell you, Australians, what they are doing with our AI. They are simply rolling out the red carpet to companies like Palantir, the company that has been linked, by the way, to the targeted killing of journalists and the illegal use of US citizens' data. That's right—US citizens' data. But we're happy to hand our own over to them. Are you kidding me? Palantir is the company that is the leader in the development of agentic AI. Agentic AI, for people who do not know, is artificial intelligence that thinks for itself and makes its own decisions. Scary, yes? This is what your government is using.

I've also heard that big tech is pressuring our government to do a deal over our copyright laws—otherwise, we won't get their data centres. Holding you hostage over there, are they, Government? They're holding you hostage. You don't want to invest in your own data centres and you do not want to do your own AI. What's even more telling is that this is such a serious matter in the 21st century and you haven't even put a minister in that position. That is telling. It's extremely telling. Loose as a goose, you're throwing our data everywhere. That is what your government of today is doing, Australians. Big tech are running the line that we do not need our own Australian-made AI because we can use tech's AI. I've been speaking to some real experts in real time over the last few days and I have been told that this is absolute rubbish. We have the capacity to make small-language AI models designed for particular purposes. I know for a fact that there are an amazing AI people who more than capable of making Australian-made AI. The government just needs to back them. That's all they're waiting for. But, first of all, I suggest you put in a minister.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move:

That the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025, made under the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024, be disallowed [F2025L01226].

These regulations allow the US to bring their nuclear submarines to Australia as part of the toxic and bankrupting AUKUS agreement. This regulation itself scraps dozens of state and territory regulations on protecting the environment to allow nuclear waste to be dumped here in Australia. This is all part of making Australia an arm of the US military. That is the reason Australians were on US nuclear submarines that attacked an Iranian frigate and left the crew to drown, a situation I must note today is being discussed as a potential war crime. This disallowance and AUKUS is the reason Australia has just sent troops to Iran.

I note with some alarm, as I know many Australians do, the mission creep that we have seen in just over a week, since the very first strike against the Iranian leadership and the decapitation of the Iranian leadership by the US and Israel condemned internationally by most countries except Australia and a few US allies as being illegal—not a defensive strike or a pre-emptive strike but a strike that hit a sovereign nation. Whatever you think of the Iranian regime, the question we have to ask ourselves is: how is this going to make Australia and the world a safer place?

I also ask senators to reflect on the last time we followed the US into a forever war. How many times has this happened throughout history? How many times have we committed Australian military personnel—our sons, daughters, brothers, uncles, fathers and mothers—to go and fight in foreign theatres of war and found them in strategically, morally and ethically questionable circumstances, with the difficulty of pulling our military personnel out of these conflicts once they start the quagmire of death, destruction, pain, hurt and misery that they cause?

I remember all too well the 'weapons of mass destruction' con that was being bandied around by the US regime. At least they took that to the UN. It turned out that it was a complete con job. A brutal dictator who was going to use weapons of mass destruction was the excuse used to invade with the coalition of the willing, or what became known as the coalition of the killing. When they toppled that regime and implemented that regime change, it led to a shock wave of chaos and suffering not just across the Middle East but right across Europe, a wave of refugees fleeing persecution all around the world, the rise of ISIS and terrorism, the civil war in Syria—I could go on. All of this was triggered by a unilateral, illegal invasion of Iraq that defied a rules based order.

And what did we learn over a week ago? Our government has backed in the bombing of Iran. It has been very careful with its language, saying, 'We didn't bomb Iran.'

We're not the ones who need to be careful with language. Did you hear what Senator Faruqi just said?

I'll take that interjection, Senator Chisholm. Within 24 hours, the Prime Minister was backing it in, as was Senator Wong, talking about the Iranian regime's nuclear program. They didn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Actually, I thought Donald Trump had thoroughly debunked that himself, saying multiple times that he had obliterated the Iranian nuclear program—after hearing in March last year from his own intelligence agencies that it didn't exist and that there was no plan for Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency also debunked that this week—another lie told to the Australian people. They say that the truth is the first casualty in war.

What did we hear after that was thoroughly debunked? Suddenly, we heard that Iran was going to strike us first—the US and Israel and its neighbours. That has also been debunked. It was debunked by the Pentagon two days ago. They said that there is no evidence that that was the case. The question is: why did the US and Israel illegally attack a foreign sovereign nation? What other lies are we going to be told? This is not just a war on Iran; this is a war on the truth. It's no wonder that Australians are sceptical. It's no wonder that they're anxious. They saw what happened when we followed the US into a forever war in past history. They question why we are joined at the hip with the United States government and why we have bases in Australia that we know are helping coordinate the attacks on Iran in the Middle East.

I bring senators back to peace and diplomacy. I must say that I was very frustrated when I saw Senator Wong's interview on Insiders the day after the first strike against the Iranian regime. She refused to condemn it, virtually backed it in and then called for a return to diplomacy and a rules based order so that this conflict doesn't escalate. How can you do that? How can you not condemn a clear breach of international law—like, by the way, what we've seen in Gaza—and then call for a return to a rules based order when it suits you? Of course we should be conducting diplomacy. They do say that war is failed diplomacy.

I can't understand why we've again gotten ourselves in a situation where we've got conflict spreading across the Middle East. I also remind senators of President George W Bush's famous speech on an aircraft carrier. He said 'Mission accomplished—an end to major hostilities'. What did we see after that? We saw an insurgency, and we saw an incredible amount of bloodshed. It wasn't just Western soldiers that lost their lives; it was hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and it spread into neighbouring countries.

When are we going to learn? When are we going to have an independent foreign policy where we can openly question the decisions of Donald Trump and Mr Netanyahu?

No-one's stopping you.

We are openly questioning—Senator Paterson, I'll take that interjection. That is exactly why we are raising these issues in the Australian Senate today—on behalf of, by the way, millions of Australians who are deeply concerned and anxious about this latest conflict and the potential for it to escalate not just to other Middle Eastern countries, as we are seeing, but much further abroad, with major powers being drawn into this. This is a very dangerous situation—I know you, Senator Paterson, would know that better than most people in this place—and we have an important role to play here, as Australian senators representing the Australian people, in, for example, raising this disallowance of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025.

I can sit down any time? Well, I've still got a little bit left. I'll take that interjection from you too. Thank you, Senator. McKim. The instrument—the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025—follows on from the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024. These regulations are extensive and clarify the changes made in the act—for example, providing further details on managing, storing and disposing of radioactive waste from an AUKUS submarine at Osborne and Stirling, including reporting requirements for a licence. These regulations also provide a map of the areas now considered a designated zone for AUKUS nuclear submarines and associated waste, which is referred to in the appendices. These regulations also override state and territory laws including the Protection from Harmful Radiation Act 1990 in New South Wales and the Radiation Protection Act 2004 in the Northern Territory. These regulations set out what international laws the regulator has to have regard to. These do not include the UNDRIP, which would require the free, prior and informed consent of First Nations people.

I know Senator Shoebridge is looking forward to making a contribution on this disallowance, and I thank him for all the hard work that he's done on behalf of the Australian Greens, the millions of people who voted for us and the millions of people who care about a rules based order, care about Australia having an independent foreign policy and care about peace and diplomacy and ending war. You cannot bomb your way to peace.

Well, where to begin on that contribution, this debate and this disallowance motion? I suppose I'll begin by putting on the record that the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. It would be irresponsible and reckless to do so. We'll be opposing it because we support AUKUS—both Pillar I and Pillar II—but also because these regulations are necessary to facilitate the safe and lawful visitation of US nuclear powered submarines to Australian naval bases and facilities, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

When your own colleagues interject on you to say that you can sit down at any time, I think that's probably a fair indicator of how off-track your contribution has become, as Senator Whish-Wilson—

Thank you, Senator McKim. I'm grateful for that facilitation. Really, much of that contribution from Senator Whish-Wilson had nothing at all to do with the regulations. Some frankly bizarre claims were made as part of that contribution, including the assertion that the Australian government's announcement today that it would be contributing defensive military assets to the region following the strikes by Iran on its neighbours, who are not participants in the war in Iran, was in some way and somehow related to AUKUS. Points to Senator Whish-Wilson for trying to find a hook on the current news cycle for this preplanned motion on nuclear safety, but, of course, the reason why the Australian government made the decision to deploy an E-7A Wedgetail and 85 personnel and provide air-to-air missiles is that we had requests from the United Arab Emirates and other gulf states, and last time I checked they were not parties to AUKUS. There's a hint in the name of AUKUS of which parties are participants, and the UAE is not one of them.

We rightly made a contribution to that cause (a) because the UAE and other gulf states are our friends, and they generously provided the Al Minhad base for Australia for decades so we can operate out of there safely when we're in the Middle East; (b) because it's in our national interest that the waterways and airspace around the gulf states are restored to normalcy and peace so that Australians can leave the region by scheduled commercial flights and so that oil and other shipping can flow again through the Strait of Hormuz; and (c) because it's an opportunity for Australia to learn from the realities of modern warfare, which include drone and missile strikes. The Wedgetail in particular will be assisting gulf states to identify, interdict and prevent those drones and missiles from striking civilian targets in the gulf states, including hotels, roads and airports, which have been indiscriminately struck by Iran in recent weeks.

To summarise, the opposition will not be supporting this disallowance motion. We strongly support AUKUS Pillar I, and we strongly support the regulations that are necessary to ensure the safe and lawful access of US nuclear-powered submarines to Australian naval facilities.

I want to get a couple of facts on the table because, obviously, some of the debate we had earlier on from the Australian Greens was anything but accurate. The establishment of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator marks a key milestone in Australia's nuclear-powered-submarine program. It reflects the government's commitment to maintaining the highest levels of nuclear safety and stewardship across the life cycle of Australia's conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines.

AUKUS is a central pillar of the government's national security policy, and we don't make any apologies for that. It is about protecting Australia, safeguarding our interest and ensuring the security of our region. Australia faces the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, at a time when our economic connection with the world has never been greater. Our investment in conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is, therefore, critical. It will provide the Australian Defence Force with greater capacity to project power, defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability.

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act and its regulations enable a new, fit-for-purpose regulatory framework to ensure nuclear safety across the entire capability life cycle. The statutory regulator has the functions and the powers necessary to license activities, infrastructure and facilities related to Australia's nuclear powered submarines and for monitoring and enforcing those licences. Importantly, the regulator remains independent of the regulated community, including the ADF, the Department of Defence, the Australian Submarine Agency and industry. The establishment of the regulator last year in November marked an important step in ensuring that Australia's nuclear-powered-submarine program progresses with safety as its core requirement. It also brings together expertise from across Australia and internationally, with a clear mandate to deliver independent, evidence based regulation.

The disallowance motion before us in the Senate puts this important work at risk. It is political grandstanding without considering our national security and safety. We get that the Australian Greens oppose AUKUS. That is their political position. But opposing AUKUS should not extend to undermining the independent regulator that is responsible for ensuring nuclear safety. Contrary to the misinformation of the Australian Greens, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act underwent extensive public consultation prior to its commencement. This included an inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which held public hearings right across the country.

Let me also address some of the misinformation by the Greens that continues to circulate. The safety and security of Australians and our environment is at the heart of the regulatory framework. Australia will be responsible for the management and disposal of radioactive waste from our conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines. This is a critical part of our commitment to responsible nuclear stewardship. These activities are an important step in building Australia's capability to safely operate and sustain nuclear powered submarines before we acquire our own.

It is also worth noting that the management of low-level radioactive waste is not new to Australia. Similar materials are already handled safely at more than 100 locations across the country, including hospitals, universities and research facilities. This type of waste includes items such as protective clothing, rags and fluids.

Australia will be responsible for managing spent fuel from our own nuclear powered submarines. But let me absolutely clear. Despite the scare campaign being run by the Greens, Australia will not accept or be responsible for the storage, management or disposal of nuclear fuel from United States or United Kingdom submarines. The independent Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator is ensuring that Australia maintains the highest standards of nuclear safety in respect of new nuclear-powered submarines.

Yet what we face is that the Australian Greens continue to choose to ignore the facts entirely and instead construct some sort of fantasy narrative about Australia being dragged into this 'forever war' that's been described. There is something deeply revealing about that. The Greens also seem to view every single international crisis through one lens: how they can attack Australia and its allies and its alliances, question our partnership and undermine the cooperation that deters aggression and maintains stability. Australia has, for a very long time, called the United States a friend and an ally, and we have relied also on the UAE as a partner in defence operations, including coordinated efforts to combat extremism and the ISIS threat. These relationships keep Australians safe, yet the Greens' focus is not on that, and it's certainly not on the current situation in Iran about the people of Iran. Their focus seems to be, here in the Senate, on scoring political points.

Whilst the Iranian people, if I might add, fight for freedom, all I can say is I think that the Greens just want to fight only to weaken Australia. They oppose our alliances. They oppose our defence cooperation. They oppose Australia playing any role in helping our partners to defend themselves, even when Australians themselves are in harm's way. This is a view that pretends that Australia can somehow opt out of the realities of international security. But, as responsible governments, we need to operate in a responsible way. Responsible governments consider the safety of Australians overseas. They listen to the advice of the Australian Defence Force and our national security agencies. They work with partners to prevent instability from escalating further. This is exactly what the Albanese government is doing.

It is very important that, as we go through the motions today, I want to be absolutely clear that this disallowance motion before us does nothing—absolutely nothing—to improve safety. It simply seeks to obstruct the establishment of a regulator whose sole purpose is to ensure nuclear safety. For that reason, the government will not support the motion before the Senate.

Obviously, the Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations allow the United States to bring their nuclear submarines to Australia as part of the toxic AUKUS agreement. Who can forget former prime minister Scott Morrison telling a lie to the French government as he did the dirty on them and instead, in one of his most bizarre thought bubbles—and, believe me, there were a number of such thought bubbles during his prime ministership—joining in the AUKUS pact with the United States and the United Kingdom. We know that AUKUS is going to put Australia at higher risk, and I want to give one contemporary example of how this is going to happen.

Cast your minds back to last week, when the United States and Israel opened up an illegal war on Iran—illegal under international law. You won't find a credible international law scholar anywhere in the world who will conclude that this is a justified and legal war, because it's not. It is an obviously and blatantly illegal war. Last week in the Indian Ocean, a United States submarine, without provocation, attacked an Iranian warship—which had just been, by the way, to India on a friendship visit—and did so with Australian submariners on board. We've heard from Labor that those Australian submariners were told, 'Stand down, knock off and have a beer, go to your bunks,' while the button was pressed and then somehow sprang back to duty later. To try and run an argument that they were not involved in that illegal act beggars belief. The survivors from that Iranian warship were abandoned to drown at sea, in direct contravention, I might add, of section 18 of the Geneva convention.

We then had the Foreign minister, Minister Wong, get up in question time and assert, with some vague proposition, that in fact that attack was justified under international law because there was an imminent danger that that Iranian warship was going to target somebody else. I'll tell you something: right through our history, humans have gone to war based on lies. We saw it in the Iraq War and we are seeing it here today in the war on Iran—the lie of imminent threat that was used by the US to start this illegal war.

We've got Australia refuelling US spy planes being used in the war and Australian submariners on board a US submarine that conducted the illegal sinking of an Iranian warship in the war, and Labor claiming they had nothing to do with it. And today we had the announcement that we are sending personnel, missiles and an aircraft into the war region on a defensive basis only. That is the next lie being told to the Australian people, because the arrival of those personnel and those assets will facilitate the raining down of an absolute firestorm on Iran and the deaths of countless innocent civilians who are paying for this illegality with their lives and their futures. The reason we can confidently assert that is that the AEW&C aircraft is a very scarce military resource in the region, and the arrival of the Australian AEW&C aircraft will allow a US AEW&C aircraft that could otherwise be used in a defensive role to move into an offensive role, thereby facilitating the illegal offensive conduct in this war on Iran. Don't believe Labor when they say this is for defensive purposes; it is going to facilitate an expansion of the war and the raining down of further horrors on innocent Iranian people.

I thank both my colleagues for their very clear articulation in this debate. I might bring it back to AUKUS. We have Labor and the coalition, two of the three war parties here, joined now by One Nation. The three war parties love AUKUS. You all come in here and want to wrap your arms around AUKUS, you love nuclear submarines, you like being told what to do by Donald Trump and you like putting Australia's national interest and defence in the hands of a sociopath who commences illegal wars. You all love this stuff, right? You love AUKUS. Then you have the hide, when the Australian Greens, on behalf of millions of Australians, say, 'We want an independent foreign policy, we want an independent defence policy and we want decisions about when Australian troops will be sent to war made in Canberra, not Washington,' to come in here, as the war parties, and say: 'The Greens don't care about the national interest. They don't understand. We have to be a lickspittle to the United States or, otherwise, we won't be safe. We have to be a gormless bunch of noddies to the United States or, otherwise, we can't be safe. The only way of being safe is to live in fear of Donald Trump. The only way to be safe is to offer the United States free range to our continental bases. The only way to be safe is, whenever Donald Trump asks us to send troops to the Middle East or Afghanistan or whatever the latest war is, to desperately comply within hours. Unless we become the lickspittle of the United States, we will never be safe.' You come in here and say that you are talking on the national interest. You surrendered the national interest from the moment you began this debate. The decision to send Australian troops into this most recent forever war of the United States wasn't made this week by the Prime Minister. It wasn't even made in Canberra. The decision to send troops into this illegal war was made five years ago when the war parties signed up to AUKUS. It was an inevitability. When you tie yourself to the United States you are joining them in every bloody war they choose, every one of their forever wars, regardless of the legality.

This war already saw over a 100 schoolgirls killed in the first 24 hours. It's seen acid rain poured down over Iran. It has seen the global economy enter collapse. We have this bizarre exchange between Labor, the coalition and One Nation about fuel prices and fuel scarcity as though it came as a surprise. When you set fire to the Middle East, you'll have problems with energy supplies. We have an answer to this: end AUKUS, detach ourselves from the United States and stand up for Australia. (Time expired)

The question is that the disallowance motion standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

I move:

That the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 be considered on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 12 March 2026, which proposes the disallowance of the Digital ID Amendment (Redress Framework and Other Measures) Rules 2025 made under the Digital ID Act 2024. Try saying that twice!

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today:

(a) Senator McCarthy, on account of ministerial business; and

(b) Senators Cox and O'Neill, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—On behalf of Senator Cash, I move that general business notice of motion No. 421 be postponed to the next sitting day.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Steele-John from 2 to 5 March 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Attorney-General has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 322, agreed to on 4 February 2026, relating to the establishment of a Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion;

(b) further notes that the Attorney-General has made a public interest immunity claim (PII claim) on the ground that disclosure of some documents captured by the order would reveal Cabinet deliberations; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Attorney-General to table a document which identifies, for each document which has been withheld under the PII claim, the name (or a short description of the document if untitled), date and type of the document, as well as an explanation of the specific harm that would be caused by releasing the document, by no later than midday on 16 March 2026.

Question agreed to.

I ask that the government's opposition to the motion be recorded.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages, created after 1 January 2025, between the Minister for Communications and/or her office, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts in relation to the eSafety Commissioner's expenditure on legal proceedings.

Question agreed to.

I ask that the government's opposition to the motion be recorded.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister for Industry and Innovation has made a public interest immunity claim for some material sought by order for the production of documents no. 314 on the ground that tabling the material would disclose the deliberations of Cabinet;

(b) reaffirms:

(i) its resolution of 16 July 1975 that upon a claim of privilege based on an established ground being made to any question or to the production of any documents, the Senate shall consider and determine each such claim, and

(ii) its resolution of 26 August 2025 that the Senate cannot determine claims of public interest immunity if the nature of the documents is withheld from the Senate; and

(c) requires that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Industry and Innovation, by no later than midday on 19 March 2026, a document which lists all documents which are captured by the order for which the Minister for Science has made a public interest immunity claim on the ground that tabling the material would disclose the deliberations of Cabinet, detailing, for each document, the title (or a description of the document if untitled), date and type of the document.

by leave—I again ask that the government's position opposing the motion be recorded.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Thursday, 12 March 2026, any documents and data relating to approval timeframes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), including:

(a) the average (and maximum and minimum) approval times for housing projects under the existing EPBC Act and related rules and expected average (and maximum and minimum) approval times under the new EPBC Act and related rules;

(b) the number of housing projects and associated dwellings that were awaiting approval immediately prior to the August 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable;

(c) the number of such projects and associated dwellings approved since the August 2025 Economic Reform Roundtable; and

(d) the number of housing projects and associated dwellings, awaiting approval as at 4 March 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 415, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The speech was unavailable at the time of publishing .

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by no later than 23 March 2026, the following documents:

(a) any briefing materials, briefing notes, file notes and emails between the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the minister) and/or their office and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the department) with regard to the draft Export Cost Recovery Implementation Statements for 2026-27 for dairy products, grain and plant products, horticulture, live animals, meat, non-prescribed goods, fish and egg products and seafood and eggs (the commodities);

(b) any briefing notes, file notes, emails, spreadsheets, software databases and modelling that the department used that determine the proposed fees and charges in 2026-27, 2027-28, 2028-29 and 2029-30 in the draft Export Cost Recovery Implementation Statements for 2026-27 for all of the commodities including, but not limited to:

(i) the activity type,

(ii) the number of times each activity is undertaken,

(iii) the time spent on each activity,

(iv) the individual line items that made up the modelled cost,

(v) the data and scenarios to support the modelled volumes, and

(vi) how new regulatory activities have been taken into consideration in cost recovery—China Import Food Enterprise Registration, Micor sustainment, market maintenance, non-compliance investigation and triage;

(c) any briefing materials, briefing notes, file notes and emails between the minister and/or their office and the department with regard to the draft Export Cost Recovery Implementation Statements for 2026-27 and the impact of the proposed fees and charges on the viability of agricultural industries for all of the commodities; and

(d) any briefing notes, file notes, and emails between the minister and/or their office and the department relating to the development of an ongoing sustainable funding model to support the department's export regulatory and trade activities that commenced from 2023-24 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask, in relation to general business notice of motion No. 418, that the government's opposition be recorded.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than Thursday, 12 March 2025, the referral decision brief for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation matter 2025/10370—Wind farm in Scott River.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 420, standing in the name of Senator Whitten, be agreed to.

I move:

That the order agreed to on 27 November 2025 relating to estimates hearings for 2026 be varied as follows:

After paragraph (1), insert:

(1A) That cross portfolio estimates hearings on Indigenous matters and on Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters be scheduled for Friday, 29 May 2026 and Friday, 30 October 2026, but not restricted to those days.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government does not support this motion. Despite her moving this motion today, I don't believe Senator Payman has ever attended a single cross-portfolio Indigenous matters estimates hearing since being elected in 2022. Senator Payman has not asked a single question to the National Indigenous Australians Agency or any agencies, officials or organisations in the Indigenous Australians portfolio during estimates. We have more than tripled the time dedicated to First Nations issues on the estimates schedule: 23 hours was scheduled for First Nations issues and Closing the Gap outcomes at the February hearings, up from six hours and 45 minutes scheduled at the last cross-portfolio hearing. Indigenous matters are now part of everyday estimates. This is a structural change to reflect that closing the gap is a whole-of-government responsibility, shared by all ministers and secretaries.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 20 March 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Foreign Affairs and/or her office, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and former Ambassador to the United States of America, the Honourable Dr Kevin Rudd AC, and/or his office in relation to Dr Rudd's early departure from the ambassadorship and the circumstances surrounding said early departure.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the government's opposition to that motion be recorded.

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move general business notices of motion Nos 409, 410, 411 and 412 together:

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 409

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all briefs and briefing notes, submissions, talking points, options papers and other departmental advice provided to the Minister for Home Affairs since 29 July 2024 specifically concerning options available to him to prevent individuals described in public reporting as 'ISIS brides' from returning to Australia.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 410

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all briefs and briefing notes, submissions, talking points, options papers and other departmental advice provided to her during her period as Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically concerning options available to her to prevent individuals described in public reporting as 'ISIS brides' from returning to Australia.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 411

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026, all correspondence between the Department of Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the date on which the response to this order is provided, including letters, emails, file notes of meetings and telephone conversations, and any other records of communication.

GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 412

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026:

(a) all written correspondence between the Minister for Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided, including letters, emails, text messages and messages sent via encrypted messaging applications;

(b) all written correspondence between the Minister for Home Affairs' office and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided;

(c) any telephone records or call logs evidencing communications between the Minister for Home Affairs and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided; and

(d) any telephone records or call logs evidencing communications between the Minister for Home Affairs' office and Dr Jamal Rifi from 29 July 2024 to the day on which the response to this order is provided.

The question is that general business notices of motion Nos 409, 410, 411 and 412, all standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, by no later than 2 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026:

(a) any ministerial determination, authorisation or instrument made under section 9 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 in relation to any individual within the cohort of 34 Australian citizens (commonly referred to in public reporting as 'ISIS brides and their children') who have been reported as intending to travel imminently to Australia;

(b) any document recording or evidencing the exercise of ministerial discretion to excuse, exempt or otherwise not apply section 37 of the Australian Passports Act 2005 in relation to any individual within that cohort and any person seeking to help them; and

(c) any associated ministerial submissions, briefs, file notes, departmental advice and records of decisions relating to the matters identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 413, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Duniam, I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Government's Management of ISIS Brides be established to inquire into and report on the national security, counter-terrorism and public safety risks arising from the return, or potential return, to Australia of Australians (including women and children) who have been associated with ISIS in Syria and/or Iraq, with particular reference to:

(a) the role, actions and decision-making processes of relevant Commonwealth ministers in relation to the repatriation, or proposed repatriation, of Australians linked to ISIS, including but not limited to the Prime Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and their offices and any other relevant portfolio minister and their offices; including:

(i) consideration of ministerial briefings, directions and approvals,

(ii) decisions relating to the issuing, refusal or cancellation of passports,

(iii) the making, revocation or consideration of temporary exclusion orders,

(iv) the exercise of citizenship cessation or migration-related powers,

(v) engagement with and representations from non-government organisations, legal representatives, advocacy groups or third parties,

(vi) meetings between ministers or their offices and departmental officials,

(vii) interdepartmental and interagency coordination, and

(viii) any other correspondence, advice or involvement by ministers, their offices or departments relating to the assessment, facilitation or management of repatriation activities;

(b) the current threat assessment relating to Australians linked to ISIS, including:

(i) the number and status of individuals overseas and returned,

(ii) Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation and Australian Federal Police assessments of short-term and long-term risk, and

(iii) the potential for radicalisation, facilitation, recruitment or support activities within Australia;

(c) the adequacy of Australia's legislative framework to mitigate risks posed by returning individuals, including:

(i) counter-terrorism offences under the Commonwealth Criminal Code,

(ii) declared area provisions,

(iii) control orders and preventative detention orders,

(iv) continuing detention orders,

(v) terrorism notification requirements, and

(vi) citizenship cessation and passport cancellation power;

(d) consular and welfare assistance, including coordination with non-government organisations and international organisations;

(e) the operational capability and resourcing of relevant Commonwealth agencies, including Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police and the Department of Home Affairs, to:

(i) investigate and gather admissible evidence from foreign conflict zones,

(ii) prosecute terrorism-related offences,

(iii) conduct ongoing monitoring, surveillance and disruption activities, and

(iv) manage long-term security risks;

(f) the intergovernmental coordination between Commonwealth, state and territory authorities, including:

(i) information sharing arrangements,

(ii) risk management frameworks, and

(iii) community safety planning and law enforcement preparedness;

(g) the specific risks posed by returning these women and children, including:

(i) exposure to extremist ideology or training,

(ii) safeguarding against future radicalisation pathways, and

(iii) appropriate security-informed child protection responses;

(h) the experience of comparable allied nations in managing the return of ISIS-linked individuals, including best practice models for risk mitigation and prosecution;

(i) the cost implications of monitoring, prosecution, detention and long-term security management of returnees;

(j) whether any legislative amendments or new powers are required to ensure Australia's national security framework is sufficient to address the risks associated with returning ISIS-linked individuals; and

(k) any related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 17 September 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

(b) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

(c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and

(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.

(4) That:

(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;

(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and

(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.

(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Opposition and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Government.

(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.

(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.

(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(10) That the committee has power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.

(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.

(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 414, standing in the name of Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today, as shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

The need for the Government to rule out deploying Australian military personnel in the Middle East as part of the US and Israeli illegal war with Iran, noting that the Australian public does not support joining another US forever war, and the growing global concerns about its dangerous escalation.

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.

At the request of Senator McKim, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government to rule out deploying Australian military personnel in the Middle East as part of the US and Israeli illegal war with Iran, noting that the Australian public does not support joining another US forever war, and the growing global concerns about its dangerous escalation.

Today's announcement from Labor really beggars belief. Does Prime Minister Albanese have no shame? When he was in opposition, he opposed sending Australian troops to illegal wars. Now that he is the Prime Minister, he is sending Australian troops, missiles and aircraft to an illegal war. The government of Australia under Mr Albanese, backed by the coalition and One Nation, is now America's deputy sheriff and a partner in Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war. The deception from Labor is fooling no-one. We give billions of dollars of our people's money to the US for weapons under AUKUS. We send deadly weapons to Israel in the two-way arms trade. Labor hosts their leaders and joins their wars. Labor, the coalition and One Nation back their crimes while acknowledging that there is no legal justification. Australia is now complicit. We are involved, and it is wrong. Enough!

The people of Australia do not want this war. We want an independent foreign policy. We don't want our policy set by weapons manufacturers. We don't want our foreign policy objectives determined by access to fossil fuels. This war isn't just illegal; it's immoral. We know that it is civilians in Iran and across the Middle East who will pay the price—women, children and families. We want no part of Israel's or America's war crimes. We demand justice. You can have a safe future, but not if we follow Trump blindly into war.

From being the first country to support this illegal war, to allowing the US aircraft to refuel on our soil, to having Australian personnel on a US warship while it bombed an Iranian vessel, to now sending warplanes, missiles and deploying Australian personnel, it's now clear that, when Donald Trump says, 'Jump,' Mr Albanese asks, 'How high?' Now, they are taking a leaf out of Trump's visa-freeze book and rushing in laws to block Iranians with legal visas from entering Australia, right when they most need it—a government backing and resourcing a war killing civilians and then shutting the door to people suffering from that war. It is morally bankrupt.

Here we are again. It's the third time today the Greens have tried to weaponise a foreign conflict for political benefit here at home, just as they have done so shamefully over the last 2½ years since 7 October terror attacks in Israel and the disgusting antisemitism that we've seen in the country ever since. You would think they would have learned from recent years for the consequences of their behaviour that were visited on them at the last election when voters delivered them a very strong message—and us too. We're very humble about our election results, and we've owned that on the public record. I've yet to see a single green own up for the fact that the positions that they took on antisemitism and the Israel-Gaza conflict resulted in them losing three out of their four lower house seats across the country, where voters rejected the way in which they sought to weaponise a foreign conflict for political benefit. It is very, very clear that there is no level to which the Greens are unwilling to stoop when it comes to taking advantage of these foreign conflicts.

Let's remember the famous words of the former Greens leader Adam Bandt at a closed party conference of the Greens which was leaded to the media and reported in the media, which he probably thought would never see the light of day but which really, really illustrates the depths to which the Greens are willing to go. Mr Bandt said, at the time that 'if we don't win seats from the Labor Party at the next election, then they will get away with bombing Gaza'. On what planet is the Australian Labor Party involved in bombing Gaza? On no sane planet among no sane people is the Australian government involved in that in any way, shape or form, and yet that's exactly what the Greens sought to propagate in the community. They sought to propagate it particularly in lower house seats in Melbourne, like in Wills, where they targeted Peter Khalil, reprehensively and dangerously, which resulted in his office and his staff being regularly harassed by extremists in the community who had been whipped up by the Greens for partisan political benefit. And here they are again, spouting complete mistruths—total misinformation—about Australia's involvement in this conflict or lack thereof, as the case actually is, seeking to put up social media videos to whip people into a frenzy and get them agitated about this foreign conflict and try to bring it here. Australian do not want foreign conflicts imported to Australia, and yet the Greens, at every single opportunity, seek to do exactly that. We are not a party to this conflict. Australia is not involved in the strikes against Iran, but sensible people in this place recognise that the Iranian regime is not one that deserves defending, like the Greens have been running interference for over the last week or so. The Iranian regime has killed tens of thousands of its own citizens, including women for the crime of failing to veil themselves in public. This includes Mahsa Amini, who was bashed to death by the IRGC and the Basij of the Iranian regime for the crime of not wearing a headscarf. The Greens, as supporters of women's rights and feminism, should not want to associate themselves in any way, shape or form with a regime like that, and yet here they are and that is what they do.

Let's not forget this is a regime that has struck Australian soil and that has perpetrated terror attacks against Australian citizens, including the attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, in my home state of Victoria. A regime that thinks it's okay to sponsor terror attacks on Australia is not a regime that deserves defending. This is a regime which also sponsors terrorism across the world. It is a primary financier and organiser of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and many other terror organisations that have struck across the world and killed innocent civilians. They attempted to sow those sorts of attacks here against our community. There was not just the attack in Melbourne against the Adass Israel Synagogue but also the attack at Lewis' Continental Kitchen in Sydney.

I would have thought a political party dedicated to peace and nonviolence would be highly critical of a regime like that. I would have thought they would consistently apply their concerns about international law. I don't remember hearing their concerns about international law when Iran was directing its proxies to launch strikes on Tel Aviv to kill innocent civilians in Israel. That's against international law. I don't remember the Greens asking questions about that in question time. I don't remember the Greens moving an urgency motion or holding a press conference about Iran's breaches of international law over the last 50 years, as they've attempted to acquire nuclear and ballistic weapons in defiance of international sanctions and resolutions of the United Nations. The Greens are not concerned about that because the Greens just want to run and peddle an anti-American and anti-Israel line for domestic political benefit. They've been exposed for that. There are political consequences of that that they should own up to.

The responsibility of being in government is to act in the national interest, not to act in one's political interest. That national interest is protecting Australians and keeping them safe.

When we talk about Iran, let's not pretend we are talking about a benign actor. We are talking about a regime that has threated international peace for years, and, in 2024, was responsible for at least two antisemitic attacks on Australian soil, in Sydney and Melbourne. At that time, Australia took the unprecedented step of expelling Iran's ambassador from Australia, suspending our operations at our embassy in Iran and listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism. The Iranian regime has systematically violated human rights and brutally repressed its own people. It has repeatedly contravened its international obligations.

The Prime Minister held a press conference this morning and he made it very clear that Australia is not deploying troops for offensive operations. Limited Australian assets have been deployed, in a defensive capacity only, to protect Australians and our interests. There are 115,000 Australians in the Middle East, with around 20,000 in the UAE, who need our support. Australia will deploy an E-7A Wedgetail to the gulf to protect and defend Australians. The Senate will recall that the E-7A Wedgetail was deployed to Europe as part of Australia's assistance to Ukraine. We stand with our partners in the gulf and, critically, to protect Australians in the region.

Our first priority will always be the safety of Australians, so it is deeply disappointing to the see the Greens, once again, put their own political interests above the national interest of our nation. This is a moment when Australians rightly expect all political leaders to speak with unity. This is not a moment for the Greens to chase headlines. The Australian government has been working around the clock to support Australians in the region. DFAT has activated its Consular Emergency Centre and is providing 24-hour, around-the-clock consular support. Australians needing support can contact 1300555135 in Australia and +61262613305 from overseas. Registrations have opened, through the crisis portal, for Australians in Bahrain, Kuwait and Lebanon, in addition to Iran, Israel, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. We continue to advise Australians to not travel to Iran and to leave Iran as soon as possible if it is safe to do so.

We do not want to see further escalation, but we must protect Australian interests. But it is also important that we remember the human dimension of what is happening inside Iran. The presence of the Iranian women's football team in my home state, on the Gold Coast, was a powerful reminder that we fight for equality for the people of Iran on what is happening in Iran right now. Five members of the Iranian women's national football team have sought and have been issued humanitarian visas here in Australia. They had been due to return home soon, but fears were raised for their safety after the team declined to sing the Iranian national anthem before a match and after the widespread reporting on Iranian state television attacking the players for this action. I am proud that the Albanese government acted so decisively. As the Prime Minister said, these women are safe here, and they should feel at home in Australia.

When this Labor government talks about women's rights, it's not just rhetoric; it is action. It is the $4 billion we're investing to tackle gender based violence. It's the introduction of 10 days of paid domestic violence leave. It is stronger workplace protections and a historic investment in women safety. We are closing the gender pay gap, lifting wages in female dominated industries and investing in women's health. This is real progress. This is what leadership looks like.

So, while the Greens want to frame this debate through the lens of politics—

You're the one doing that.

this government's position is clear. We will stand with our allies in defending Australians in the region. We will prioritise the safety of Australians, of whom there are 115,000 in the Middle East, many of them desperate to come home and scared for their lives. We will continue to act in the national interest, not in the political interest.

Again I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Thank you, Senator Waters.

We so often hear the cost of war reduced to the talking points of the war parties, detached from reality and stripped of humanity. They seek to defend the indefensible—shredding international law, with blatant breaches of international law. Men in suits talk up the weapons being deployed. Their strategic narratives are tweaked. These are the things that dominate the headlines and too often dominate debate in this chamber.

But, for most people sitting at home, these things feel disconnected. What is too often pushed aside is the human cost of war. It is babies, children and women. It's families. While commentators debate markets and economics, parents are sifting through rubble in anguish. While analysts discuss alliances and strategy, mothers are burying their children. Reports indicate that more than 1,000 civilians have already been killed in the illegal war in Iran, among them more than 150 schoolgirls. A parent should never have to endure the horror of identifying their child beneath the rubble of an air strike. This is what war does. It kills people who had no say in the decisions made in war rooms thousands of kilometres away. While families bury their children, others are counting their profits. From Washington to Tel Aviv—and, yes, here in Canberra—there are those who profit from this violence: gas companies watching prices surge and weapons manufacturers signing new contracts. That is the brutal truth of war—some people making money while others count the loss of family lives.

Today, instead of stepping away from this violence, Australia is striding into it further, sending military personnel, a surveillance aircraft and missiles to the gulf, and dragging Australia deeper into Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war. At the same time, the government is moving to shut the door on people fleeing that violence, with a bill clearly aimed at people from Iran seeking safety here. Shame on you! The killing of a single child should stop us in our trucks. Human lives must never be reduced to collateral damage.

The Albanese government has been very clear on this issue. We are not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. It's not often that I agree with comments from those opposite, but I do with what Senator Paterson talked about earlier around misinformation and the peddling of misinformation in this debate. It is unhelpful at best, is contributing to the enormous unease and fear across the Australian community and is simply incorrect.

Let's clarify the facts. The first priority of the Albanese government is and always will be to keep Australians safe. The actions that we are taking are framed around this purpose and this purpose alone. Right now, as Senator Mulholland said earlier, there are around 115,000 Australians in the Middle East—around 24,000 in the United Arab Emirates. For those Australians and for their families here at home, this is an incredibly difficult and uncertain time. More than 2,600 Australians have now returned home with the assistance of the government, but significant challenges remain, and further work is underway to support those that are still seeking to leave. That includes working closely with partners across the region, deploying DFAT personnel as part of the crisis response teams and providing consular support.

But helping Australians also means helping the defence of countries where Australians live and travel. What we have seen is unprecedented. Iran has launched attacks on 12 countries across the region, from Cyprus to the gulf. Dubai airport has been under fire from Iranian missiles and drones. Since 28 February, more than 27,000 flights to and from the Middle East have been cancelled, with an estimated 4.4 million airline seats removed from schedules. These developments are serious, and the scale and reach of these attacks are contributing to an increasingly volatile security environment in the region.

Australia supported action aimed at preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and preventing Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security. Our position remains that we do not want to see the conflict continue to escalate, and we call on all parties to uphold international humanitarian law and protect civilian life. The situation is deteriorating, and it may well get worse before it improves. The growing wave of dangerous and destabilising attacks from Iran puts Australian lives and interests at risk. That is why the government has taken the decision to deploy defensive capabilities to the region to support the protection of civilians and Australian nationals.

In responding to the request from President Mohammed bin Zayed, of the United Arab Emirates, and others, in response to armed attacks on the territory of gulf nations by Iran, Australia will deploy a E-7A Wedgetail to the gulf to help protect and defend Australians and other civilians. As Senator Mulholland outlined, Australians may remember that the E-7A Wedgetail was recently deployed to Europe as part of Australia's assistance to Ukraine. As it did in Ukraine, the E-7A Wedgetail will provide long-range, critical surveillance, communications and early warning capabilities, which will help secure the airspace above the gulf. The aircraft and its supporting Australian Defence Force personnel will be leaving Australia today, and it is expected it will be operational by the end of the week. The deployment will initially operate for four weeks in support of the collective self-defence of gulf nations. In addition, the Albanese government intends to provide advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to support the UAE's defensive capabilities. As always, deployed ADF assets will operate according to Australian law, Australian policy and Australian directives.

Let me be very clear. All these measures are about the defence of gulf nations and, most importantly, the protection of Australians. In accordance with our international obligations, the government will notify the United Nations Security Council of relevant actions taken under article 51 of the United Nations Charter. At a time of growing instability in the region, the government's focus remains exactly where it should be—protecting Australians, supporting regional stability and working to prevent further escalation. We must unite and lead on this one.

To every Australian out there who feels like they are being gaslit by our current government: we feel the same. To stand here and listen to members of the government telling us that they are sending troops and missiles to the UAE to protect Australians feels like Orwellian doublespeak.

The justification is that there are hundreds if not thousands of Australians in the UAE. Well, there are also thousands of Australians in Lebanon. Israel and the IDF are dropping bombs on them, and we have not heard a peep out of you on that. It seems that there's no red line that can't be crossed—and with the opposition and PHON just cheering you on. You're quick to condemn the strikes on the UAE, but, when we saw the illegal strike by the US on Iran that started this war, you were the first out the gate to support it. There's been no condemnation of the ongoing strikes by the IDF in Lebanon.

We see a government minister who was really happy to pose with Iranian soccer players who we're giving asylum to but was quite happy to see the US and the IDF continue to drop bombs on their families and friends, and now we hear that you're going to block the visas of Iranians who are trying to escape the disaster that is before them. We see a PM who states his support for women on International Women's Day but comes out straightaway in support of the bombing of a girl's school. I feel like we are living in a dystopian parallel universe.

You might have been able to get away with this stuff in the past, but every Australian can see it on their screens—schools and schoolgirls bombed, rivers of fire, acid rain, hospitals destroyed and aid workers killed. It seems that your hypocrisy and your doublespeak know no bounds, and it is appalling.

Hear, hear! Labor has put their hand up to be Trump's deputy sheriff. This is how forever wars begin. First, we blindly endorse our allies and leave it up to the bullies and the criminals in charge in the US and Israel to decide whether their own strikes are legal, and then we get involved. We heard this morning that Australia will deploy surveillance aircraft, weapons and 85 Australian troops to the UAE. Labor has gone from supporting this illegal war politically to having Australian personnel on US military submarines to now putting troops in harm's way. Australians remember the massive failures and the mission creep of Vietnam, of Iraq and of Afghanistan—wars that cost millions of civilians their lives.

We know that civilians, especially women and children, pay the biggest price in war. We stand against the war parties opposite us—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—and against a war that will have untold long-term consequences. It's a war that, like all wars, will have only one big winner: huge profits for defence corporations, whose share prices are through the roof today. You can't bomb your way to democracy and peace. The Greens stand with millions of Australians who are watching with horror as Labor delivers for Trump, a madman, in the US and for Netanyahu, a war criminal. If we want to protect people in the region, the best thing the Albanese government could do is call for an end to war, withdraw support, stop all military engagement and end AUKUS in favour of independent foreign policy.

Today, Labor has introduced a cruel migration bill—unbelievable—that seeks to prevent people from fleeing places like Iran and finding refuge in Australia. It's absolutely shameful. Time and time again, it's Labor that treats refugees with the most cruelty. Today, they've hit a new low. If you ever thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, then this is the clearest example of why this is a lie. The war parties create refugees and then come together to shut the door on them. It's obscene. Do not send Australian troops to Trump and Netanyahu's illegal forever war.

We well remember how Australia got sucked into the Iraq war based on the massive lie of weapons of mass destruction. We all remember the catastrophic, calamitous consequences of that war: countless people dead, injured, dismembered, buried alive, impoverished and poisoned. And now Australia is being sucked into another war in the same region—again, on the basis of a big, fat lie. This time it's not from a coalition government but from a Labor government. It is lying to the Australian people about our involvement in this war. The latest lie that Labor is telling the Australian people is that the military assets and the personnel that we have committed into the war theatre today are only going to be used for defensive purposes. The Greens are here today to call out that lie because those personnel and those assets will be used in such a way to boost capacity for the United States and Israel to continue to rain down horror on the Iranian people—to continue to bomb schools and hospitals in Iran, to continue to destroy the natural environment and to continue to mass murder Iranian people. While this is going on, the war parties in this place—the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals and One Nation—are cheering these horrors on.

Remember that Labor was the first government anywhere in the world to cheer on Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war. It was embarrassing and mortifying watching Prime Minister Albanese obsequiously toady his way onto the international stage while the war criminals, Trump and Netanyahu, committed war crimes. And now you've even got US president Donald Trump suggesting that the Tomahawk missile that bombed an Iranian school, killing over 150 Iranian schoolgirls, was stolen from the US by Iran, which apparently dropped it on its own school! Aren't you embarrassed? This is the guy you've hitched us to at the hip. He is a fascist, a war criminal and a fantasist, and you have hitched our country at the hip to him through AUKUS and through your obsequious toadying. You have hitched our country to the illegal war of the war criminals Trump and Netanyahu. It's humiliating, embarrassing and degrading for our country.

Of course the women from the Iranian football team that are here in Australia deserve asylum, and the Greens are very happy to see that that asylum will be granted. But we have to point out that—on the same day that the government announced that those women will, quite rightly, be granted asylum—the government is slamming the door in the face of countless other Iranian people who could have sought protection in Australia and will now not be permitted to do so. What that means is that every time a Labor politician claims that they care about women in Iran, every time they claim they care about human rights abuses in Iran, we will remember that you slammed the door in the face of countless women and other Iranians who've had their human rights abused. You slammed the door in their faces with your draconian visa laws introduced into this parliament today that will prevent countless Iranian people, many of whom already hold valid visas, from seeking asylum. The hypocrisy is rank and it stinks. It stinks like Labor stinks. I say to people who voted Labor in the last election and who thought better of the Labor Party that it is now time to re-evaluate your political choices. The Greens are here, and we will also always defend human rights and we will always stand against war and for peace.

The time for the debate has expired. The question before the chair is that the urgency motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Senator Dean Smith has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which is shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

The Government's preparedness to safeguard Australia's fuel security amid escalating conflict in the Middle East and its impact on Australian families and businesses.

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're going to discuss the government's preparedness to safeguard Australia's fuel security amid escalating conflict in the Middle East, and its impact on Australian families and businesses. Before I get to the very, very clear answer about whether or not the government has prepared our country for crises like that in the Middle East—the answer is clearly no, it hasn't—let me share with you what has been happening in our country in the last few days.

Before the 2022 election, Anthony Albanese, then opposition leader wanting to become Prime Minister, made much of the fact that petrol prices in our country were a $1.79, $1.85 and $1.91. But now that petrol prices in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Darwin, to name a few, are at $2.20, he wants people to be calm. He wants people to be considered.

There is anxiety in the community and panic in the community because the government has failed to reassure people that there is a plan. The government has failed to plan for these types of events. The government has failed to plan for these types of events despite the fact that organisations like the Reserve Bank of Australia have been telling the government for a number of years now that the geopolitical risks to our domestic economy are real and the government must prepare for them. The coalition is committed to protecting Australia's living standards and protecting the Australian way of life, and that is especially the case in times of uncertainty and times of crisis. Australians are right to ask: has the Albanese government been doing enough to prepare our country for certainty, for growing risk and for crises?

It's worth reminding ourselves that the Australian context is unique when it comes to fuel security. Roughly 80 to 90 per cent of liquid fuels are imported into our country, making Australians price takers. We only have two major refineries operational in our country, because of the high cost of doing business in Australia. It's worth noting as well that 83 per cent of maritime imports and 90 per cent of all exports pass through contested maritime routes. This means that the need for planning, the need to foresee future risks and the need to be prepared is more paramount when it comes to delivering fuel security for Australia.

The impact of rising petrol prices will hurt Australian families and businesses. In fact, they are already hurting Australian families and businesses. Rising petrol prices will continue to fuel inflation in our country, which will continue to put pressure on rising interest rates. This is all because the government has more broadly failed to properly manage the economy.

It was just last year that Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, boldly said that inflation was now under control in Australia. They said to Australian families and businesses: 'There is no inflationary fear that you need to have in Australia anymore.' They have been proven to be devastatingly wrong when it has come to the inflationary experience in our country. More and more Australians are coming to understand that simple economic rule: excessive government spending puts pressure on inflation, which forces interest rates to rise. The RBA governor has said to the government on many occasions that it must be better prepared for the economic risks that arise from geopolitical uncertainty. The RBA has regularly highlighted in its 2025 and early 2026 monetary policy statements that expanded or extended geopolitical risks and policy uncertainties are the key risks to the economic outlook in our country.

The inflationary experience is real for families; it is real for businesses. Unfortunately, it is only going to get worse for them because the government has failed to prepare for conflicts like that in the Middle East.

I rise to make a contribution on the matter of public importance moved by Senator Smith in relation to fuel security. At the outset, I want to assure the Senate that the government takes this issue extremely seriously. I also want to assure everyone listening that we have the supply of fuel that we need. We do not see evidence that we will face a shortage at this stage. I must stress again: our nation is fuel secure. We are above our minimum petrol stockholding obligations, and we are fuel secure because this government has acted. The government has been clear. This is an international crisis; it's not a commercial opportunity.

The immediate priority of the government continues to be the safety and security of Australians across the Middle East. We are closely monitoring the evolving situation in the Middle East, including impacts to agricultural trade. We will work with industry on any potential disruptions and will continue our strong track record on diversifying our agricultural export markets.

Petrol companies have informed us that their fuel stock continues to arrive in Australia on time in the quantities that they expect. But it is clear there are some impacts in the supply chain which are exacerbated by uncertainty and the market responding to global price pressures. This is not a matter of supply but rather commercial decisions and market pressures. The National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee, which brings together all the states, has already met twice as an information-sharing forum, and this body has considered there is no shortage of supply.

I'd like to place on the record and state for the information of the Senate what our current stocks are. We have 36 days of petrol, which is 1.56 billion litres of petrol; we have 29 days of jet fuel, which equates to 802 million litres of jet fuel; and we have 32 days of diesel, which is 2.97 billion litres of diesel. As was reported during question time earlier today, our government convened a roundtable with petrol and farming peak bodies today. This will form the basis of an ongoing taskforce between agriculture and fuel suppliers, ensuring that they are able to share information and identify emerging market problems quickly. Part of this is getting everyone on the same page, making sure people understand where the market pressures and bottlenecks are.

We have a range of measures that mean increasingly closer engagement between government and industry. Minister Bowen has indicated that he will instruct the department to convene the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee regularly to maintain regular information sharing and readiness to act. But right now we do not see a risk of national shortages of supplies or risks that warrant activating extraordinary powers, nor do we believe it appropriate for the opposition to unnecessarily stir fear and create alarm.

The government is prepared, and we are ensuring Australia's fuel security. It stands in stark contrast to the coalition's failure to act when they were in government. I remember when the coalition closed refineries. We kept them open, one of which was the Kwinana oil refinery in my home state of Western Australia. After being closed in 2021 it was to be converted to an import-only terminal. As of 2025 it was transitioning into a biorefinery and green hydrogen production facility. The coalition stored emergency fuel on another continent; we're storing it here. The coalition talked about minimum stockholding obligations; we implemented them. The coalition oversaw closures of urea facilities; we're building a new one—and the trucking industry have not forgotten what they did. The coalition talked about low-carbon liquid fuels like ethanol; we're investing in them.

As I said at the outset, we are fuel secure because this government has acted—and it's not just me and senators on this side of the chamber who know the opposition got it wrong on fuel security when they were last in government. As recently as yesterday, former Nationals MP and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce agreed with Tanya Plibersek's assessment of the situation, when he said:

Tanya's right, storing it—

referring to fuel reserves—

in the United States is a very stupid place to store it.

That was Mr Taylor's idea.

In addition to that admission, Mr Joyce said the coalition had done the wrong thing and referred to their fuel security policies as 'a bad decision'. Even the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Duniam, in an interview on 2CC today, was critical of the coalition's track record when it comes to safeguarding Australia's fuel security.

President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu's illegal strike on Iran led to one of the biggest spikes in the oil price we've ever witnessed yesterday. Brent crude is over $100 a barrel. We refine that into fuels for our vehicles, aeroplanes and so on. Australians and people right around the world are very anxious and concerned about this illegal war and the impact it's going to have on them in their daily lives.

Part of the reason for the big spike in the oil price is a blockade and the risks of getting oil through the Strait of Hormuz. I'll tell you what's not sitting on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, just underneath Iran: solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, and renewable energy generating power and electricity for cars, households and energy independence all around the planet. This is a time when, if we're going to talk about energy security and fuel security, we need to talk about renewable energy. It's not just getting cheap power from the sun and the wind; it's giving us independence from these international shocks that are so disruptive to our economy. We need to have this discussion today.

For the Senate, it shouldn't be a difficult decision for us to have more renewables. I read today that both Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Matt Canavan have taken up government solar panel subsidies, yet they campaign against renewable energy. Now's the time for them to come out and fess up: there's nothing wrong with renewables, we need more of them, they're cheap and reliable, and they give us independence—bloody beauty!

I've only got a minute, so I thought I'd run through some key points that Minister Ayres made to the Senate when he was in opposition. On 21 June 2021, Senator Ayres told the Senate:

The government has been warned for years that fuel security is a matter of national importance.

He went on to warn that, in the event of a conflict disrupting supply, 'Our fuel supplies could be severely constrained and we do not have a viable contingency plan in place to provide adequate supplies for Australia's essential, everyday services.'

In the last section of his speech—and I would like Minister Ayres to reflect on it—he pointed out that, in 2018, 'Australia is the only International Energy Agency country which is a net oil importer and solely relies on the commercial stockholding of industry to meet its 90-day stockholding.' He finished that thought with:

What happened in relation to that finding? Absolutely nothing.

I can tell the Australian people that both of the major parties have been dropping the ball for years, and that is why we're in the predicament we are when it comes to our fuel security.

I doubt the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is a fan of Chris Uhlmann, but if Minister Bowen bothered to read Mr Uhlmann's columns he might orientate himself towards energy realities rather than indulge in energy fantasies. In his column in the Australian last weekend, Mr Uhlmann wrote the following:

The current Middle Eastern war underscores how the world really works and what fuels it runs on.

…   …   …

… the world runs on hydrocarbons. … The troika that delivers more than 80 per cent of the world's primary energy is still coal, oil and gas. Energy security is essential and green energy an aspiration.

…   …   …

Energy security is national security, and Europe is an energy vassal. That Australia is determined to mimic it is an act of supernatural stupidity.

Chris Uhlmann is right. Australia is a diesel economy, and Australia is particularly exposed to the events in the Middle East. We import nearly all of our crude oil and refined products. We sit at the end of a long supply chain. Without fuel, our farmers, miners and fishers are brought to a standstill. Without fuel, the trucks that are transporting food, pharmaceuticals and supplies will stop moving. Without fuel, our rural and regional areas are at risk. Without fuel, small businesses around the economy will be hamstrung. We're already hearing reports of serious fuel shortages in regional areas and even in cities. There's been panic buying and there's been rationing; both are amplifying supply issues and price increases.

What is Minister Bowen doing? He has plenty of reassuring words, but reassuring words simply don't cut it. Australians need reassuring actions from the energy minister. He needs to start pulling levers to address fuel supply shortages and he needs to start pulling levers to keep fuel prices down, but Minister Bowen is not using the powers at his disposal; he is procrastinating. Australians might start asking this question: does the energy minister want a national fuel crisis?

We know that Minister Bowen is a prophet of net zero ideology. We know that Minister Bowen romanticises green energy. He would love nothing more than to see Australians moving out of petrol cars and driving imported Chinese EVs. You can almost see Minister Bowen standing up and saying, Keating-esque, 'This is the fuel crisis we had to have'. But Minister Bowen would be ignoring a crucial fact. EVs account for only two per cent of all cars on Australian roads. It's incumbent on Minister Bowen to stop indulging in his green utopia, which is a dangerous delusion. EVs haven't lessened fuel dependency, nor will they well into the future. So much of our economy and so many of our industries rely on diesel fuel. That is a fact. Australia is a diesel economy. Energy is the economy. Energy is security. It's time for Minister Bowen to accept that reality.

The late, great Senator Jim Molan often spoke about the need to shore up Australia's fuel security. Indeed, national security experts Peter Jennings, Michael Shoebridge and Marcus Hellyer recommended urgently building our onshore national fuel reserves. They wrote:

Despite a growing awareness of the fragile supply chains that support Australian fuel needs, there has been limited government and corporate action to address this fragility. Instead, Australian refineries capable of producing these essential fuels have been closing, leaving only two refineries in operation.

The choice for Minister Bowen is clear: develop our sovereign energy sources so we can become self-reliant, or continue to indulge in a green fantasy and make Australia energy dependent on countries like China. Only one of those paths leads to a future made in Australia.

Yes, Australia does import most of its fuel—90 per cent or so—but do you know what else Australia imports? It imports about 90 per cent of its pharmaceuticals, its medicines. Yet I don't see Australians rushing to their nearest chemist and clearing the shelves of statins, antihypertensives, diabetic medications or antibiotics. What we are seeing here is extremist fearmongering being whipped up by the coalition. It is the height of irresponsibility to be doing this.

Australia is a fuel-secure nation. Just as Australians still receive their medicines when they go to the doctor, a hospital or a clinic, Australians can continue to receive their fuel provided they do not panic-buy and provided they do not listen to the fearmongering being propagated by the coalition, who have the hide to stand there and criticise us when, in their term of government, they sat back while four out of the six refineries in Australia shut down. Australia is connected to a global economy, and, with regard to fuel, our supply chains are secure and stable. In fact, don't take it from me; take it from industry. Industry has been able to fulfil its contractual obligations. That means that they are meeting their contracts to the people that are needing this fuel.

But what we are seeing around the country is panic buying being whipped up by the coalition. As a result, we are seeing some local pockets where fuel is running low or running out. But I would say to Australians that our fuel reserve is the highest it has been in 15 years. That means that we currently have 36 days of petrol, which is 1.56 billion litres of petrol, and we have 32 days of diesel, which is three billion litres of diesel. That fuel is not in Texas or Louisiana, which is where it was when the coalition were in government. That fuel is right here in Australia or in our exclusive economic zone, which means it is in transit in our maritime waters. It's actually set up in Geelong and Brisbane. That's where our fuel is—not in Texas, which is what happened under the coalition. They failed to mention that in their narrative.

In addition to that, we have charged the ACCC with making sure that Australian motorists are not being price gouged at the bowser, and we are the ones who implemented what is called a minimum stock obligation. That means that refineries are obligated to hold a minimum amount of fuel right here in Australia. In addition to that, we realised that we cannot be in a situation where we are obligated or beholden to overseas suppliers. Hence, we are investing in what is called low-carbon fuel—$1.1 billion. Part of our Future Made in Australia agenda is going towards investing in future fuels, which are things like biodiesel, sustainable aviation fuel and e-fuels. They're made from products that are grown by our farmers right here in Australia, like sorghum, canola and sugar, and from waste products like tallow. So that is one way we are diversifying.

The other thing that we're doing is investing in the electrification of our transport grid. We know that this is not a full solution and that we will still need heavy transport that is reliant on low-carbon fuels, and that's what we're investing in—$1.1 billion—for the future. We think the first product will be available to Australians in 2029. It'll drop in, meaning it'll integrate into the existing diesel supply.

In the meantime, Australians are embracing electric vehicles. There are now over 450,000 electric vehicles on the roads. December 2025 was a record period for sales of EVs. They peaked at nearly 17 per cent of new car sales. So Australians get it. They are taking their energy destiny into their own hands, and why not? One in three have solar panels, including Senator Canavan and Senator Hanson, who have now adopted solar panels. Why wouldn't they take advantage of the abundance of free energy that is bearing down on us? In addition to that, over 265,000 Australian households have now put in household batteries. This is how we strengthen Australia's energy resilience.

In 2021, Senator Hanson warned that Australia's fuel supply was dangerously low and no provisions had been made to increase storage. In 2022, I repeated the warning and set out a policy to fix our supply, which was: build more fuel storage in Australia; bring more fuel tankers under Australian ownership to guarantee in a crisis they'll deliver to Australia, not to the highest bidder; reduce red, green and blue tape, allowing producers to produce and explorers to explore while protecting critical environments; and increase refining capacity, with gas-to-fuel plants to harness our natural advantage in gas—we're bringing a bill to the Senate on Thursday to facilitate this new industry; and halve the fuel excise, cutting 22 cents a litre. With new refining capacity and better reserves, you'd expect fuel reductions around 50c a litre. Had One Nation been in government in 2021, we would have fixed our fuel supply. Instead, the Liberal-Labor unity party did nothing and simply hid the looming crisis.

When supply lines are disrupted, Australians pay. If you drive, you'll pay for it at the bowser. In Perth, prices have risen from $1.80 to as high as $2.40. If you don't drive, you will feel it at the supermarket checkout as groceries become more expensive to transport. These price rises were not unforeseeable, however. Fuel refineries across Australia have been closing down for years, leaving us more dependent on foreign refineries and making us more vulnerable to supply chain insecurity. Meanwhile, our strategic fuel reserve, for some reason, is in the United States. Why? Why are we not allowed to keep Australian fuel reserves in Australia? If we want fuel security, we need to have our fuel reserves here in Australia. But, more than that, we need to secure the sovereign capabilities to refine our own fuel. If we don't, Australians will continue to be left vulnerable to international tensions, as we see before us.

What we see is a lot of spin going around today. We're hearing a lot on who did what and when they did that, with a lot of facts on the table. We get this 'fact' that there is no fuel supply problem—it is almost gaslighting the Australian people that can't do their things out there. 'We are going to have a roundtable. That's how we are going to fix this. We are going to talk this problem out of existence'—what a great strategy that is. Let's get down to it. Roundtables won't put things on breakfast tables. Roundtables won't put stuff on dinner tables. We hear, 'So many of the refineries shut down before.' What about Clyde? What about Kurnell? These two they won't mention—the 2011 and 2012 announced closures under a Labor government.

This is the thing. Let's let some facts creep into what's going on. When they say there is no problem with fuel supply, tell that to the fishing people of Cairns, where fuel has jumped 30c to $2.40 a litre. Townsville is up 28c. Fishing fleets were already suffering under so much regulation they can't go out and put food on tables, Australian seafood, because they either can't afford the fuel to go out and fish or can't get the fuel to go out and fish. Tin Can Bay Ltd's normal supply is down to 40,000 litres per day. That is 10 per cent of normal supply. What is going to happen because we don't have great fuel supply? Let's not pretend we do. We hear the Minister for Climate Change and Energy saying there is no problem, but we have service station businesses going out of business.

My mate Jonno in the Hunter Valley has a frame and truss business. He's been told he has to buy three weeks worth of fuel upfront at $2.30 a litre to keep his trucks on the road. This is the hit that is everywhere because our fuel supply system has done nothing for a long time. When those opposite sit there and say the previous government did nothing, I was at the Port of Newcastle when the strategic fuel reserve fund funded increases in tank capacity at Park Fuels and Stolthaven. You can't say it didn't happen, because I was there and I watched it happen. These fuel operators don't make more money by storing more fuel because they are only selling the same amount of fuel. The government has to step up and build the facilities and fund the operation so that we can keep this fuel in Australia. When this governments is saying more fuel is stored here than ever before, that's because the previous government funded the creation of these things and they were built during this time. But they were not funded by this government. Once again, they are just taking the credit for a decision of the previous government. They are the facts.

Right across the nation, we are seeing businesses—we're going to see sorghum harvesting in Central Western Queensland. They don't have the fuel to do that other than the fuel in their tanks. We're about to see planting in other parts, and they don't have the diesel to do that. But we're going to go to roundtables and we're going to talk this problem out of existence! What the roundtables are meant to do is not to find a solution or solve the problem; they're meant to go long enough that you forget about it out there in public. They're meant to sweep it under the cover so that you pretend that they're right.

It's gaslighting. If this government were a person, it would have a narcissistic complex, because it gaslights all the time. It pretends it's the victim—that it's the victim of the last government or of something else, such as Ukraine or Iran. It never takes responsibility. It is a narcissistic government that does not get on with the answers. Why aren't we out there? We could do more on the ethanol mandate. We could do more on biodiesel. We could fund more storage in regional areas so that, when the big four are shutting down their supplies to secondary suppliers, there is diesel and fuel in regional areas. There are answers that we need. There are answers that we can do. There are levers that the energy minister can pull to fix the problem. But what has he chosen? To talk about it. Weekly roundtables are the answer to the fuel supply problem in Australia, according to this government.

That's what we're stuck with. We're looking at this melee between what happens in the real world and what happens in Labor's world. In Labor's world, we probably got the $275 reduction in energy prices. In Labor's world, there is no fuel supply issue. The Tin Can Bay boats can fill up—the tourist charter boats in Queensland who are getting about 10 per cent of their supply as well. The economy is suffering everywhere because of poor management. Put some money up. Pull some levers. Make sure this happens. Start investing in the things that keep Australia strong, because sovereignty only comes when we have fuel security, food security and economic security, and you can do none of that when you pretend the problems are in people's minds and not in their lives.

The time for the discussion has expired.

Before I left the chamber, I was talking about some Labor luminaries named Bill Kelty, Paul Keating and Sally McManus, who had all said that the previous iteration of this legislation was so dire that they were recommending that the government withdraw it. Thank goodness the government heeded that message! But I was looking, just as I was leaving the chamber, at the name of this legislation—'building a stronger and fairer super system'. What a misnomer this is! Let's face it, because this legislation—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026—is simply a tax. It's just more tax, and that seems to be the solution that Labor has to every single problem.

When the coalition was in government and we dealt with superannuation legislation, we tried to make the system fairer and stronger. We did things like getting rid of fees on low balances. We abolished fees for switching investments or for switching funds. We made sure that young people weren't being forced into taking life insurance that they didn't need, which simply subsidised those older cohorts that were drawing upon it. We made life insurance opt-in rather than opt-out for young people. We made sure that we got rid of multiple accounts. We introduced stapling so that your superannuation fund followed you from job to job rather than your employer simply opening up another account and another account and another account every time you started a new job, which then created two sets of fees and two set of insurances. We made sure that there was transparency in superannuation and that you could compare and contrast performance of different default funds—different MySuper funds—on the ATO website in a verifiable way so you were comparing apples with apples rather than apples with oranges. And, of course, we introduced the best-financial-interests duty to ensure that there wasn't some sort of mission creep for superannuation funds in deciding what was, in effect, best for their members and that any investment that they made was in the best financial interests of their members, with no other purpose.

As you can see, none of those reforms that were introduced by the coalition had anything to do with tax. They had everything to do with a stronger and fairer super system but nothing to do with imposing a new tax on superannuants. Yet that was the first thing that this Labor government did when it came to office. After promising that there would be no changes at all to superannuation, its first duty was to impose a new tax on super. Why is it doing that? Let's face it. The government is hunting for new pools of capital for one good reason: it has a spending problem. It needs to plug its own hole. Labor has failed to find savings in its own budget. It's failed to curtail that natural urge that Labor seems to have to keep spending more and more of other people's money. Because it's run out of ideas, it's now coming after your savings. It's coming after your superannuation to fill its budget hole.

This isn't just about numbers on a spreadsheet; there are real human consequences for this. There is a cloud of uncertainty, particularly around surviving spouses at their most vulnerable moment, because this legislation introduces the removal of the effective 'death tax exemption'. Tax has to be paid after somebody has died. There's also the introduction of the LISTO. The government says increasing the LISTO is a great thing, but the only reason the LISTO has to be increased is that when the government offered its paltry 70c a day tax break, as an election sweetener, it seemed to forget that meant our lowest and most vulnerable Australians would be paying more tax in superannuation than outside superannuation.

This is a terrible piece of legislation. It's one that should never have seen the light of day. We will continue to stand against these ideological experiments and protect the retirement security of every single Australian.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and related bill.

At its core, this bill introduces Labor's division 296 superannuation tax, and, while the Albanese government has now modified its original proposal, that change demonstrates how flawed the original design was. Initially, Labor proposed taxing unrealised capital gains within superannuation. That would have broken a fundamental principle of the Australian tax system—which is that tax is paid when income is realised, when a gain is crystallised and when there is actual cash available to pay the liability. It was a structural shift that would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base.

At the same time, the government proposed not indexing the $3 million threshold. In an inflationary environment, the effect of this would have been to quietly drag more Australians into the tax over time through bracket creep. These were critical and obvious flaws. But the policy backtrack we've witnessed in relation to this bill is not an acknowledgement by Labor of these flaws. It is the result of the sustained and justified external pressure placed on it by stakeholders. The reality is that the Albanese government only retreated on the taxation of unrealised gains and the indexation freeze following strong and ongoing scrutiny from the coalition, the superannuation sector, small-business owners and everyday Australians.

We highlighted that these were not minor tweaks. We highlighted that the original design to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. We highlighted, as I've already noted, that failing to index the threshold was a silent tax hike, especially given the inflationary pressures that flow from the Albanese government's mismanagement of the economy. An increasing number of Australians would have been captured over time, not because they were wealthier in real terms, but because these inflationary pressures would have eroded the value of the threshold. We highlighted the unique negative impact that that would have on future generations of hardworking Australians and not just on the very few wealthy Australians that they said it would impact.

It must be noted that ours were not the only dissenting voices when it came to these flawed policy proposals. Even individuals closely associated with the labour movement went on the record against the Albanese Labor government's tax plan. Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty said:

… taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax. Changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it. It would destroy super.

If that wasn't bad enough for Jim Chalmers, former prime minister Paul Keating, an early and central figure in Australia's superannuation policy—it has to be said—came out against taxing unrealised gains, flagging concerns that workers would eventually be impacted by the changes. If Paul Keating and Bill Kelty weren't enough, in the same vein, the current ACTU secretary, Sally McManus, said:

I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there.

How remarkable that a Labor Prime Minister in Anthony Albanese and a Labor Treasurer in the form of Jim Chalmers would find their tax plan, their clever tax thinking, attacked by former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty, former Labor prime minister Paul Keating and a current leading figure of the ACTU. Given this opposition, including from its own people, why did the Albanese government think these measures should become law? The answer is that, rather than considered policy based on sound principles, it has fundamentally always been part of a revenue grab by a government that cannot exercise discipline in its own spending.

Not simplification of the superannuation system, not improvement on current or future retirement outcomes for Australians, but quite the opposite—the intent was to fund higher government spending. Government spending has risen to around 26 per cent of GDP, well above long-run averages outside crisis periods. When spending grows faster than the economy, governments start looking for new tax bases, and, increasingly, Labor sees superannuation as one of them. That approach risks undermining confidence in the entire retirement system, because, once the principle is accepted that super balances can be taxed more heavily whenever fiscal pressure emerges, the stability of the whole system is weakened.

Today, it may apply above one threshold. Tomorrow, the threshold may change. Confidence in retirement savings depends on stability, predictability and transparency. Importantly, it also depends on trust. This Labor government has demonstrated that it can't be trusted with peoples' superannuation. It is damaged when governments like this one are not up-front with the Australian people and when the Australian people feel they cannot trust their government. Australians were not presented, at the time of the last federal election, with a policy to tax unrealised gains in superannuation, nor were they told that longstanding superannuation settings would be altered, nor were they warned that indexation would be part of the plan.

In my experience, that waning confidence is particularly strong in regional Western Australia, where I so frequently travel. Many small business owners and family enterprises hold assets through superannuation as part of a long-term retirement plan. These are not theoretical high-balance accounts; they often represent decades of working and building farms, small businesses and regional enterprises. Those Australians most certainly need more certainty from the government, not less. They need stable rules. They need to be able to trust the government with their superannuation. That brings me to some further concerns regarding the bill.

The revised legislation removes the earlier effective death exemption and raises questions about how inherited super balances and total and permanent disability payments interact with these new thresholds. These are structural risks but also very human problems. Surviving spouses rely on superannuation balances to maintain stability after the loss of their partner. There is the potential for additional tax complexity and reduced security at a time when they are least positioned to cope with it. Then there are those Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Superannuation is a lifeline more so for many of this cohort than for anybody else in our community.

Policy in this area must be approached with care, and any legislative change resulting in greater volatility and complication and less predictability will have meaningful consequences. It's important that we view this bill as the beginning of Labor's approach to superannuation rather than the end to it—that is to say, very warily—because it is unlikely, now it has begun, that the Albanese government will ever stop taxing super. It is high spending and high taxing, and superannuation is too tempting a source of revenue for this government. Whether it be new boundaries, new tax bases, thresholds left unindexed, creative interpretations of income—whatever Labor proposes, it can be certain we will scrutinise it to the greatest extent possible.

Superannuation is Australians' money. It is not the government's money. The system surrounding it should promote transparency and confidence and trust. Governments should address spending pressures through fiscal discipline, not by treating retirement savings as a convenient source of revenue. That's the reform the Albanese government should now be pursuing as we approach the next budget.

I'll be supporting this bill because it makes our super system fairer and helps reduce inequality. Superannuation is one of the best things Australia has ever done. It means ordinary workers can retire with dignity after a lifetime of hard work. But, like any system, it has to keep evolving to stay fair. This bill makes a simple and sensible change. It means that super balances above $3 million will have earnings taxed at 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent, and balances above $10 million will have earnings taxed at 40 per cent. I reckon that's fair. Most Australians will never come close to those balances, but, when someone has many millions sitting in a tax advantaged account, it's reasonable that the tax treatment reflects that.

More importantly, this bill helps low-income earners from July next year. The low-income superannuation tax offset, known as LISTO, will increase from $500 to a maximum of $810 and will lift the income threshold up to $45,000. According to the Super Members Council, that change will benefit more than 28,000 low-income Tasmanians, putting about $400 extra into their super accounts. For people doing it tough, that extra boost will make a real difference over time.

But, let's be honest, the earlier version of this bill had some shocking components. It would have taxed unrealised gains, which would have hurt Tasmanian farmers badly. It also had the $3 million threshold locked in without indexation, which is incredibly short sighted. I fought hard to have those parts removed. I'm pleased the government listened. The revised bill is more equitable and doesn't hurt farmers, and the threshold is now indexed so it keeps place with inflation.

This reform will also help the budget bottom line. It's forecast that, by 2028-29, the new tax arrangements will raise around $2 billion. But here's the thing. Two billion dollars is still less than what we raise from the tax on beer, which brings in $2.7 billion, and it's more than half a billion dollars more than we collect from the tax on gas companies, which is expected to bring in just $1.5 billion this year. So, while this bill is good, we need to have a serious conversation about why Australia earns more from beer and from taxing wealthy super balances than we do from overseas gas giants. To me, that just isn't fair.

Finally, while we're talking about fairness in super, there's another reform we should tackle. Right now, workers under 18 are only guaranteed super if they work more than 30 hours a week for one employer. That rule is outdated. It was created to protect small balances from fees, but those protections already exist today. The reality is that most teenage workers, especially young women working part-time, don't get super on their wages because of this rule. Some employers do the right thing and pay it anyway, which is great, but fairness shouldn't depend on how generous your boss is. Women already retire with about 25 per cent less super than men, and that gap can start from their very first job. Scrapping the 30-hour threshold would help close that gap.

The Super Members Council says a typical teenage girl could have nearly $2½ thousand more in super by the age of 18, growing to about $11,000 more before retirement. A typical teenage boy could have about $2,000 more by 18 and around $9,000 more by retirement. That might not sound huge to some people, but it's real money. It's groceries for a year. It's the difference between a full fridge and worrying about how you'll get by.

It's time to scrap the under-18 carve-out and make sure every worker earns super from their first hour of work. I welcome this bill, but let's look at the broader tax and super system and make it fairer across the board. Let's be bold and think of our future generations.

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak in relation to this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026. The first point I want to make is in relation to some egregious components of this legislation as it was originally presented to the parliament. There were two in particular.

The first was the proposal to apply capital gains tax to unrealised capital gains. The Labor government proposed to impose a tax on unrealised capital gains—that is, a tax on paper profits. It's absolutely extraordinary that the Treasurer would even contemplate proposing such a tax, because it has long been part of Australian taxation law that paper profits aren't subject to taxation—that capital gains on paper are not subject to taxation and that capital losses on paper can't be used to offset other capital gains. The abandonment of that fundamental principle of the Australian taxation system was of deep concern right across this country—to businesses, to superannuants, to those running self-managed superannuation funds and to the general public—so it is very pleasing to see that the concept of taxing unrealised capital gains, taxing paper profits, has been dropped from this legislation. The coalition fought long and hard to get that tax on unrealised capital gains dropped. I am very pleased that the coalition, with support from some members of the crossbench, has been successful in that regard, and I commend all of my colleagues who've been fighting against the imposition of capital gains tax on paper profits.

The other point I want to talk about in relation to the bill as it was originally presented is that the government wasn't originally going to index the threshold at which the greater rates of taxation were applied. This was absolutely nonsensical, and it would, in effect, have punished younger Australians. Again, this is something which the coalition fought tooth and nail against—the failure by the government to propose threshold indexation in the initial legislation —and, again, it is pleasing to see that the nonindexation of the thresholds has been abandoned.

So those were the two issues. First, the taxation of unrealised capital gains has now been dropped from the bill, largely as a result of the coalition standing firm on that point of principle, and, second, the nonindexation of thresholds has also been dropped, again as a result of the coalition's steadfast opposition. This raises a point as to whether or not these concepts were ever taken to the Australian people during the election campaign.

I have a pretty fundamental principle as to how one should conduct oneself in public life: one should take to an election the platform which one will implement after the election. The Labor Party never took to the election taxation on unrealised capital gains, and the Labor Party never took to the election the nonindexation of different rates of tax on superannuation balances. Those two elements of the bill they presented to this parliament were never mentioned when they went to the Australian people to seek a mandate.

It's absolutely appropriate that the Labor Party has been forced—kicking and screaming—to withdraw those two elements from this bill; however, there is still another issue with respect to the legislation before us, and that is that it introduces serious structural risks. My colleague Senator Smith spoke to some of these structural risks, in his erudite contribution in this chamber. One of these is the removal of the effective death tax exemption, which creates uncertainties for families at precisely the moment that they are most vulnerable—when losing a loved one. Surviving spouses who rely on superannuation balances to maintain stability after the loss of a partner could face additional tax complexity and reduced security at exactly the time when they don't need that additional complexity and lack of security. Total and permanent disability benefit recipients are another cohort that must be considered carefully. These are Australians who, through no fault of their own, are no longer able to work. Their superannuation is not an abstract investment vehicle; it's a lifeline. Any change that increases volatility, reduces predictability or complicates access to those funds carries real human consequences.

The other point I would make in conclusion is that this proposal should not be viewed in isolation. It's about Labor being able to spend more and pour more debt petrol on the inflation fire. When spending accelerates without corresponding structural form, governments eventually reach the limits of conventional revenue sources and then test new boundaries. We saw the testing of new boundaries in the legislation as it was originally proposed, in the initial bill. Taxing unrealised capital gains would have created a new boundary, and thankfully, kicking and screaming, the government has had to retreat from that position.

Australians deserve clarity with respect to their retirement funds and superannuation, and the coalition will be watching very, very carefully to see what the government proposes in the lead-up to the May budget. I reinforce the point: be honest with the Australian people. Don't introduce something in the budget, in terms of taxation measures, that you did not take to the last election, because that's unfair to the Australian people. Be upfront with the Australian people.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and add my support to the bill. I do want to start, though, by raising my concern that senators have been prevented from having an inquiry into this bill. There's a worrying trend in this place whereby legislation that is perhaps seen as controversial is not referred to an inquiry. I don't understand why senators on my left feel the need to exempt bills like this from inquiry and not back themselves to make their case through the inquiry process—to actually grapple with the complexity and the varying views in the community and amongst experts—and ultimately land with a bill that they think is the right direction to be heading in.

There's a positive story to tell with this bill, and, again, I think that would have come out in the Senate committee process. But, because of the lack of that process, we have missed out on being able to genuinely scrutinise the finer details of this bill. There have been concerns raised about some of the transitional provisions in the bill, and I don't think it's unwarranted for the Senate to examine those concerns and either dispute them or try and fix them if that's appropriate. We are the house of review, and our committees play an important role not just in that review function but in opening up our democracy to the Australian people. We see that in Senate committees, where people have the opportunity to actually come before the Senate and talk about their area of expertise or simply give us their lived experience—their view on something the Senate is dealing with.

Before I get to the bill, I also want to put on record that it's incredibly disappointing that this bill is being guillotined. The government has spent weeks throwing sand in the gears with pointless amendments, reading out full amendments and motions, going through government business time, slowing the Senate down and preventing us from actually debating legislation. When you do actually bring a bill, which I think is very important, you then do a deal with the Greens to guillotine it, despite having the support for this bill to pass. I think this is a real low point in terms of accountability—to have a bill that didn't go to inquiry then get guillotined—and I think the Australian people deserve better from our Senate.

To the substantive parts of the bill, I think most Australians would agree that, when you break it down and look at the figures, our superannuation concessions are, undoubtedly, very generous. As I heard the Assistant Treasurer, Dr Mulino, say in the House:

… super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year and will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s.

I don't see any issue in helping people build their super balances. That's great public policy. We want less reliance on the age pension—which, if you speak to anyone on the age pension, is incredibly hard to get by on. We want fewer people struggling to keep their heads above water in their senior years. But the reality is that the distribution of those concessions is not even. As our colleague Senator McKim has noted publicly, the 10 richest super accounts in Australia hold an average of $423 million, more money than the vast majority of Australians would ever see in their lifetimes.

The simple reality is that super tax concessions are not helping people to build a nest egg for their retirement. They are not even really helping to encourage additional savings, according to the Retirement income review. At present, they're largely offering a tax break for people seeking to amass incredible wealth. According to an analysis by the Australia Institute, the richest 10 per cent receive $22 billion in tax breaks. If we can be more prudent with these concessions so that we can achieve more for retirees, then I think we should be doing that.

Since this bill was first introduced in the last parliament, there have been significant changes. Really, I think there are some good changes, and I really commend the Treasurer, the Assistant Treasurer and their teams for the work that they've done on this bill. The first is the indexing of the high-balance threshold. This was not a fringe concern. It was painted by some as a fringe concern, but it was a very real concern raised—that, if we don't get the settings right now, we will entrench yet another system that will fall unequally on young workers. Today, $3 million is a lot of money, but it won't be in the decades to come. To quote Sally McManus from the ACTU:

I do think it's got to be indexed because you've got to make sure eventually people don't end up there—

meaning, of course, those everyday Australians on ordinary wages who would have fallen victim to a $3 million threshold had that not been indexed.

There's also the change to remove the policy of taxing unrealised capital gains, considering the impacts that would have had on small businesses, farmers and people holding volatile assets in areas of public interest. On the latter, I was particularly concerned about the impact this could have had on R&D and things like medical research at a time where public investment in R&D is at a record low. Early-stage drug discovery and medical research are inherently volatile, and changes that disincentivise interest and investment in this line of work are something we really need to take seriously. As the former secretary of the ACTU Bill Kelty said recently:

I think taxing unrealised capital gains is bad policy. It distorts the effective tax. Changes your income flows, and if it was on superannuation generally, there would be a revolution about it.

I also want to commend the government and celebrate the changes that are being made to the low-income super tax offset, the LISTO. The LISTO is a fairness measure that is supposed to ensure that low-income Australians aren't paying more tax on their super than their take-home pay. But, since it was first introduced, tax bracket and super guarantee rate changes mean that it's now out of date, and more than a million of the nation's lowest income earners are paying more super tax than they should. In the ACT, that's 17,000 Canberrans, around 60 per cent of whom are women. Fixing this is good policy, ensuring that people aren't paying more in super tax than they are in income tax. The government and this parliament have a clear role in building a tax system that helps everyone to thrive in our society and, in this case, to build some savings for retirement. Making sure that we're using and spending tax concessions prudently is part of that so that we can make investments where they're needed to help people maintain a basic standard of living when they're older.

On a final note, I wanted to talk about defined benefits. I represent many people here in the ACT, many Canberrans, who receive a defined benefit, and I want to acknowledge their concerns. The government says this policy will fairly apply to people on defined benefits, but I just don't believe that that case has been made. Again, in the absence of a Senate committee and or even a committee of the whole to ask these questions, I do have some concerns in this area.

People who receive a pension through a defined benefit scheme often pay the full marginal tax rate on that pension. It's essentially already treated as income. I'm concerned that there will be cases where people on defined benefits may pay a higher effective tax rate than anyone else in Australia—a higher effective tax rate than billionaires in Australia pay. There are clear differences between accumulation funds and defined benefit schemes that are relevant here—for example, the inability to split super with a spouse in the accumulation phase. As a constituent has advised me, with a defined benefit scheme, you can't roll funds back to an accumulation phase so they can fund entry into aged care. You can't draw down funds to pay for essential medical procedures. The most pressing issue is the uncertainty over the method that is going to be used to calculate the value of someone's super interest in a defined benefits scheme.

I recognise that this issue will be a disallowable instrument, and we can look at the issues associated with that method when it's tabled, but I want to make very clear that I really agree with what bill is doing, but I really regret that we haven't had the time to actually look into this in more detail to be able to assure people that the disallowable instrument will actually do what the government is telling us that it will do.

Clearly, with reform, we will never have the perfect result in everyone's eyes, but I think this is a genuine improvement for intergenerational equity and a step in making our tax system fairer. Again, maybe in contrast to what we've heard from coalition senators, I would urge the government to actually have more courage when it comes to tax reform. We are living in a country with a growing wealth inequality, a growing intergenerational inequality, and we must hold firm to the egalitarian ideal that, in Australia, you don't have to have wealthy parents to make your way in this great country. If we are committed to that, then we require tax reform and to look at housing and how we treat that more as a human right than an investment vehicle. How do we stop talking about housing as an asset class and start referring to it as being people's homes, and we want to ensure that everyone has a house to live in.

There is clearly much to do this area, including, of course, getting a fair return for our resources. Again, I find it outrageous that we live in a country that is one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, but, when it comes to gas, we're happy to give away so much of it for free and then turn around at budget time and say to older Australians and to Australians who desperately need support: 'I'm sorry. The budget is tight. We simply cannot afford to help you.' We need to reframe. These are Australia's resources. They belong to all of us, and, if we want to look at the Norwegian model, they actually belong to future generations of Australians. We could be saying: 'Yes, you can take our gas. You can export it, but you're going to pay us a 25 per cent export tax, and that's actually going to go into services for Australians, and we're potentially put some of that into our Future Fund for future generations.' That is, surely, the kind of thinking that we can and should have in this country.

I'm hearing from so many Canberrans and not just Canberrans but people across the country who are saying, 'We need a fairer deal on our natural resources; we need to be getting a cut; stop giving them away for free.' So, as part of the broader discussion on tax, I urge the government to have courage in this area. When it comes to a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, clearly, the Australian people want that and they want that soon.

The coalition stands for lower taxes, lower inflation and lower interest rates. It was coalition and community pressure that forced this Albanese Labor government to abandon taxation of unrealised gains and their indexation freeze. When this was first brought out, we immediately came out and opposed it on the basis of the taxation of unrealised capital gains and on the basis of the fact that it wasn't indexed. Now, as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 comes before the parliament, we find that there are no unrealised capital gains and it is in fact indexed.

This is a government that has been found out and is retreating under the pressure of not being able to properly form legislation. We spoke about this in the chamber when it first came before it—about the fact that it was put together in a shoddy manner, that it didn't consider unintended consequences, that it didn't think about who it would impact. I note that Senator David Pocock was speaking about the intergenerational challenges that we have. The reality is that this legislation, in its previous form, was most likely going to adversely impact young people—young Australians. Those that are starting out today are the ones that were most likely to have reached that $3 million threshold and those most likely to never own their own home. So they would have been hit twice by the actions of this government.

But thanks to the sustained scrutiny from the coalition, from the superannuation sector and from small-business owners and everyday Australians we forced Labor to step back from the most outrageous elements of this proposal. Those elements were around taxing money that you hadn't earnt yet, money that hadn't been realised yet—taxing hypothetical gains, not real gains. That's what this government is about—spending, spending, spending and then taxing, taxing, taxing in order to make up for their spending, spending, spending. This was not just a proposal that was aimed at hurting retirees. As I've just stated, this was something that would hurt future generations, stealing from the future of younger generations and taking away from them now without having indexed into the future.

We exposed a clear breakdown in the working relationship between the Prime Minister and his treasurer. The original design to tax unrealised gains represented a fundamental break with longstanding principles of the Australian tax system. This wasn't just a change to tax on superannuation; this was a change to the way the Australian taxation system works. Australians have always understood that tax is paid when income is realised—when you get the money, when a gain is crystallised, when the cash is actually in your hand. But this government had proposed to tax those paper gains, the hypothetical gains that I mentioned earlier, particularly in volatile asset classes. That's not a minor tweak; that is a deliberate, strategic, structural shift that this government was trying to introduce. That would have set a dangerous precedent across the entire tax base, and that's why we fought against it so hard. We had the support of the superannuation sector in the way that we did because this was fundamentally wrong.

Equally concerning was the government's refusal to index the $3 million threshold. In the same way that we have impacts today with bracket creep, the initial intent of not indexing meant that young Australians of today would more easily reach that $3 million threshold once they got closer to their own retirement age. Most likely they would have been grappling with how to manage their housing into retirement, because they probably wouldn't have had a home of their own at that point either.

We are in a very sticky inflationary environment, and we have seen that inflation go up in recent times. That has been made worse by this Treasurer and his willingness to pour debt petrol onto the inflation fire, and failure to index thresholds was a silent tax hike. We have heard people from the other side and in the other place talk about the fact that it's not government spending and that those on this side are making up the fact that government spending is increasing inflation. We've had independent economists and the Governor of the Reserve Bank all say that government spending is a contributory factor to that inflation—and yet they don't want to admit it, they don't want to acknowledge it and they don't want to rein in that spending.

I think it goes to the transparency that Senator Pocock spoke about. I didn't agree with everything he said, but there were a few things that I thought were really important. He talked about transparency, scrutiny and the inquiry process. But they aren't the only issues that this government has in this chamber, in particular. I point to the guillotining of this bill, where the debate will end this evening. We need to think about the fact that we spent, I think, between seven and 10 hours last week in this chamber crossing the floor, backwards and forwards, on nuisance amendments from this government on orders for production of documents. We didn't spend it debating bills such as this one. We didn't spend it debating other legislation. We wasted the time and the resources of Australian taxpayers at the behest of this government because it wanted to play games in this chamber instead of us doing our work.

So, today, the debate on this will be guillotined. We won't get to talk about it as we should. We won't get to scrutinise it. We won't get to challenge it. Not everybody will have their opportunity to have a say. That's because we wasted time last week doing things that brought no benefit to the Australian public instead of doing our work on matters like this one.

When I think about the government's backdown on this policy, I think it demonstrates one thing very, very clearly and that's that this was never really a properly settled policy and principle, because if it were properly considered and settled it would never have come here in the form that it did. It was a blatant revenue grab that was exposed, and it collapsed entirely under the scrutiny of this chamber. What does that tell us? That this government is pretty much willing to do anything that it can to earn more or to get more tax revenue to cover up their spending black hole.

At the last election, Australians were not presented with a tax policy that would tax unrealised gains in superannuation. The Prime Minister didn't come out and say that that was the plan. The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, didn't come out and say that that was the plan. There was not a single MP or senator from the other side that stood up and said, 'We have a plan to tax unrealised capital gains.' They didn't have the guts to do that. They didn't want to be upfront with Australians. But, once they got in, they decided that that was the plan. Australians were never told that this government planned to change longstanding superannuation settings or that they would remove indexation. Why does that matter? Because promises matter in democracy. Transparency matters in democracy. Scrutiny matters in democracy. There is a point in time when we have to say: 'Enough is enough of these games. Tell us what you're going to do, and do what you say you're going to do.' That is what Australians expect from us. They do not expect the games that they have seen in this chamber over the past week.

Major structural tax changes should be put clearly and transparently to the Australian people so they can make a decision on that when they vote; they shouldn't be surprised by them in the middle of a parliamentary term. But this proposal, like much of the government's work, appeared out of nowhere with limited consultation and a rushed and flawed legislative timetable. I think they probably have to be the key hallmarks of legislation from this government—no transparency, limited consultation and poor legislative work. I think that pretty much sums up most of what we've seen. I think this debate, around unrealised capital gains and indexation, resonated so strongly with Australians because they aren't stupid. They realise when someone's trying to pull the wool over their eyes and trying to slip something through without it being noticed.

When it came to retirement savings—which those on the other side usually, very loudly, jump to protect, in case there are any questions around choice or the use of those savings for other things—the government became silent about taxing those unrealised gains and how that could affect people, particularly when there was no indexation. They were silent on how it would impact those generations of young people who are just entering the workforce now. What it highlights is that we have a government that really cannot be trusted. We were promised by this government and by this treasurer that they had beaten inflation and that they had beaten high interest rates. We all know that that's not true; we all know that that's not the case. Every time interest rates go up, or inflation goes up, it's not the Treasurer's fault or the government's fault; it's somebody else's fault.

The reality is that we are very vulnerable at the moment with what is occurring in the Middle East because we have much higher inflation than most of our contemporaries. The increase in fuel prices—if the conflict continues and we do end up seeing settled-in shortages of fuel—will actually impact us more than others. Then those on the other side will say, 'It's not our fault that there was a war in the Middle East.' That is true, but it is your fault that inflation remains where it is today. It is your fault that it hasn't come down as it has for our contemporaries globally. It is your fault that you have spent too much, and it is your fault that you have chosen to tax Australians more in order to compensate for that spending.

Before the last election we were told by this government that they were going to make life easier for families. Yet now Australian families are finding it harder to pay for the things that they need to pay for. They are finding it harder to buy the things that they need to buy for their children and to do the things that they need to do to maintain their standard of living. They have less flexibility, and they have less choice. It has been harder for hardworking Australians to pay their rent, to pay the mortgage and to pay their energy bills—which, as we all know, didn't go down by $275 but have gone up by so much more; that number is now comical.

The fact remains that the matters of inflation and high interest rates have beaten this treasurer and this government. They don't know what to do. They don't know how to handle it or to address it because they don't know how to curtail their own spending. They are unable to manage our economy, so they are looking for everyday Australians and for Australian small businesses—particularly those small businesses that hold their assets in super—to actually pay more. What they have proposed here reinforces that broader pattern of higher spending first and then new taxes that Australians will pay for. That's not reform; that's fiscal mismanagement. As I said at the outset, we believe in lower taxes, lower inflation and lower interest rates, and we are totally focused on restoring the standard of living for Australians.

Labor believes that Australians should earn more and keep more of what they earn. These bills—the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026—strengthen the fairness and the long-term sustainability of Australia's superannuation system, and I would say that is core Labor business. They ensure that generous tax concessions built into superannuation are properly targeted at their original purpose, which is to help Australians save for retirement.

Superannuation was never intended to operate as a tax shelter for large fortunes; it was designed to provide working Australians, ordinary Australians, with security and dignity in retirement, and those are principles that Labor is committed to. These reforms recognise that principle. They maintain concessional treatment for the vast majority of Australians while modestly reducing tax breaks for those with the very largest of super balances. Importantly, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 also strengthens support for low-income workers by increasing the low-income superannuation tax offset.

Taken together, these changes make the super system fairer. They make it stronger. They will protect retirement savings for ordinary workers, build super balances for those who need them the most in retirement and ensure the system is sustainable for decades to come. There's no doubt that Australia's superannuation system is one of the most successful public policy reforms in our nation's history. It has transformed retirement in our country, giving working people the chance to retire with independence and security, and it must evolve to keep pace with changing economic realities. Superannuation receives tax concessions because we want Australians to save for their retirement, but these concessions are funded by the public and should therefore be targeted at their intended purpose.

Over time, what we've seen is that a small number of accounts have accumulated balances worth many millions of dollars. These are not your average Australians; these are wealthy Australians with high superannuation balances. The tax concessions go well beyond what is required to support a dignified retirement, and they can instead become a vehicle for large tax advantages that were not the original intent of the system. When that happens, it undermines the fairness of the system and places unnecessary pressure on the federal budget. This reform ensures that superannuation continues to serve the people it was designed for: ordinary, hardworking Australians saving for retirement.

It's about restoring balance to that system. It recognises that superannuation should remain a concessional environment for saving but that those concessions should not be unlimited. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Australians will have absolutely no change under these concessional changes. Workers contributing to their super throughout their careers will continue to benefit from the same concessional tax treatment that has supported retirement savings since super was introduced. What this legislation does is modestly scale back tax advantages for the people with the very largest balances. It will ensure that superannuation continues to reward saving while avoiding excessive contributions that benefit a very small number of people at the top. That work is extremely important.

But what I am most proud of is the support that this provides to working Australians who earn the least and often do some of the toughest work in our nation. We know that low-income Australians often face the greatest barriers to building adequate retirement savings, and those workers still pay tax on their super contributions even though their incomes may fall below the income tax threshold. That has long been recognised as an inequity in the system. The low-income superannuation tax offset was designed to correct that problem, ensuring these workers are not disadvantaged by the way super contributions are taxed, and these bills strengthen that protection.

The maximum LISTO payment will increase to $810, and the eligibility threshold will rise to $45,000. This will mean tens of thousands of dollars extra in the bank balances of many Australians when they retire. More than a million Australians will be better off in retirement because of these bills. That's more than a million ordinary, hardworking Australians who will be better off thanks to Labor's enduring commitment to superannuation and these bills.

We know that, mostly, it is women and part-time workers who have historically been left behind in retirement savings. In retirement, women retire with significantly less than men—around 25 per cent. That's tens of thousands of dollars. The day women retire, they have tens of thousands of dollars less in their superannuation accounts than men. There are lots of reasons for that—like the gender pay gap, to which our government has been absolutely committed to closing. We can see that happening, with the release of WGEA's gender pay gap reporting last week.

Career interruptions, unpaid caring work and part-time employment all contribute to the super gap. Over time these factors compound and lead to substantially lower retirement balances for women across this country. Labor says that is simply unacceptable. That is why we are committed to making sure that Australian women retire with more money in their super balances. Increasing the low-income superannuation tax offset is an important part of doing that work. It means women and workers in low-paid sectors who are more likely to retire with less will receive the full benefit of the super contributions made on their behalf. It is an important step in ensuring that every Australian can retire with dignity.

These reforms sit alongside a whole series of changes that Labor is undertaking to strengthen Australia's superannuation system. The superannuation guarantee has now reached 12 per cent, ensuring Australians can build larger balances over the course of their working lives. Payday superannuation reforms ensure workers are paid their super contributions when they're paid their wages, closing the doors on unpaid super and making it much easier for workers to track when they're paid their super or not. Super will be paid on government funded paid parental leave, which will go a long way to closing the gender retirement gap. Performance testing has been expanded across hundreds of superannuation products, ensuring Australians are protected from underperforming funds. Together, these reforms represent the most significant strengthening of the superannuation system since it began.

For most Australians, superannuation is the most important financial asset they will hold. It is the foundation of their retirement security. The power of super lies in its long-term investment and compounding returns, so every day matters. Contributions made today grow over decades, turning small regular payments into meaningful retirement savings for Australian workers. That is why trust in our superannuation system is so important. Australians deserve to know that the system is fair and working in their interests, and reforms that protect that fairness help maintain that trust.

We must never forget that it was unions and union members right across this country who fought for superannuation in the seventies and eighties. Before unions won their historic campaign for compulsory super, super was deeply unfair. Less than one in four women and blue-collar workers had a superannuation account, and now every Australian worker has the right to super. This is generational, life-changing stuff. Unions continue to campaign to protect super and have campaigned to increase the super guarantee over many years. To the hardworking members and delegates of unions right across this country who have campaigned on keeping super fair: thank you for that really important work.

Labor will always protect Australian workers and their retirement savings through our super system, and that is why we are committed to making our superannuation system stronger and fairer. We made superannuation compulsory because we wanted to make sure that every Australian who works hard throughout their lives has the security of knowing that they can retire with dignity. The superannuation system works best when it is fair, balanced and sustainable, and this legislation protects that integrity. It is in the spirit of what our superannuation system was created for back in the nineties. It maintains concessional treatment for ordinary Australian workers to make sure that they are able to save and see the benefit of the many years of compounding interest on their retirement balances while ensuring that the very, very wealthiest do not receive unlimited tax advantages through our super system.

These are modest reforms. They are responsible and they are necessary, but what is most powerful about this bill is the impact it will have on women and low-paid workers in this country—workers who do the toughest of work, whether that is in our aged-care homes, taking care of our grandparents, parents and friends; whether it's in our childcare centres, taking care of our children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews; whether it's retail workers, who are often at the forefront of some of the toughest work; or whether it's blue-collar workers on the shop floor. It makes sure that, no matter what it is that you're doing, you are able to benefit from a stronger and fairer retirement system.

Labor will always protect your super. Labor made super compulsory, and we will always ensure that the Australian superannuation system continues to deliver dignity to Australians in retirement and security for every working Australian.

I rise this evening to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the associated Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026.

Superannuation has become a cornerstone of Australia's retirement income system and is designed to ensure that all working Australians can retire with dignity and financial security. Since its introduction, superannuation has been shaped and fortified by successive Labor governments. In recent years the Albanese Labor government has continued this legacy, strengthening the system through meaningful reforms and with a renewed focus on fairness and long-term sustainability. These bills continue that tradition, a tradition that we on this side of the chamber are very proud of—strengthening our world-class superannuation system.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 will increase tax concessions for workers on low incomes by boosting the low-income superannuation tax offset. The bill will also ensure that concessions for individuals with large balances above $3 million are better targeted and more equitable. Tax concessions for very large superannuation balances are increasing in cost and becoming less sustainable. At present super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year and will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. That's the reality of the current situation. Right now, around 38 per cent of the benefit from super tax concessions goes to the top 10 per cent of income earners and 55 per cent goes to the top 20 per cent. These concessions were intended to support Australians in retirement, not provide tax concessions for wealth accumulation or estate planning.

It's worth remembering that Australia's compulsory superannuation system was introduced by the Keating Labor government in 1992. As the former speaker said, it was after a long and hard-fought campaign by unions across the country to ensure that there was more fairness and that Australian workers could retire with dignity. Superannuation is in Labor's DNA; we believe in it. The superannuation guarantee mandated that employers contribute a percentage of an employee's earnings into a super fund, ensuring workers would accumulate savings for their retirement. This was a visionary policy, shifting the nation away from sole reliance on the age pension and towards a three-pillar retirement system: the age pension, compulsory superannuation and voluntary savings. Superannuation has since become a defining feature of Australia's economic and social landscape. It has helped millions of Australians build wealth for their retirement. It has reduced pressure on government finances and contributed to the nation's financial markets through the investment of superannuation assets.

The bill before us today will better target super concessions. It reflects practical changes to the design and implementation of the original policy, taking into account more than two years of consultation. From 1 July 2026, the concessional tax rate applied to earnings on balances between $3 million and $10 million will be 30 per cent and earnings on balances above $10 million will be taxed at a concessional rate of 40 per cent. I actually think that if you've got $10 million in your superannuation account you can afford that 40 per cent concessional tax rate. Balances below $3 million remain unchanged, which covers the majority of Australians, and will continue to be taxed at 15 per cent. Both thresholds—the $3 million and $10 million caps—will be indexed to maintain alignment with the transfer balance cap. The earnings will be calculated based on established income tax concepts and realised gains.

There has been some criticism of this policy, but the reality is that these reforms will affect less than 0.5 per cent of Australians with superannuation accounts in 2026-27, and the higher rate, for balances above $10 million, will affect less than 0.1 per cent. Those opposite may want to rail against superannuation reform because it doesn't affect them or their shrinking base. They even opposed superannuation when it was first introduced. They don't believe in it, unlike Labor, who believe that all Australians should get a fair go and have the opportunity to be able to retire with dignity, not like the generations before the nineties. I worked in the short-term money market for a company in Melbourne. As a woman, you had to work for the company for 10 years, and then you may have been invited to join their superannuation scheme. How many young women will stay in a company, before having a family or moving on, for 10 years? And then it didn't mean you were going to be invited.

Labor senators on this side of the chamber firmly believe that there needs to be fairness in the system. The Labor government have been the architects and the defenders of superannuation since 1992 and before that. Labor's policies have consistently aimed to expand coverage, increase adequacy and ensure fairness in the system. Notable milestones include the expansion of the superannuation guarantee rate over time, improvements to the protection of low-income earners and reforms to address gender and income inequities. Labor's commitment is underpinned by a belief in universal access to a secure retirement and the principle that all Australians, not just the wealthy, deserve to benefit from the nation's prosperity in their later years. This ethos has driven Labor's efforts to strengthen superannuation even when faced with political opposition or calls for deregulation.

Those on the other side wanted young people to raid their superannuation to buy a home, and their former leader suggested you needed to have rich parents and needed to get them to help you. Since coming to power in May 2022, the Albanese Labor government has taken significant steps to further strengthen Australia's superannuation system. Central to their agenda is the commitment to ensure superannuation delivers on its core purpose to provide a dignified and, as I said, secure retirement for all Australians. One of the Albanese Labor government's early and defined reforms was to move to legislate the objective of superannuation by formally recognising that superannuation is to provide income in retirement to be able to substitute or supplement the age pension.

The government has set a clear benchmark for future policy decisions. This legislative clarity is designed to protect the system from short-term political interference and ensure that future reforms are consistent with the system's core purpose. The Albanese Labor government has strongly supported the scheduled increases to the superannuation guarantee rate, which is set to reach 12 per cent by July 2025. This increase will mean higher retirement savings for millions of Australians and, in particular, those in the low- and middle-income brackets. By backing these increases, Labor is ensuring that workers are receiving a fair share of the nation's economic growth in their super accounts.

Additionally, the government has moved to close loopholes that had previously allowed some employers to avoid paying superannuation on certain wages, such as overtime for some workers. These reforms are expected to ensure more consistent and fair contributions for all employees. Our government has also focused on making superannuation fairer and more equitable. A significant incentive was the move to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave from 1 July 2025. This measure is especially important for women, who typically retire with less super due to carer breaks and part-time work. By recognising parental leave as a vital period that is deserving of super contributions, Labor is taking a concrete step to narrow the gender retirement gap.

The government has also announced plans to reform tax concessions for high-balance super accounts, which ensures the system remains sustainable and serves its intended purpose as a retirement-saving vehicle, not a tax shelter for the wealthy. Today, this bill again continues this tradition. In fact, let us look at the numbers this reform will create. Workers will receive up to $810 per year in additional contributions to their superannuation accounts, with the average payment increasing substantially. Over a working life, this could mean up to $15,000 more at retirement, depending on an individual's income over their career. That is a significant amount of money that will make a real difference for, particularly, low-income Australians.

In 2027-28, because of these changes, 770,000 additional Australians will be eligible for this increased payment, 490,000 people will receive a higher payment and a total of 3.1 million Australians will be eligible. I can proudly report that 60 per cent of those benefactors will in fact be women. We know the fastest-growing cohort of homeless people in this country is women. This will go some way towards ensuring that women have a better retirement nest egg and hopefully prevent them from finding themselves in those difficult circumstances. But, further, those 1.3 million Australians who will benefit directly from these changes include 750,000 women and 550,000 young people under the age of 30.

I am proud to be part of this government because we actually stick to what we believe in, and we believe all Australians deserve respect and deserve to have a secure retirement when they leave the workforce. We have also taken many steps since we have been in government to ensure that Australian women have a better life. Superannuation in Australia remains one of the world's most successful retirement savings systems, and its ongoing strength and fairness can be largely attributed to the vision and stewardship of Labor governments. The Albanese Labor government's reforms enshrining the purpose of super, supporting higher contributions, closing loopholes and promoting equity are the latest chapter in this proud legacy. These measures ensure that superannuation will continue to deliver for generations of Australians, providing financial security and, most importantly, dignity in retirement. The workers that work in retail, look after our elderly, look after our children and are on the shop floors right across this country should be treated with equity. This is going to assist them and ensure that we have a much better retirement for all Australians. It will also reduce the burden on Australian taxpayers of the age pension. I commend this bill to the House.

It gives me real pleasure to rise in support of these bills, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 and the Superannuation (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Imposition Bill 2026. I would like to talk about a lot of things, but I'll keep it as short as I can. I would really like to pay tribute to those who have pushed for these improvements to the LISTO, in particular, over an extended period of time. We have had some tireless advocates, predominantly from my old union, the ASU, Women in Super, the ACTU and some funds, such as Hesta, who have lots of women amongst their membership, who have been pushing to bring the LISTO in line with delivering what we all want to see—and that is improved retirement outcomes for low-income workers and women in particular.

As we know, at the time of the introduction of the LISTO many years ago, it was seen as a fairness fix. This legislation seeks to keep in line with that objective, continuing for it to be fair. The LISTO was frozen for 13 years and had fallen behind because of changes to the tax brackets. What these changes will do is make up for those gaps. When the tax bracket changed on 1 July 2020 from $37,000 to 45,000, the LISTO did not. That meant that people earning between those amounts did not get the super tax refund. Missing out on tax concessions adds up, as we know, over a working life. A woman in the bottom 20 per cent of wage earners could lose up to $60,000 from their superannuation balance by retirement. This is a significant reform, and boosting the LISTO will benefit 1.3 million Australians—of which around 60 per cent are women. That will help to narrow the gender pay gap in retirement. Workers could receive a potential benefit at retirement of around $15,000. For that alone, it is worth supporting this legislation.

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time allotted for debate on the bills has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills. I will begin with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation.

One Nation's circulated amendment

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) Australians have been incentivised to accumulate large balances in superannuation because of extremely punitive income tax rates,

(ii) the Government's spending crisis has led them to raid Australians' retirement savings,

(iii) the debate on these bills has been guillotined and fast-tracked in a dirty deal between Labor and the Greens,

(iv) One Nation agrees with the low income super tax offset threshold being raised to help low income earners and One Nation's vote against these bills is not in opposition to this measure,

(v) superannuation belongs to Australians, it's their money and they should be able to direct it where they see fit,

(vi) One Nation policy calls on Australians to be able to invest their superannuation in a person's primary residence,

(vii) the Government is attempting to tax its way out of its own economic mismanagement instead of tackling spending blowouts and productivity,

(viii) superannuation was brought in to incentivise retirement and changes create uncertainty for long-term planning,

(ix) fees charged by union aligned superannuation funds that donate to Labor are exorbitant and decrease Australians' superannuation investments, and

(x) raising punitive taxes incentivises wealth leaving Australia; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) implement comprehensive tax reform and reduce income tax paid by all Australians,

(ii) ensure any revenue raised from new taxes under these bills is directed to reducing income tax paid by Australians, and

(iii) get its spending under control, instead of raiding Australians' retirement savings".

I ask that the question be put separately on paragraphs (a)(iv) and (vi).

We are beginning with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation, but Senator Chandler has asked for the matter to be split. At this point, we are dealing with parts (a)(iv) and (a)(vi). The question is that parts (a)(iv) and (a)(vi) be agreed to.

The question is that the remainder of the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation be agreed to.

The question is that these bills be now read a second time.

I will now deal with the committee of the whole amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, starting with the amendment circulated by Australia's Voice. The question is that amendments on sheet 3643 be agreed to.

Australia's Voice's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 3, page 61 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:

1A Subdivision 290-D

Repeal the Subdivision.

1B Section 291-1 (paragraph beginning "You can carry forward")

Repeal the paragraph.

1C Subsections 291-20(3) to (7)

Repeal the subsections.

(2) Schedule 3, page 61 (after line 24), after item 2, insert:

2A Application of amendments — spouse contributions and unused concessional contributions

The repeal of the following provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 by this Schedule applies in relation to the 2026-27 income year and later income years:

(a) Subdivision 290-D;

(b) subsections 291-20(3) to (7).

(3) Schedule 3, page 62 (line 1), omit "Application of amendments", substitute "Application of amendments—other".

(4) Schedule 3, page 62 (after line 6), at the end of the Schedule, add:

5 Subsection 995-1(1) (definition of unused concessional contributions cap )

Repeal the definition.

Question negatived.

The question now is that schedules 1 to 3 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026 stand as printed.

As the last question was resolved in the affirmative, the consequential amendment remaining on sheet 3690 will not be put. The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.

If Mr Angus Taylor is the answer to the opposition's woes, then, really, one would have to wonder what the question was. I think a quote that really summarises the Leader of the Opposition so well is that, in a time when Australia needs strong, visionary leadership, we are confronted with an opposition leader whose credentials are, at best, questionable and, at worst, downright alarming.

Mr Taylor is a Morrison leftover clinging desperately to the old guard while the rest of the country moves forward. Mr Malcolm Turnbull, never shy with his words, once labelled Mr Taylor as the 'best qualified idiot'. But the reality is that Mr Taylor's record as shadow Treasurer is a catalogue of opposition to policies that would make life easier for everyday Australians.

At the last election, while families were under the pump because of cost-of-living pressures, Mr Taylor stood against tax cuts that would have provided much-needed relief. He opposed energy bill relief, and yet those opposite still come in here and talk about what we didn't do around energy bill relief. But they voted against it, leaving households to grapple with the rising costs. He fought against cheaper child care, denying working parents a chance to return to work and contribute to our economy. On superannuation—we've just passed two very good bills—Mr Taylor blocked increases that would have helped Australians retire with dignity and security. When it came to building more homes and affordable housing for Australians, particularly for low-income earners, Mr Taylor resisted efforts to expand housing, leaving many without hope of affordable accommodation.

Now, let's address the elephant in the room—the watergate scandal. Watergate refers to the 2017 controversy involving an $80 million government buyback of water licences from Eastern Australia Agriculture, a company co-founded by Mr Taylor himself. In 2017, the federal government paid them nearly $80 million. Who was in government at that time? It was a Liberal government, of course. Mr Taylor himself was, as I said, a co-founder, and in 2017 the federal government paid nearly $80 million for overland flow licences from two cotton properties in Queensland. This was the highest price ever paid for water under the—

We have a point of order from Senator Brockman.

I realise you were distracted, Acting Deputy President, which does happen on occasion when one is in the chair, but I believe Senator Polley is breaching standing order 193(3), and I ask her to withdraw.

Senator Polley, do you wish to withdraw?

Actually, I didn't do anything other than place on record—I don't want to repeat it if he's taken offence to it, but I'm reporting the amount of money that was paid to Mr Taylor.

On the point of order, I've been listening very closely to Senator Polley, and again—personal reflection. Senator Polley's speech was laden with innuendo and imputations. I think she should withdraw.

If they took offence to it, I withdraw.

Hang on a moment, please, Senator Polley. I'll just reflect that I didn't hear everything that was said, because I was distracted at the time by consulting with other colleagues. Senator Polley, Senators Scarr and Brockman have made that point. Do you wish to withdraw?

I'll withdraw if they took offence.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Polley, I need you to withdraw without caveats.

I was going to continue with my speech. I said that I withdraw.

Thank you.

I just reiterate that $80 million to buy overland flow licences from two cotton properties in Queensland was the highest price ever paid for water under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This is on the public record. This translated into a $52 million profit on the sale, much of which was reportedly transferred to its parent company, Eastern Australia Irrigation, based in the—yes!—Cayman Islands. Sounds dodgy, doesn't it? Certainly does to me. Was there a tender process? Of course there wasn't—

Senator Scarr on a point of order?

A point of exasperation—you asked Senator Polley to withdraw. She graciously withdrew, and yet she continues, in my submission, in the same frame of mind and in the same presentation, impugning a member of the other place. She should withdraw.

Senator Polley, do you wish to withdraw?

I'll withdraw.

Senators, I will endeavour to listen closely. There have been quite a few people wanting to talk to me about the speaking order this evening. I will give the call back to Senator Polley, and then I'll reflect on the speaking order for the remainder of the evening.

It is on the public record that there was a profit of some $52 million made from that sale. That is, in my view, not impugning anyone, because it is on public record. I understand if people are concerned that we are to talk about issues that might cause some embarrassment, but the Australia Institute claimed the government paid roughly double the market value for the water. Some argue the water was unreliable.

Senator Scarr on a point of order?

Again, it's a personal reflection. Senator Polley has referred to overseas companies in tax havens. She has talked about amounts being paid other than at market value. She has talked about the member's connection with the corporation. When you consider it in its totality, she is impugning the character of a member of the other place. She should withdraw and discontinue in the same vein.

Senator Polley, I do ask you to consider whether the contents of your speech have amounted to an adverse personal reflection on a member of the other place and consider withdrawing.

If it's going to help you, I will withdraw.

I'll accept that withdrawal as a straight withdrawal, Senator Polley.

I think what is highlighted in my comments tonight is that, even though those opposite have taken exception to my contribution, the reality is that the Leader of the Opposition doesn't actually reflect the visionary and forward thinking of the leader that this country needs at the moment. The record, both in that other place and in here, clearly shows that the Liberals say one thing and then do something very different. If you were really concerned about the cost-of-living pressure on Australian people, you wouldn't have voted against tax cuts, you wouldn't have voted against cheaper medicines, wouldn't have voted against every—

Time has expired. Just for the benefit of senators, as you know there is a speaking order for adjournment tonight. I believe that Senators Brockman and Hodgins-May were in the chamber at the time the adjournment started. Senator Sheldon was as well. I'm in the hands of the chamber as to what they would like to do for the speaking order. If everyone is in agreement, we will revert to the original speaking order. Senator Polley has spoken, but we will go to Senator Sheldon, then Brockman, Hodgins-May, McLachlan, Steele-John, Antic, Canavan and then Kovacic. Are people in the chamber agreeable on that? Alright. Senator Sheldon, you have the call.

I want to congratulate the outgoing national secretary of the Health Services Union, Lloyd Williams. Llyod joined the union's Victorian branch in 1989, becoming branch secretary in 1999 and serving as the national president and becoming national secretary in 2019. That is more than 30 years of dedication to the needs of Australia's health, aged-care and disability workforce. Over the period, the federal Labor government built the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That involved a complete overhaul of the way that this country supports people with disability so they can live their lives with dignity. Lloyd's work in representing the disability workforce has been a critical part of the success of the NDIS. He has said:

The Royal Commission heard from people with disability and support workers alike that an adequately trained, fairly remunerated workforce is best placed to deliver quality NDIS supports.

Lloyd led efforts to bring members to Canberra to support their ongoing campaign to improve those disability and aged-care sectors. On one of those member visits, Chris, Lobsang, Stephen, Tonya and Cathy told me that disability workers are being squeezed by gig platforms that are attempting to offer services but without the minimum standards and job security. NDIS workers are leaving the sector in droves because providers that bargain for better conditions can't compete with those that don't. The continued advocacy by Lloyd and by the Health Services Union—these national efforts in the care sector—led directly to the package of workplace relations legislation that was passed by this government, legislation which gave the Fair Work Commission the right to set standards for gig workers and to enable employees and employers who may face barriers to bargaining to reach multi-employer agreements.

Lloyd also leaves an incredible legacy for the aged-care sector. Lloyd's advocacy during his tenure has meant that the HSU has successfully prosecuted the aged-care value case in the Fair Work Commission. It took more than two years from when the case was lodged to when the final part of the payments reached workers' pay packets, but about 400,000 aged-care workers have since benefited from increases to their award wages. That means that workers have fairer pay, safer conditions and the respect they deserve for the important work that they can do—and that they do do.

Those are just a few examples of Lloyd's legacy. The Health Services Union national president, Gerard Hayes, said it best when he said:

Lloyd Williams has made an indelible impact on our union, materially improving the lives of many hundreds of thousands of workers, especially in the disability sector … He has been decisive in confronting governance challenges, leaving us in a much stronger position to keep delivering for a membership that really needs that support.

The national senior assistant secretary, Kate Marshall, said:

Lloyd's sense of right and wrong has never wavered. It's been a privilege and honour to work together on agenda setting campaigns such as the Union's push for paid placements for allied health workers …

Now, it hasn't all been smooth sailing. Lloyd and the national office of the Health Services Union have supported the Victorian branch being placed into administration. The Federal Court heard instances of dysfunctional governance, very serious poor behaviour of certain individuals and improper financial decisions. On 29 January this year, it was reported in the Australian that there was an attempt by the administrator to renew the union's affiliation with the Victorian Labor Party. Lloyd successfully made the argument that the affiliation was not in the interests of the membership at this time. He said:

Given the branch's ongoing financial distress and administration arrangements, it is essential that all available funds be directed toward the protection of members and the restoration of financial stability.

That was not because Lloyd does not support the Labor Party—he does, and many of his members have—but because the central importance of the needs of the members to have a financially sustainable union that can represent them and improve their working rights and conditions is always on the top of his list. That speaks to me of the integrity and the style of leadership that Lloyd has brought to the HSU. I wish Lloyd a fantastic retirement full of time with the family and friends. You've earnt it.

We've got a campaign running in Australia attacking Western Australia's fabulous gas industry—an industry that not only employs huge numbers of people and not only pays billions of dollars in taxes but is one of the key drivers of the economy in Western Australia. It satisfies the geostrategic need for energy of some of our closest and most important allies, and it is also a very key industry for the future energy supplies in this country.

What is one way you can guarantee you will get less gas into the system? That is to whack a new 25 per cent tax on it, which is what Senator David Pocock and the Australia Institute are proposing and are drumming up supposed support for in the Australian community. But I think that, once you speak to the Australian community and explain to them the importance of gas and the structure of the industry, they quickly understand that such a proposal is not only massively counterproductive but also economically unfair and would damage Australia's reputation as a good investment destination.

Let's get a few facts on the table. The gas industry paid $21.9 billion in taxes and royalties in the 2024-25 financial year alone. This is not an industry that pays no tax. Those on the other side and those in the left love to compare numbers with other things, so what would that number compare to in terms of the Australian budget? That is almost the entire annual cost of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. So that is what the Australian gas industry provides. The ATO has confirmed that oil and gas companies are amongst the largest taxpayers in Australia.

How do the Australia Institute manage to sow so much confusion? They do so because of the sheer eye-watering amounts that the gas companies need to invest upfront in order to extract anything. This has amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of the last 30 years. The upfront investment on gas projects is simply massive, and in order to make that investment those companies need certainty as to the future arrangements they will be operating under. Those gas companies—including the great Woodside, a Western Australian company, but also foreign companies like INPEX, headquartered in Japan—came to Australia and invested those billions of dollars on an understanding of our tax arrangements and our payments.

What are Senator Pocock, the Australia Institute and others at the end of the chamber proposing? They are proposing to change the rules of the game—not halfway through but more than halfway through. They're proposing that Australia start to look like Mongolia, which is trying to change the tax arrangements for a major copper mine some 17 years after it was built. They want Australia to look like a developing country in terms of its engagement with the rest of the world, particularly with key geostrategic partners like Japan.

This is a nonsense policy. The gas industry does pay its way. It pays billions in taxation. Over the next few years it's scheduled to pay around $8 billion in PRRT. This is an industry that has enormously contributed to the economic growth and success of my home state of Western Australia. It is an industry in which we need to see future investment because we are going to need that gas flowing into the Western Australia domestic industry and the Western Australian domestic energy market for a very long time to come.

What we actually need in this country is state governments willing to put their own money where their mouths are and invest in long-term contracts for the supply of gas. That would overcome almost all of the problems that we have in this sector. Instead we have negative proposals from the radical left, which seeks to destroy this great industry.

If taxing gas exports makes me part of the radical left, I'm all in.

Last week the Prime Minister continued to deliver on his legacy of universal childhood education and care by ripping away in-home care from our farmers, shift and emergency workers, and families with complex needs. In-home care is a lifeline for families who cannot use centre based care. These people are putting food on our tables, keeping us safe in emergencies and often battling illness. What do Labor do? They ignore years of reports saying in-home care is underfunded. They ignore the sector crying out for a lifeline as wage increases come into effect. They claim they don't have the data showing families will be facing out-of-pocket costs of $1,600 per week. Well, all the data you need is right here. Ellen, a mum of three living in remote Queensland, says they're looking down the barrel of having to say goodbye to an educator who has completely transformed their family and provided a safe environment for them to be country kids. That certainly is a legacy you're leaving, Prime Minister, but it's not one to be proud of. We call on you to properly and urgently fund in-home care.

I recently visited the River Nile School in Melbourne, an independent publicly funded school supporting young refugee and asylum seeker women, many of whom have experienced disrupted education. What they're doing works. Their wraparound model brings together teachers, health professionals and culturally safe support so students can rebuild with confidence and thrive. Imagine what would be possible if this model were expanded—how many more young refugees and asylum seekers now calling Australia home could get the support they need, not just to catch up but to succeed and thrive in our communities. Thank you for hosting me, and thank you to the young women for sharing their exciting hopes and aspirations for the future.

I want to give a shout-out to the Bass Coast community, where I spent a couple of nights recently. It's really clear what their community needs. It's not short of youth leadership, with progressive, caring people like youth mental health worker Sophie Thorn and Councillor Mat Morgan fighting for a safe climate future. It's not short on wonderful fish-and-chip shops or farmers markets. It's short on state and federal funding. The Wonthaggi pool is in its 40s and in desperate need of repair. The Phillip Island footy club is busting at the seams. The last remnant coastal woodlands in the area, the Western Port Woodlands, are still being destroyed for sand mining when they should be protected and turned into a national park.

As a Victorian senator, I have the privilege of travelling around the regions and speaking to locals, but every time I step out of Melbourne I see a Labor government that doesn't care, a coalition that's about to go extinct like the Inverloch dinosaurs, and people looking for new political leadership that isn't beholden to billionaires and big corporations. Well, the Greens stand by you. Water is for our farms, not data centres. Reliable public transport networks aren't a luxury and shouldn't be treated as a luxury. Your hospitals and schools are just as important as those in the city, and you deserve better leadership

Finally, I want to recognise the panel members, including the brave parent that I heard from this afternoon, at an event to recognise the childhood dementia health and care crisis. One in every 2,900 babies is born with a condition that causes childhood dementia. Hearing about Ethan, who lives with this condition, put a face and a name to this statistic, and I think there was a real shortage of tissues in that room as we heard those stories from his father, who explained that some of these children are reaching their peak development at age three and then start to rapidly decline after that. He talked about the fact that they can't have legacy conversations in his household about why the sky is blue or create those long-term memories, and it was truly harrowing. They've thrown out their board games because their children no longer have the capacity to engage in those games. He shared what was just a harrowing story about how when he's out with his children, one of whom is 12 but has the mental capacity of a three-year-old, they're getting reprimanded by other parents for their children's behaviour. As a parent of young children myself, I just want to send my unconditional love and support.

There is so much that we can do and should be doing to support the parents of children with childhood dementia, half of whom, sadly, die before the age of 10. I call on this government to actually listen to those with lived experience of this disease, to develop a consistent model of care, to fund vital therapies and access to resources for health professionals, and to bring childhood dementia out of the shadows

I wish to give my good wishes to Ashton Hurn, leader of the South Australian Liberal team, and her deputy, Josh Teague. All the best for the approaching state election. I also extend my good wishes to all the members of the state team. They've developed some exciting policies, especially in respect of saving our natural environment.

Well, I'm about to, Senator Farrell, particularly those in response to our algal bloom. If elected, a Liberal government will invest in voluntary marine buybacks, restore 50 hectares of new shellfish reefs and push for World Heritage listing for the Great Australian Bight, which I know my colleague Senator Grogan will agree with. There is also a policy for zero litter to the ocean by 2035. This is my last opportunity to speak in the chamber ahead of the state election. Therefore, I express my gratitude and appreciation for all the Liberal candidates, who have work so hard. I wish them every success. It's been my privilege to campaign alongside of you.

I wish to extend my congratulations to my cousin Edward Smelt, who won the Nightcliff by-election in the Northern Territory.

Who'd he run for?

The Labor Party. He's probably a wiser man than me! But I have no doubt he will serve his community exceptionally. He's a wonderful young man and is well prepared—being a former civil engineer and a City of Darwin councillor. His family are very proud of him, and I wish my mother was still here to see his success. All the best to Ed and his wife Susannah and the family.

Australian governments have become far too comfortable with sacrificing irreplaceable parts of our country. Time and time again, they sacrifice Australia's environment for the interests and for the profits of big corporations—even when it puts our people and our precious places at risk, even when there is clear community opposition and even when critically endangered species are threatened and environmental laws are broken. In WA, we are seeing this play out across our state.

Our state's EPA recently approved a large-scale development at Smiths Beach, which experts and the local community have protested against for decades. Habitats for critically endangered possums and cockatoos will be cleared if this proposal goes ahead. The development will substantially increase the threat of bushfires, which will put people's lives at risk. It is no wonder that so many people are now asking, 'Who here is acting in our community's interest, because it certainly isn't the WA government?'

Closer to Perth, we are seeing the federal government's failures in action. WA is home to the world's only jarrah forest. My WA community is outraged that Alcoa are illegally clearing these jarrah forests, year after year, and are failing to uphold their environmental obligations. Yet this outrage is nothing compared to the fury that we feel when we hear that the federal Minister for the Environment and Water has handed a fine to Alcoa that equals about 0.3 per cent of Alcoa's annual revenue. This is little more than a financial slap on the wrist. Instead of being gripped by the scruff of the neck and thrown bodily from our state, this US mining corporation has been given the green light to continue operations under the national interest exemption.

Let us be clear. This is President Trump's mineral deal overriding environmental protections. How is stripping native forests and threatening the safety of our drinking water in the national interest? Despite widespread calls from our community to revoke Alcoa's licence, the government has essentially allowed Alcoa to pay for permission to continue clearing the only jarrah forest in the world, and now we know explicitly that these forests cannot be restored. Jarrah trees need the very bauxite that Alcoa is taking out of the ground in order to live. After 60 years, none of Alcoa's attempts to rehabilitate these forests have been successful.

To the Australians who have begged this government to protect our black cockatoos, to stop deforestation, to value our remaining natural spaces, I want to thank you tonight for having the courage to see this issue as it is. I want to thank the Perth community who have protested persistently and taken this to the steps of the WA parliament, and those continuing to speak out. The community's opposition is clear, so clear that they have monumentally shattered previous records, with 59,000 public submissions made to the WA EPA. I want to personally thank WA Greens MP Jess Beckerling—and her team—in her role as the environment spokesperson for the Greens WA during this fight, and my colleague Senator Hanson-Young for their work uncovering the depth of Alcoa's unlawful activity and dishonesty.

The intentions of this government remain clear through its actions—continued approval of coalmines, continued expansion of gas developments, continued clearing of native forests and greater risks to our water resources. Only the Greens will put our environment and our local communities ahead of the interests of big corporations and their profits.

As the AFL season kicks off, I want to speak about a matter which brings me great sadness and strikes at the heart of what it means to be Australian, which is that our national game has been captured, twisted and diminished by the very forces of progressive ideology that are eroding so much of our shared culture. Australian Football was once the purest expression of our national character: tribal loyalty, mateship, egalitarianism, no-frills toughness and communal ritual. It was a game that united battlers from the bush to the burbs, where men could be men and where courage was celebrated and imperfection embraced in its glorious chaos. The AFL is meant to be a custodian of this national inheritance, not an app developer forever pushing updates to a product that isn't broken.

Yet what do we see? We see a game obsessed with the permanent present, constantly fiddling, disrupting and redesigning under the guise of 'relevance' and 'flow'. New rules, endless tweaks to other rules, whispers of grand final changes—all sold as progress but really just representing managerial spasms that sand down the rough grain of the game in pursuit of artificial smoothness. And why? Because the AFL has drunk deeply from the well of left-wing cultural politics. It really should be called the WFL, the woke football league. Pride rounds, Indigenous rounds, rightly done in parts but layered down with moral grandstanding and breast cancer awareness—all weaponised into a relentless calendar of identity politics.

It's not organic evolution. It's top-down imposition by those who treat our game like a restless product to be optimised for northern markets or social media metrics. They dilute September's stakes with wildcard rounds that push us towards participation trophies, eroding the very meritocracy and the high stakes that make the final sacred. The AFL has absorbed the progressive disease—novelty over continuity, disruption over stewardship, division over unity.

The game has become less like a living tradition and more like a bureaucracy chasing the next virtue signal. In so doing, it disappoints millions of ordinary Australians who just want to barrack for their team. They want to share a beer and feel part of something timeless, not be preached at every week. The game doesn't need disruptors. It needs guardians and it needs us to call out this lurch towards prioritising ideology over the inheritance of our great game. Australian Football was at its best 30 years ago, before it turned into a political statement for inner-city elites.

The dire circumstances faced by Iran's national women's soccer team has rightly touched many Australians. Like so many, I was delighted by the news this morning that five of the players had made a daring escape from what are called their handlers and had been granted humanitarian visas to remain here in Australia. News of government officials in Iran labelling the players as wartime traitors clearly illustrated the grave threat that these women could face if they were to return to Iran.

This grave threat occurs at the hands of a despotic authoritarian regime that has simply no concern for the rights of its people. This grave threat occurs at the hands of an extremist religious regime that funds terrorist campaigns across its region to destabilise those that promote the ideal that they are so fundamentally scared of: freedom. This grave threat occurs at the hands of a regime intent on inflicting terror and damage towards its dissident communities around the world, including here in Australia. The actions of this regime have not occurred in the shadows; they have occurred on our TV screens for decades. Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen—the Iranian regime has been the most significant obstacle to peace in the Middle East for decades. It is the Iranian regime that has been supplying Russia with the drones that have been wreaking havoc on Ukrainian cities for four years throughout their illegal invasion. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have directed two terrorist attacks in Australia that we know of—the October arson attack on the Lewis' Continental Kitchen and the December arson attack on the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne. This is an evil regime that has brought terror to our shores, to Australia.

But the women of Iran face an internal struggle under this regime. In Iran, women are second-class citizens. The fundamentalist Islamic regime has, for decades, suppressed the rights of women. From the age of seven, girls and women are required to cover their hair and their entire bodies. Only their faces, hands and feet may be visible. They have no choice. We all remember the protests in 2022 when Mahsa Amini was killed after violating this law. Women and girls in Iran are subjected to male guardianship throughout their entire lives. They must gain their male guardian's consent to travel and to obtain a new, to renew or to use a passport. The list of discriminatory practices in Iran is virtually endless.

I know it comes as no surprise to Australians that the women's soccer team is so hesitant to return to Iran. Disturbing footage of the team emerged today where it appeared that one of the players was being dragged by another onto the bus. I have no doubt that there are many more players on that team that would love to stay here in Australia. I also have no doubt that there are many of them who are terrified for the plight of their own families that remain in Iran if they are to do so and, for that reason, many will not stay here. To them I say: we will continue to fight for you. It is my sincere hope that the government creates and gives every opportunity for the players to make a decision about their fate free from the shackles of the authoritarian regime. Whilst they are in Australia, they should enjoy the rights of any Australian. In the week of International Women's Day, I encourage all Australians to remember the circumstances of these women and the struggle of all Iranian women for freedom and others like them around the world.

I was very pleased to attend last week the first function of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers, of which I am very, very happy to be a co-chair. I acknowledge the other co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers—namely, Senator David Pocock, Senator Deborah O'Neill and Andrew Wilkie MP. I also note that in attendance was Senator Shoebridge of the Australian Greens and Senator McKenzie of the National Party of Australia. We had the benefit of hearing at this important function from a number of outstanding Australians who are providing assistance to whistleblowers. Those outstanding Australians include Mr Kieran Pender, the associate legal director of the Whistleblower Project of the Human Rights Law Centre, and also from Mr Gabriel Shipton, founder of the Information Rights Project. We also heard from the wonderful Adele Ferguson AM of the ABC. Adele Ferguson is one of Australia's most highly awarded investigative journalists. She's also a two-time winner of the Gold Walkley, the nation's highest journalism honour.

I'd like to place on record excerpts from Adele Ferguson's speech. She said: 'The launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Whistleblowers sends a signal that protecting those who speak up is not optional; it is foundational to democracy. And it begins with a simple truth: without whistleblowers, many of the most important public interest stories and scandals exposed in this country would never have been told. As an investigative journalist, some of the most significant stories I've worked on, stories that changed laws, returned hundreds of millions of dollars to exploited workers and victims of financial abuse, triggered parliamentary inquiries and helped lead to a royal commission, began with people who saw something wrong and chose not to stay silent. The banking scandals that led to the royal commission started with insiders who exposed forgery, fraud and cover-ups. The wage theft scandal at 7-Eleven back in 2015 was so powerful and undeniable because workers and advocates spoke up and someone inside the head office was willing to provide spreadsheets showing just how widespread the noncompliance was. The banning of engineered stone, those shiny kitchen benchtops, after workers developed silicosis from the deadly dust relied on insiders who revealed how warnings were ignored.'

It goes on to mention the cosmetic surgery investigation and systemic weaknesses in Medicare. Ms Ferguson also refers to the childcare expose that exposed systemic failures in that $20 billion sector. She goes on and says this about the whistleblowers: 'In each of my investigations, the public saw the headlines and the reforms that followed. What they didn't see and what I got to see in some cases were the months and sometimes years of fear, isolation and personal risk faced by the brave whistleblowers who decided to speak up. Over the years, I've had whistleblowers call me in tears, I've watched strong people fall apart from the stress and I've seen families go through enormous upheaval because their partner chose to act in the public interest. The public sees the reforms; they rarely see the human cost.'

What are we to do in relation to our whistleblowers? One of the things we need to do urgently is establish a whistleblower protection authority. I previously advocated both in this chamber and through my committee work, as have others in this place, for the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. Why? Let me give you the answer from one of Australia's outstanding whistleblowers, Mr Shelton, who worked for Securency and Note Printing Australia between 2007 and 2008. He joined as a business development manager but quickly ascertained that part of his business role was to actually solicit businesses through corrupt payments.

He refused to do so, and he also brought it to the attention of the authorities, who, for a disgracefully long period of time, failed to act. This is why Mr Shelton says that we need a whistleblower protection authority:

An independent whistleblower protection authority, which could provide a guide, a way forward and a pathway on what you will experience, what's going to come up and what you will feel, and also provide some support services, would have made the world of difference to me. It's too late for me, but, for others who come after, yes—100 per cent—there needs to be an independent whistleblower protection authority that covers both the private and public sectors.

In terms of a roadmap for what a whistleblower protection authority should look like, go no further than looking at the publication entitled A fair go for speaking up:design principles for Australia's total whistleblower protection authority, issued by a consortia including Transparency International Australia, Griffith University and the Human Rights Law Centre. They list the desired features that any whistleblower protection authority should have.

It should prioritise protection of the whistleblowers. It should provide support to the whistleblowers so they can navigate the difficult road they're embarking upon. It should prevent adverse outcomes for whistleblowers. It should provide mediation and administrative redress. It should provide a remedies focus. It should also, where necessary, take legal action to protect whistleblowers. It should provide for a system of rewards, compensation and financial support for whistleblowers. In many cases, whistleblowers actually deprive themselves of future earning capacity because they've blown the whistle on corrupt practices. It should provide a comprehensive and seamless jurisdiction. It should have adequate powers and resources, and it should be entirely independent.

That roadmap is already there in terms of a whistleblower protection authority that could cover both the public and the private sector. It's about time that Australia established a whistleblower protection authority and appropriately recognised the contribution made by whistleblowers. They are the heroes of our civic society, bringing to the attention of the community and to our attention as lawmakers wrongdoing occurring in our community, and we owe it to them to afford them as much protection and support as we possibly can.

I was delighted to attend an event hosted by Ipswich Hospice Care over the weekend, and it was a fundraising event—a trivia night. We all love a good trivia night. My team did appallingly badly, but, apart from that, good fun was had by all. I want to put on the record my great regard and esteem for Ipswich Hospice Care, the chair, the board—Melinda Parcell is the chair of the board; Gail Rogers is the CEO—to Gail, her team and all the volunteers and supporters. They do a wonderful job at Ipswich Hospice Care.

Ipswich Hospice Care was established back in the mid-1980s through the vision of a wonderful lady by the name of Dr Hilda des Arts and also through the efforts of Reverend Eric Moore of Central Mission in Ipswich. It was established to provide palliative care and services to the people of the greater Ipswich region, and it's helped hundreds and hundreds of people during the course of providing services to my community. I want to give my heartfelt thanks to Ipswich Hospice Care and the whole team there, from the board to the staff and the volunteers. You do wonderful work, and you're a cherished institution for the greater Ipswich community.

I was quite astounded to read an article in the ABC talking about the outcomes of the My Aged Care funding algorithm and how it impacted a Melbourne man, Graham Crossan, who has advanced motor neurone disease. He cannot eat, he cannot talk and he cannot breathe unassisted, and yet, when his case was entered into this algorithm, the result the algorithm provided was that he didn't need any increased support; in fact, he needed less support.

To me, the case of Mr Graham Crossan is a red flag. It's a red flag. The minister has been warned. If the algorithm is producing nonsensical outcomes such as this for Australians who most need support, it raises serious questions in relation to whether or not the algorithm is fit for purpose.

Division. The Prime Minister is fond of this word. He uses it a lot. The Prime Minister doesn't like division, which is unfortunate because he sees division everywhere. Antigenocide protests? Divisive. The Greens political party? Divisive. Grace Tame? Divisive—and difficult. For Mr Albanese, division is a threat to something called 'social cohesion', another thing he loves to talk about.

For the Prime Minister, social cohesion is what happens when you do nothing to stop a genocide. Social cohesion is what you get when you send the police out to bash protesters. Social cohesion is what springs forth when you demonise innocent Australian children stuck in Syrian camps. In a very narrow reading, the PM is correct: Australia is increasingly divided, and our social bonds are eroding.

But it's not because of a few university students in keffiyehs. Australians are turning on each other because they are angry. They are angry that life is getting harder and crueller. They're angry that, no matter how hard they work, they can't get ahead. They're angry that they can't afford the rent or the mortgage; that they're being ripped off by the banks, the supermarkets and the energy companies; and that they can't find a doctor who bulk-bills or a dentist who doesn't charge the Earth. Most of all, they're angry that, no matter which party is in power, life gets steadily harder and meaner for them and their families, while a privileged few get richer and more powerful.

Australians are at each other's throats because that's what happens when inequality soars and people fear for their futures. It's in this environment that the far right thrives. The prejudices that power the Right are always with us. Some people live with hate and ignorance in their hearts. When members of a society understand that they have common interests and are represented by governments that work for those interests, those prejudices lack the fertile ground they need to take root in society.

When people's material conditions decline, as they have in Australia, they begin to become alienated from each other, and the idea of a common interest becomes harder to imagine. Solidarity gives way to exclusion. Community gives way to brutal individualism. That's when the cheap, cynical rhetoric of right-wing populism can take hold in people's imaginations. We've seen it in the US, we've seen it in Europe, we've seen it in the UK and we're now seeing it here. This is how societies end.

Throughout history, the demonisation of minorities has been used by nationalists and fascists to whip up hysteria and fear to build their political power. Today in Australia, we are seeing history repeat. The dark forces of the far right, harnessed and funded by the billionaires and corporate elites—as they always are—are blaming immigrants for house prices, whipping up hatred of the Muslim community and First Nations people, and trying to wind back decades of progress on climate action and the rights of disabled people. These ideas can only gain purchase in an environment of social and economic instability—precisely the conditions that decades of Labor and coalition policy have created. It's the failure of governments to ensure that everyone can afford a safe and secure home, that everyone can see their GP or get their teeth fixed without going into debt or that the weekly shop doesn't blow the household budget that creates the conditions of fear and uncertainty that allows poisonous ideas like hatred of immigrants, antisemitism or Islamophobia to flourish. For decades, Labor and the coalition have colluded to drive up property prices, to keep income support payments below the poverty line, to suppress wages, to privatise our national assets and to financialise every aspect of our lives.

Under this Labor government, one in seven people in Australia lives in poverty. There's not a single rental home in the country that is affordable for someone living on income support. Australian households are spending twice as much of their income on their mortgage as they did five years ago. Public schools are still underfunded across the country, with no plan to get them to the minimum level required, and Labor's aged-care reforms have seen the waiting lists for assessments blow out, out-of-pocket costs soar and more barriers to accessing in-home supports raised. In regional parts of the country—like Gladstone, where I'm from—getting an appointment at a bulk-billing GP, if your town has one, can take months, while systemic underfunding of the public health system means people are travelling hundreds of kilometres for basic hospital treatment and care.

How can all this be? Australia is one of the richest countries in the world. How can we be so wealthy while millions of people live week to week and make so many sacrifices just to stay afloat? Because most of that wealth accumulates in the investment accounts and offshore tax havens of a small untouchable class of elites. The facts are stark: one in three big corporations pays no tax; Australia has 161 billionaires holding more wealth than the bottom 40 per cent of this country combined; the major parties are giving more than $180 billion in tax handouts to wealthy property investors over the coming decade; and Australia's big four banks make a profit of more than $200,000 from the average home loan. That's unearned income draining straight from Australian pay cheques to pay for corporate bonuses and superyachts.

Why do the big corporations and billionaires have it so good? Because they own the major parties. Over the last 10 years Labor and the Liberals have taken a quarter of a billion dollars in corporate donations, while the boards of banks, mining companies and corporate lobbying firms are stuffed with former Labor, Liberal and National members of parliament. It's an elite club of privilege and power, and you're not in it. The Greens believe in the power of government to make peoples' lives better. That's what it should do. But, under Labor and the coalition, people are losing their faith in government, and they're losing their faith in each other. That has opened the door to right-wing extremism.

You should be able to afford to buy or rent a good home on an average salary. You shouldn't have to worry about affording the food in your trolley. You should be able to get your teeth fixed when you need it. You should be able to afford child care, send your kids to a great and fully free public school and get the education that you need for free. The Greens think all of this is possible. By taxing big corporations and billionaires, ending the handouts to property speculators and making corporate price gouging illegal, we can make housing more affordable and accessible, lower the cost of living and pay for the services everyone needs to have a good life. Better is possible, and it is worth fighting for.

Before returning to Canberra this week, I had the privilege of attending an open day at Tuart Place in Fremantle, of which I am a very proud patron. For many west Australians who experienced institutional care as children, it is a place of belonging, recognition and understanding. Yesterday's gathering at 24 High Street, Fremantle, marked a particularly special achievement and a moment of great relief. Senators might recall me speaking in this place, a number of years ago, about the uncertainty about the premises of Tuart Place. I'm pleased to say that, after a few years of very strong advocacy, Tuart Place will remain in its home on High Street in Fremantle—a home that has become so important to the community that it serves.

Tuart Place is Western Australia's leading support service for care leavers—people who spent part of their childhood in orphanages, missions, foster homes or other institutions. Many carry lifelong trauma from neglect, abuse or displacement. What Tuart Place offers is something that cannot easily be replicated. It provides a community.

The organisation has a remarkable history. In 2007, a group of care leavers established Forgotten Australians Coming Together, or FACT, the governing body of Tuart Place. Among them was Laurie Humphreys JP, a former child migrant and resident of Bindoon. His vision was simple but powerful—a drop-in centre where care leavers could find company, dignity and support. That vision evolved into Tuart Place, formally launched in 2012 following collaboration between FACT, social work professionals and the CBERS Redress Service already operating in Fremantle at that time. Together, they developed a best practice model of trauma informed support, a genuine one-stop-shop providing counselling, advocacy and practical assistance for survivors. Today, Tuart Place supports more than 500 people. Many are former child migrants from the United Kingdom or Malta. Others are members of the stolen generations or Australians who grew up in state institutions.

What makes Tuart Place especially powerful is that it is not simply a service for care leavers. It is governed and shaped by them. As board member Margo O'Byrne observed yesterday, many volunteers bring professional experience and expertise in governance, law or social work, but they also bring what she described as 'degrees in survival'. These are people who endured extraordinary hardship as children yet, today, are leading governance, advocacy and support for others rebuilding their lives. Through Tuart Place, care leavers have contributed to royal commissions, Senate inquiries and international investigations into institutional abuse. Their advocacy has helped shape policy, including reforms ensuring redress payments are not counted as assets when entering aged care.

The continuation of this work has not always been secure. In 2022, Tuart Place was told it would have to leave its longstanding premises at 24 High Street. For many organisations, relocation would be inconvenient. But, for Tuart Place, it was more serious than that, because the building was far more than just a venue for the community that gathers there. The director of Tuart Place, Dr Philippa White, put it best when she said that the organisation could relocate to a small office with counselling rooms and a reception desk, but what would be lost is everything that has grown there over many years, which is a familiarity and a safety that people have come to rely on.

For many, it is a place of return and a place where survivors feel comfortable enough to share experiences they may have carried silently for decades. The prospect of losing that stability understandably caused deep distress among participants—many of whom experienced multiple displacements in their childhood. Yet I'm pleased to say the community rallied. Survivors spoke up, and staff and volunteers worked tirelessly to find a solution. Then an extraordinary act of generosity secured the future of Tuart Place at its historic home. In August last year, the building was purchased by Tim and Leonie Baldock, who recognised the significance of what was happening there and ensured Tuart Place could remain there on a long-term lease.

By preserving a building, they have also preserved a community. Stability matters deeply in trauma recovery. Knowing the place you trust will still be there next year, the year after that and the year after that is profoundly important. As patron, it's a pleasure to continue my advocacy for this remarkable institution, for all that it represents and for all those that it has come to care for. For people who spent their childhoods without security or belonging, Tuart Place has become something deeply meaningful. It's a safe place. It's a welcoming place. For many, quite simply, it is their home. We are so very, very deeply grateful for this remarkable act of generosity by Tim and Leonie Baldock, and we thank them from the depths of our hearts.

As people awaken to the Liberal-Labor uniparty facade, polls show the political status quo is changing and ending. The one thing I want everyone to remember is that Australia's economic and environmental destruction is based on the psychopathic United Nations criminal Maurice Strong. It matters, because all Australians are suffering unaffordable energy prices, cruel cost of living and family-crushing house prices and rents. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN's 1997 Kyoto protocol. It imposed its renewable energy target and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide tax—an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.

Energy prices affect every aspect of our lives and lifestyles. It's the foundation of modern civilisation and international competitiveness. In a recent Senate inquiry, Minister Chris Bowen's Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water could not provide me with scientific proof climate is changing. They deferred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN body that Maurice Strong spawned. The UN IPCC provides no hard data as proof. It guesses likelihoods and confidence levels to fraudulently imply statistical rigour where there is none.

The department then revealed it has no specific, measured policy basis for transition to unaffordable solar, wind and batteries under Maurice Strong's UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Goals. It has no specific impact of human carbon dioxide as basis for policy—confirming no cost-benefit analysis, no evaluation of policy options, no business case, no plan and no tracking implementation. We are not transitioning in this country. Minister Chris Bowen is blindly driving us off a cliff at a cost of $1.9 trillion for nothing. Australians now suffer the world's most stupid and highest electricity prices. Meanwhile, President Trump in America uses real science to restore affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas.

My team has 24,000 datasets from science agencies worldwide, including our own Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. They show no change in climate—temperature; rainfall; storm frequency, severity or duration; drought, ocean temperature; or extreme weather—but just show ongoing inherent natural variation in cycles: warm/cool, warm/cool.

Maurice Strong was a Canadian oil magnate who, in 1972, started the UN environmental program UNEP. Six months later he manipulated and schemed his way to be its head. In 1976 UNEP fabricated science to ban the insecticide DDT that had eradicated malaria in the West. After 40- to 50 million needless deaths from malaria—Indians, Asians and Africans—the UN restored the use of DDT in 2006. The world's list of mass killers is Chairman Mao, 60 million deaths; Maurice Strong, 40- to 50 million; Joseph Stalin, 40 million; and Adolph Hitler, 20 million.

In 1980 Maurice Strong started systematically entrenching bogus claims of future climate catastrophe due to carbon dioxide from human activity—power stations, industry, transport, travel and animal farming. In 1988 he formed the UN's political climate body, the IPCC, and fraudulently proclaimed it 'scientific'. His purpose was to corrupt climate science to mislead and scare people worldwide with unfounded fear. For example, in its second science report in 1995, scientists concluded they could find no evidence of human carbon dioxide affecting climate, yet the IPCC's Ben Santer—he's still in the IPCC—single-handedly reversed that to say they did. All six UN science reports rely on distortion and fraud. Why?

Maurice Strong was a founding director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, trading carbon dioxide credits—a corrupt global carbon dioxide tax—to make its directors billionaires, to provide the UN with ongoing revenue independent of member-nation grants and to guarantee revenue for his ambitions of global governance. Maurice Strong then built paths and systems for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for solar and wind. When American law enforcement wanted Maurice Strong for illegal water trading and the UN's oil-for-food scandal, he exiled himself to China, a major beneficiary of the West's climate and energy insanity.

In his report for the UN, the Club of Rome's Maurice Strong stated:

In searching for a new enemy to unite us—

being humans globally—

we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.

He was a lying scaremonger.

In 1992 UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong—there he is again—said:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable …

The reports said human activity caused these 'dangers' and needed a global response.

Maurice Strong stated his life's aims as 'deindustrialising Western civilisation' and 'putting in place an unelected socialist global governance'. In 1992 Paul Keating's Labor government signed UN Agenda 21 that pushed 17 so-called sustainable development goals to control every aspect of every person's life globally. John Howard's Liberal-National government accelerated an entrenched implementation of UN Agenda 21, including its 2007 Water Act. Its energy transition is now destroying what had been the world's best electricity supply grid, stealing farmers' property rights and laying the foundation for pushing Maurice Strong's policies across Australia. In 1996 one federal MP, Pauline Hanson, courageously exposed it all. In 2013 the South Australian MP Ann Bressington gave details of UN Agenda 21 fabricating bogus crises blamed on humans.

Maurice Strong said, 'The enemy is humanity itself.' They hate you and they want to control every aspect of our lives, lifestyles and society, transferring wealth from we the people to globalist climate prostitutes. An extraordinarily clever and scheming Maurice Strong manipulated national leaders to adopt his programs to save the planet and humanity from humans. In my first Senate speech, in 2016, I called out UN Agenda 21 and called for Australia to exit the UN. I'm pleased to say that's now One Nation policy.

We want the people of Australia to regain control over their lives and over our nation. We want Australians to keep the billions of dollars currently being transferred to climate and energy whores, who are stealing your money through subsidies, grants and taxes, enabled by people in this Senate. As your financial position goes backwards, Labor, Greens and moderates in the Liberals drive social policies to attack and divide you as colonisers, degendered and disrespected.

Maurice Strong drove those attacks with policies to smash both foundations of human civilisation: the family and the nation-state. Maurice Strong died in 2015, one month before his UN Paris Agreement was signed and his legacy UN net zero program targets were set—targets to which Labor, Liberal, the teals and the Greens all remain committed. They silently and dishonestly impose UN restrictions, fraud and burdens on Australians to govern with invalid edicts from New York and Geneva.

One Nation will remove Maurice Strong's psychopathic grip over Australia. Instead, One Nation will return you to affordable energy; affordable living; affordable housing; lifestyle choices, making families strong again; industry, with breadwinner jobs; and a future with abundance, built on realising Australia's true potential. One Nation is changing Australia's political status quo. One Nation will abolish the department of climate change, leave the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol, and stop UN net zero and all associated regulations, schemes and spending to save more than $30 billion a year in duplication and waste. That $30 billion a year we will use to build infrastructure that benefits everyday Australians, starting with Queensland's Urannah Dam irrigation project and a new greenfield hospital in Albury. A vote for One Nation will end Maurice Strong's psychopathic, criminal control over our country and put Australia first.

The world hosts about 420 gigawatts of installed nuclear capacity, and this is expected to rise to about 620 gigawatts by 2050. Today about five per cent of a total of 8.6 terawatts of installed power capacity is nuclear. The over 400 nuclear reactors around the world contribute almost 10 per cent of global electricity generation—about 29,000 terawatt hours in 2022. Only about 40 per cent of global primary energy—over 170,000 terawatt hours—is used to generate electricity. The other 60 per cent is used for industry, heating and transport. Nuclear is the most net-energy efficient and raw-material efficient source of power, with an energy return on investment, or EROI, possibly twice or more that of coal, gas or hydro. Nuclear is also one of the safest forms of power generation, measured in deaths per megawatt hour generated, with the least environmental impact.

Primary energy demand is likely to increase 40 to 50 per cent by 2050, driven by population increase and per capita energy consumption growth of about 25 per cent. Electricity demand will certainly increase faster because of increasing reliance on data centres and AI. It is therefore obvious that nuclear will contribute to this growth. However, in absolute terms, other sources—most likely dispatchable coal and gas but also, if direct and indirect subsidies continue, intermittent wind and solar—will make up the majority of capacity growth.

Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear reactors that have a power capacity of up to 300 megawatts, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors. SMRs, which can produce a large amount of electricity, are small and can be factory assembled and transported easily. SMRs could potentially form part of Australia's future energy mix, utilising existing transmission infrastructure and contributing to much-needed baseload power. As an emerging technology, the potential to balance the grid is important, and SMRs can provide an advantage for Australia as part of the solution to the intermittency being experienced as more wind turbines enter our electricity grid. SMRs can power small towns and form part of a bigger solution.

There are three small modular reactors that are operational in the world. One is in Shandong province, China, which consists of two 200-megawatt capacity reactors and produced 272 gigawatts in 2024. Russia also has two reactors, each with 30-megawatt capacity, that currently provide electricity and heat to an isolated grid in the Chukotka region in the far north-east of Siberia. In 2024, they produced 221 gigawatt-hours of electricity.

Japan has a high-temperature test reactor that the Japan Atomic Energy Agency is planning to use for heat generation for hydrogen production. There is an SMR currently being constructed in Darlington, Ontario, that is licensed to Ontario Power Generation and expected to be operational this year. China also started construction on an SMR on Hainan Island in 2021 which is due to be operational soon.

In the future, we could see microreactors that can sit on the back of a truck and be delivered to encourage off-grid standalone setups in rural areas. We may also see the development of one-megawatt nuclear beta batteries which create very reliable power. These small reactors would run a suburb, requiring distribution lines rather than transmission lines.

The government's target of 82 per cent electricity generated by renewables by 2030 requires 40 wind turbines and 670,000 solar panels per month, plus 10,000 kilometres of additional transmission lines. The estimated cost of this is $8 billion in renewable energy installations and associated infrastructure to replace a $1 billion coal-fired-electricity plant. On average, wind requires 421 times more land than nuclear, with estimates comparing it to the Rolls-Royce SMR, stipulating 10,000 times more land is needed for wind to produce the same output of electricity. In most cases, this land is unsuitable for further use, with exclusion zones needed to avoid the negative health impacts derived from wind turbines. Conventional nuclear power plants and SMRs have a minute development footprint compared to wind turbines and solar installations.

Net Zero Australia estimates that we will need to blanket 17 million hectares of land with wind turbines, power lines and trees to get to net zero. The loss of agricultural productivity will be devastating. You can't eat intermittent electrons. There are 205,000 hectares currently planned for clearing for the construction of wind turbines. This enormous footprint doesn't include the land cleared for transmission lines. This devastating destruction of biodiversity is reckless, permanent and criminal, and where are the Greens? The total number of proposed wind towers mapped in Australia is 35,127, and 3,804 of these are offshore. There are already 4,669 wind turbines in operation. Excluding offshore destruction, that gives us a footprint of 3,979,600 hectares. Then there is the total surface area required for solar. Existing panels cover 29,675 hectares, and another 447,134 hectares is proposed. The length of the proposed new haulage roads for wind turbines is 46,167 kilometres. The undersea cabling length for offshore wind is 16,973 kilometres, and no-one has ever done a real cost-benefit analysis. One Nation will put a stop to this insanity. We anticipate a saving of approximately $30 billion per year by abolishing net zero. Australians shouldn't have to fund a Temu electricity grid.

Senate adjourned at 21 : 13