If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

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

March 15 is the anniversary of the Christchurch mosque massacre, and it marks the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. The urgency of this motion should be self-evident, but I will nonetheless make a case for urgency. Seven years ago, an Australian white supremacist terrorist walked into two mosques in Christchurch and shot and murdered 51 Muslims as they gathered for Friday prayers. They were fathers, mothers, grandparents and children. The man who carried out that massacre was not a stranger to this country. He was Australian raised; he was Australian radicalised. The ideology that fuelled this act of terror did not appear overnight. It was built over decades of Islamophobia, decades of Muslims being portrayed as dangerous, decades of politicians and the media telling us that Muslims are a threat to the so-called Australian way of life, and decades of rhetoric suggesting Muslims are inherently suspicious, unworthy of protection and a disease to be inoculated against.

Instead of confronting the conditions that made such an atrocity possible, governments have looked away or, even worse, leaned right in. Australia has never truly reckoned with the fact that this terrorist was shaped by the Islamophobia that has long been fuelled and tolerated in this country. That reckoning never came. If the Christchurch massacre had truly woken this country up, things would look very different today. Instead, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate have become more normalised, more emboldened and more dangerous.

Just recently, a white supremacist was arrested in Western Australia for planning a terrorist attack on mosques in Perth, after allegedly stockpiling weapons and ammunition, yet in the media the terrorist was described as 'a young tradie whose life had come undone'. The WA police commissioner was publicly sympathetic to the man who intended to slaughter Muslim men, women and children. Why? It's because he was white. The media downplayed this terrorism, and they showed more care to the perpetrators than they did to the potential victims.

A far-right man recently threw abuse and punches at a Muslim community dinner where kids were also present. This happened in Ballarat. He was just told to move on by the police—nothing more. It is no wonder that Islamophobia is on the rise. Mosques and Islamic schools across this country are receiving violent threats. A Muslim cemetery was desecrated; pigs heads were left on graves. Lakemba Mosque has received threat after threat. This is the reality that Muslims are living under today in this country, and yet, instead of confronting the hate that fuels this violence, our politics and media continue to inflame it, legitimise it and normalise it.

Edward Said wrote Covering Islam 45 years ago, and his arguments about how the Western world deliberately constructs and portrays Islam and Muslims as synonymous with terrorism and religious hysteria are perhaps even truer now than they were 50 years ago. The use of language and rhetoric to distort, diminish, dehumanise and demonise us has only escalated. The Prime Minister will happily turn up at Ramadan festivals and markets and use us as video props for his performative solidarity, but, when it comes to standing unequivocally against Islamophobia, taking action to protect Muslims and acting with urgency, there is absolutely no movement.

Seven years ago, 51 Muslims were massacred in Christchurch by an Australian man with an extreme Islamophobic ideology. Christchurch should have been a turning point that forced this country to confront its own anti-Muslim hate and racism, but this horror was not enough to make you act. I'm not actually sure what it will take to make you lot act, but perhaps on the anniversary, this 15 March, you can reflect on this and then commit to treating Islamophobia with the urgency that it deserves. Perhaps on this International Day to Combat Islamophobia you can find it in your heart to show the Muslims in this country that you care a little bit about us rather than shut down this motion.

Yet again we see the Greens political party focus on launching political attacks on their political enemies and not on social cohesion. This motion, which has been moved by Senator Faruqi, was first circulated minutes before we began today, demonstrating that the Greens political party had no intention of working with anyone else in this chamber to seek agreement. This government strongly resists and opposes Islamophobia, and I encourage anyone to look at the government's record to see the evidence of that.

You do nothing.

We can see from Senator Faruqi's constant interjections that, as I say, she's more interested in political attacks than in actually working together. The approach the Greens have taken today by distributing this motion minutes before we began to sit, without giving anyone an opportunity to look at it and without seeking to work together, stands in contrast to the approach that the government has repeatedly taken on issues of social cohesion. We have repeatedly worked with other parties, including the Greens political party, to develop motions that the entire chamber can agree to. That is not the approach of the Greens political party, who are always more interested in political attacks than in social cohesion.

What we need to do in this country is find ways to work together to stamp out Islamophobia and to stamp out every other form of racism that unfortunately Australians experience. For those reasons, the government will be opposing this motion. If the Greens political party want, in the future, to seek to work with us rather than dump a motion on us before we begin, we'd be happy to discuss it with them. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

It's my pleasure to rise to speak to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, which is an important piece of legislation given the context this country is currently operating in.

Indeed, with some of the public debate quite heated at times, I think it is important for us to perhaps look at these things in a factual, calm, cool and collected way, while not underestimating the problems we face when it comes to our immigration system, our national security and our arrangements when it comes to our borders. All of those things are important, but they are things this government doesn't seem to take too seriously. They say they do, but, of course, this is not about words; it's about actions. It's about laws. It's about application of the laws. It's about ensuring that the government is doing the right thing by the people of this country, protecting them and keeping this country safe, and, as we say on this side of the chamber, protecting our way of life. I think that is an important thing for Australians to hear from community leaders, as we understand that you love this country and that you want to keep this country safe and keep this country as the land of opportunity that it is, and it is these sorts of measures that will do exactly that.

This bill, which has been brought forward by the opposition, has been brought forward because the government aren't doing anything. They are not taking this issue seriously when it comes to matters related to, for example, the so-called ISIS brides cohort currently seeking to leave Syria to come to Australia. We only have to remember what ISIS is, what they've done and what they believe in to understand the risk associated with anyone who would make a choice to associate with an organisation of that nature. ISIS is a listed terrorist organisation. The things they espouse, believe, talk about and do are not things that we share as values for this country. They are not friends of Australia. They are not pro-freedom, they are not pro-democracy, and they are not obedient to the rule of law in this country. We are talking about a group of people who—by association or, indeed, direct activity—have subscribed to the views, values and approach to life that a group like Islamic State would take, which is abhorrent. It is something we need to protect Australia from.

Of course, this legislation is very straightforward, because all it does is create a criminal offence for third parties who seek to assist in the repatriation of individuals who have committed a terror related offence or similar offences—that is, individuals who are not the government who assist in the repatriation of someone who has been a member of a listed terror organisation, who has gone to an area declared under the Criminal Code and remained there or who has committed a terror related offence. These are three fairly high bars, three categories of criminal offence which, of course, mean that you are knowingly doing the wrong thing; you have intent to do the wrong thing.

This new offence this legislation seeks to create is in relation to aiding one of the people who has committed one of the aforementioned offences to come back to Australia, to provide support to someone who has actively chosen to be a member of a listed terrorist organisation and to travel to and remain in a declared area that is a terror hotspot—for example, parts of Syria as declared under the Criminal Code—or who has committed a terror related offence. Those crimes are straight up and down and very straightforward to establish. Again, they're criminal offences requiring intent. If you want to support one of those people to come back to Australia, there is something very, very wrong.

The Home Affairs minister made it very clear to Australians, in his language during a TV interview a couple of weeks ago with regard to the so-called ISIS brides, that we don't want them. He said, 'We don't want them here; we don't want them to come back.' Yet this government are allowing this to happen through their own policy settings. They are turning a blind eye and washing their hands of their responsibility to protect Australia, and they are allowing others to take charge of who comes into this country and the circumstances under which they come. Indeed, the minister I mentioned is the individual within government who determines who comes in and out of our country. This minister is in charge of the immigration system, of our border security and of our custom. This individual is the person who says, 'We don't want them.' Well, I say to the minister: do something. As we know, the minister has done nothing, and that is why the opposition has brought forward this legislation.

The penalty for assisting someone or facilitating the re-entry into Australia of these people—who've committed a terror related offence, who've gone to and remained in a declared area or who've been a member of a listed terrorist organisation—is maximum imprisonment of 10 years, bringing it into line with other terror related offences under the Criminal Code. There's consistency here. But it does send a message, and it's a message this government desperately needs to send—that is that we are in charge of our border protection system and immigration system, and we are in charge of who comes into this country. The government say, 'Well, we're not facilitating the return of the so-called ISIS brides and their cohort.' If that is the case, then do something to prevent them from returning. If the words of the minister are to be believed—that is, you don't want them here—here is an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is and prevent others from determining whether these individuals come back.

This is what people and the sector call 'self managed returns'. That is someone who is an Australian citizen and can somehow gain access to a passport and make their way back to Australia. They have self managed their return. As we know, with regard to the so-called ISIS brides cohort, there are individuals and organisations reportedly assisting with the return of these individuals. These women and their children have been living in the displaced peoples camp in Syria for up to nine years—terrible environments. We all accept that.

It's terrible that there are children subjected to the horrors of living in these places, but, sadly, some were taken there by their parents. Some were born there and have started their lives there. This is terrible, but this is part of the facts of the situation, and it cannot be ignored that anyone in these displaced peoples camps presents a risk to our country. Therefore, facilitating their return without any proper assessment or intelligence around what these people have been doing and saying and whether they, including the children, are radicalised—we don't have answers to these questions.

The government is turning away and pretending that they don't know what's going on when individuals or organisations are over there helping them get passports and helping them apply for citizenship by descent and those sorts of things. That is not is what a responsible government does. Of course, there are questions around what the government has done and whether all laws have been abided by when it comes to, for example, the passports act, on a tangential issue. There are 34 people in this so-called ISIS bride cohort, adults and children, the make-up of which we don't precisely know. We don't know whether any of these individuals have ever been cited by Australian government officials.

As I said before, we don't know what intelligence vetting and security vetting has taken place to understand who these people who are now in possession of passports are. In another interview, Minister Tony Burke said that obtaining a passport is just like obtaining a Medicare card. Well, it's not. Yes, there is a right for Australian citizens to obtain a passport, but, under section 14 of the Passport Act, there is also capacity for the minister to refuse to provide a passport on certain grounds, including those related to national security threats. Again, ISIS brides have chosen to go to a designated terror hotspot to support their ISIS-fighter husbands who may have participated in actions that can only be described as radical, anti-Australian and anti-Western.

I'm not sure anyone can safely say without proper assessment that these people don't present a security risk, yet every single member of this cohort and others received a passport. They have not set foot inside an embassy, a passport office or a consulate as far as I'm aware, so how did they get them? Who paid for them? Who applied for them? These are all things that we don't know. Again, the government saying that they're not helping these people to return and similarly, I expect, refusing to support our legislation means that they are supporting these individuals to return to Australia. They are bringing a risk to our national security and our way of life into this country.

It is as simple as the title of this legislation. It is about keeping Australia safe and having proper processes in place that the government control so that the government determines who comes, under what circumstances it is in our national interest and is right when it comes to dealing with the terrible events we are seeing unfold in the Middle East, and the risk that they present should they come to our shores. Again, back to the legalities of the handling of passports, something the government have turned a blind eye to, as part of the assistance and organisation relating to repatriation of people who have committed offences as outlined in this bill—who was it that applied for the passports? We don't know.

The passports act, similarly, under section 37, suggests that only the authorised representative or the applicant themselves can handle the passports and carry them across international borders. These individuals, of course, haven't left the displaced peoples camp properly in many a year, and, therefore, as I said before, haven't had an opportunity to procure, obtain and hold these passports, let alone sign the documentation that would enable them to receive them. We had reports that legal representatives were the ones who applied for and collected the passports. We also had public statements by a well-known campaigner and long-time friend of Minister Burke, Dr Jamal Rifi, that he was, in his own words, the 'courier boy' who took the passports to the Middle East. We've had further media reports that another individual carried the passports into the camps. So the question is: were all of these people authorised to carry the passports? Or are these individuals in breach of section 37 of the passports act 2005, again pointing to a situation where this government is turning a blind eye to the laws of the land that are there for good reason—there to protect Australians, there to ensure that our way of life, our national security, is preserved. That's what they're doing; they are turning a blind eye because it suits their debate.

Now, they've ended the government-run repatriations which have presented this situation. I'm pleased to say that I met with Save the Children representatives last week, who are baffled by the government's approach to this; they feel like they've been left high and dry by the government. This is an organisation that did have meetings with the minister, meetings that representatives of the department were asked to leave because the minister and others wanted to have a frank conversation around how to potentially get these people back to Australia—something the government now denies and says is not happening. But the facts point to a very, very different set of circumstances. The government is helping. The government is rendering assistance, and this is jeopardising our national security.

As I say, Save the Children—the organisation that has done many good works across the globe in supporting those in need and those who don't have the rights and capacities that we do in a country like this—feel like they've been left high and dry by a government who've abandoned government-run repatriations. Because the government won't make a decision about who comes into the country and the circumstances under which they should be able to enter, they've been left to run this—proof positive again that this government is turning a blind eye to its role when it comes to national security.

This legislation is not complex. It's not draconian. It is not unfair. It is legislation that, at its very heart, goes to the preservation and protection of our borders, of the integrity of our immigration system and of communities across the country who obviously have concerns about a porous system that is not well managed, which is what we have under this government. To aid and abet, to assist and organise the repatriation of individuals who have, as I said before, committed a terror related offence, a serious crime, and have gone to and remained in a declared area, a terror hotspot somewhere else in the world—it's a difficult task to undertake. To get there and remain in those circumstances or to have deliberately and willingly signed up to be members of a listed terror organisation—again, that takes deliberate action; that takes intent. To support, aid, abet, assist in the repatriation of, or organise the repatriation of, individuals who've done any of these things is worthy of a consistent offence under the Criminal Code—10 years of imprisonment.

Again, it is up to the government to protect us. It is up to the government to run our borders. It is up to the government to maintain integrity in our border security and immigration system. But, by voting against this, they are again washing their hands, turning a blind eye and demonstrating that they're not serious about this and they're happy for these people to come in.

I, too, rise to make a contribution to the debate in private senators' time on the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The No. 1 priority of any Commonwealth government is keeping Australians safe. The coalition has always fundamentally understood that, if you as a Commonwealth government are unable to discharge that responsibility, then, quite frankly, you are failing the Australian people. Sadly, with the Albanese government, when it comes to national security, the Australian people are learning that they say one thing in public, but then, when you scratch the surface, a very different thing is happening behind closed doors. The ISIS brides, and the return of them to Australia, is the perfect example. Mr Albanese is prepared to stand up and say one thing to the Australian people, but behind closed doors it is a very, very different situation.

The Prime Minister tells the Australian people that ISIS sympathisers are not welcome in Australia, yet what we do know is that passports have been issued to them. The government says it's not assisting the return of the ISIS brides, yet what we also know is that federal and state agencies have been meeting for months and months to coordinate that exact outcome—that is, the return of the ISIS brides to Australia. In fact, after weeks of obfuscation, the Foreign minister finally admitted in question time that, yes, indeed, those meetings had taken place. But the Prime Minister still maintains to the Australian people that the ISIS sympathisers are not welcome in Australia.

I would have thought, based on those facts—that passports have issued to this cohort and that state and federal agencies, as we know because the Foreign minister confirmed this on the record, have been meeting for months to coordinate the return of the ISIS brides—Australians may be entitled to ask: 'Hold on; who exactly is telling the truth?' The Prime Minister says the ISIS brides are not welcome in Australia, but then we have a small problem because the Foreign minister then issues passports. The home affairs minister goes on TV and says: 'We're doing nothing. We're actively doing nothing.' Yet, again, as I said, the reality is that federal and state government agencies have been meeting for months to coordinate the return of the ISIS brides. Sadly, that is not a coherent national security policy. This is a government that is prepared to stand up and say one thing to the Australian people to try and look tough but at the same time, behind closed doors, is doing everything it can to facilitate this return.

Australians should remember exactly who these women are. They're not innocent bystanders caught up in a series of events. These are individuals, women, who chose to leave our great country of Australia, turning their backs on the values that we hold so dear and the freedoms that we have on a daily basis, and to travel—it was their own personal choice—to a terrorist declared area. They made a personal choice to leave Australia, to leave a democracy, and join the terrorists and live under Islamic State. They also chose to remain there while gross acts of atrocities were committed by ISIS, who enslaved women, executed civilians and, worse than that, broadcast that brutality to the entire world.

Let us be very clear. Islamic State is not a misunderstood organisation. It is not ambiguous. It was, is and remains one of the most violent terrorist organisations in modern history, and these women made a personal decision to leave the great country of Australia, travel overseas and live with these terrorists. Yet, as I said, we now have the Albanese government wanting Australians to believe that the return of individuals associated with that terrorist regime is somehow happening through what they are now calling 'self-managed returns'. Well, the Australian people are, quite frankly, better than that. They can see through that.

But, more than that, the phrase 'self-managed returns' should send a chill down every Australian's spine. What does it actually mean? This is what it means; it's black and white. The Albanese government has created a loophole whereby third parties can organise the return of people linked to terrorist organisations—but, conveniently, without direct Commonwealth organisation. Think about that. Decisions that go directly to the heart of Australia's national security are effectively being outsourced by this government, and they stand up and they say to the Australian people, 'There's nothing to see here.' Decisions are not being transparently made by ministers accountable to this parliament but arranged through intermediaries operating outside of public scrutiny—but, at the same time, there for everybody to see. That is utterly extraordinary. It is also reckless.

ASIO—it is a fact—already have around 18,000 individuals on their watchlist. Every additional high-risk returnee increases ASIO's surveillance burden. Every additional returnee stretches our intelligence agencies further. Yet, again, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs stand up, they look the Australian people in the eye—they treat them like mugs, of course—and they tell Australians, 'Very sorry—our hands are tied.' That is simply not true. Why? Because it is a fact that the passports act allows refusals on national security grounds. Temporary exclusion orders exist precisely to delay or control such returns. The government have that option available to them today, but instead of using it they've decided, for political reasons and nothing else, to adopt a strategy of plausible deniability.

But the questions keep mounting. Why were public servants asked to leave the room when Minister Tony Burke met with Save the Children before a previous cohort returned? The more confronting one is this: why was a political ally of the government, fundraiser and campaigner Dr Jamal Rifi, travelling into Syria carrying dozens of Australian passports? I'm sorry, but Australians aren't mugs. Nobody carries over 30 passports into a conflict zone without serious coordination. Worse than that, Dr Rifi himself—a great supporter of Minister Tony Burke; you saw him in the election night video, there with Minister Tony Burke, congratulating him on his win—now says he doesn't even know who these individuals are that he's helping to return. This is someone who is over there on the ground and has in excess of 30 passports—that in itself raises legal questions—but he says he doesn't know who they are. Well, I can tell him who they are. They're women who turned their backs on Australia and turned their backs on everything that we hold dear here—in particular, our fundamental freedoms—to travel to stay with Islamic State. That's who these women are. They made a conscious decision.

Dr Rifi, who is over there helping them come back to Australia, cannot assess their mentality, he cannot assess whether or not they've been radicalised and he cannot assess the risk that they will pose to the Australian public when they do return—because let's be very clear; under this government, the ISIS brides will return to Australia. It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when. And yet, for some bizarre reason, he has been entrusted with facilitating the ISIS brides' return.

Australians deserve answers. When was this self-managed returns policy created? Who authorised it? Did the National Security Committee of cabinet approve it? Did ASIO support it? Or did the government, in typical Albanese government style, just hope Australians wouldn't notice? Well, guess what? We've dealt with this issue before, when we were in government, and we acted decisively. We didn't try and pull the wool over Australians' eyes. We were upfront with Australians in relation to the repatriation of orphans. What we are saying to the government is they need to be upfront with Australians as well, and that is why we have introduced this bill into the parliament—to keep Australians safe.

Our bill closes Labor's loophole. We will make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, to assist without ministerial authorisation the return of individuals associated with terrorist organisations. On what planet did we ever think that a government would allow someone to go overseas to a terrorist hotspot carrying in excess of 30 passports, who admits he doesn't know who these people are whose return he is helping to facilitate, and allow them to return?

Our bill will restore something that should never have been absent in the first place but is, sadly, under this government, absent on a regular basis—that is, ministerial accountability. If ministers believe that these individuals—the ISIS brides, women who left Australia by choice to join the Islamic caliphate—should be coming back to Australia, then they should own that decision. Be upfront with the Australian people. Don't treat the Australian people like mugs. Don't say, 'We're doing nothing to repatriate them,' when, mysteriously, passports have been issued to these women and the relevant DNA checks have been undertaken on their children. It's a very strict process that government officials have to follow to establish whether or not a person is indeed a relative, yet government officials have been able to establish that fact.

How did 30 passports get over to this cohort? Well, we know how—Dr Jamal Rifi. Again, the government knows these women are coming back and is treating the Australian people like mugs. We are saying: 'If you want them to come back, you own this decision. Be upfront with the Australian people. Don't outsource it to someone else.' This bill will ensure that that outsourcing to another person—like that friend of Labor, the No. 1 T-shirt wearer for 'Friends of Burke', Dr Jamal Rifi—and that type of behaviour is criminalised. If ministers believe the ISIS brides should return to Australia, they should sign their names to that. Don't hide behind NGOs, don't hide behind democratic ambiguity and do not treat Australians like mugs by saying, 'We have nothing to do with this, because these are self-managed returns.'

National security decisions of this magnitude—in other words, bringing terrorist supporters back into the country—must be made openly and transparently and by elected ministers accountable to the Australian people, not by activists, not by intermediaries and, quite frankly, not through arrangements which the Albanese government hopes the Australian people will not notice. That is what our bill does. Our bill restores accountability and closes a dangerous loophole. More than that, it says clearly to the Australian people that the coalition, the alternative government, will always put their safety first. We fundamentally live and breathe that the first responsibility of a Commonwealth government is the safety of the Australian people. The government should support this bill. If Labor truly believe these returns are safe, they should have the courage to take responsibility for them.

Unprincipled, unethical, unconstitutional—that's what this coalition bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, is. In sinking to the complete bottom of some fetid tank of coalition politics, the coalition scooped into the bottom of that fetid mess of coalition politics and came up with this bill to make it a crime to bring children out of a war zone, to make it a crime for Australians or NGOs to go into a war zone and try and protect children. That's what the coalition are proposing with this legislation. They bring it forward knowing it's unconstitutional, knowing it would get struck down within two minutes in the High Court—but they don't care about that. They want their hateful sound bite to feed a race debate in Australia and to feed Islamophobia in Australia, and that's what they're aiming for with this bill. They know it won't work, they know it's a legal disaster, but they don't care about the reality. What they want is their Islamophobic, racist sound bite to feed what they perceive as their base—their shrinking base. That's what this legislation is about.

We see the coalition come up here and try and demonise children—Australian children—who have had no choice in their lives and their circumstances, who are living in a desert detention camp in a deeply unsafe part of the region and who've never known basic freedoms. They've never walked on grass, never smelt a flower and never had the chances that every Australian child should have. This lot, this unprincipled, unethical bottom swill, come in here and try and get a political advantage by attacking those kids, making those children out to be terrorist risks for their own narrow political advantage. I don't know what the discussion in the coalition party room was before this legislation came forward, but, if you came together as a collective and you supported this unconstitutional, vicious attack on kids, and said, 'Yep, we can try and wedge the government on this; we can try and wedge other politicians on this by having no standards—zero ethical standards and zero legal standards,' then you deserve your disappearing voter base, you deserve the contempt of the Australian people and you absolutely, collectively, have the contempt of the Australian Greens for what you're doing.

Unlike those who want to demonise these kids and demonise their mums, I've actually been over into north-east Syria. I've been to the camp. I've been across the border, gone through the desert and seen the appalling conditions that these Australian women and children are being held in. I've spoken to the administration in north-east Syria. Do you know what they say? They say that Australia is a wealthy country, far wealthier than Syria, bigger than Syria, with far more resources. They say: 'These are your women and children. You have far more capacity to bring them back and, if there are security risks, to assess the security risks and to give these children a chance.' They ask: 'Why is your government not doing this? Why is your parliament not doing this? Why are you making this administration in north-east Syria, a country that is war torn, stripped of resources and has taken the brave steps of actually being out there and defeating ISIS, look after Australian women and kids?' They say: 'So many other countries have expatriated their women and children out of the region. Other countries are doing it and looking after them. What is wrong with Australia?' They genuinely ask, 'What is wrong with your politics that you won't bring your children home?'

What I had to say to them was: 'Our values'—Greens party values and, I think, those of millions of Australians—'say, "Of course we should be looking after our children," but the politics in the federal parliament is racist, toxic and Islamophobic. There are parties in the federal parliament who call themselves "parties of government" but are far better known as the "war parties" who will actually be doing everything they possibly can to demonise these children and use them as a narrow political wedge to get a narrow political advantage in feeding racism and Islamophobia in the country.' They shook their heads. They actually spoke about how, in north-east Syria, they've been trying to fight extremism, and they realised that they had to do what they could to re-educate and bring people back into their society. The scale of the problems they were facing dwarfed anything Australia was facing in terms of social cohesion and social harmony.

I spoke to women from the Syriac women's council and from the Syrian Women's Council. We sat down in a room, and they spoke about how ISIS had torn apart their families and killed their relatives. Some of the women I spoke to—for example, the Zenobia women's council, down in Raqqa, had been on the front lines fighting ISIS. I was in a room surrounded by images of martyred women who had been on the front lines fighting ISIS. They all said: 'What are you doing here? Why aren't you bringing your children home?' Do you know what they also said? It's something you'll never hear from the coalition. They said, 'There needs to be a pathway through, but you need to find a pathway through.' There were women there who had lost family members. They were going into these camps, having lost family members to ISIS, and were desperately trying to find ways to reintegrate and re-educate.

The degree of sophistication and common humanity on the ground in Syria is putting to complete shame this obscene political attack we're getting from the coalition here. People who have had their relatives killed by ISIS can see that you can't keep kids forever in a detention camp, and you can't keep their mums forever in a detention camp. They realise there has to be a way through. They can see it. When this coalition, and their mates in One Nation, come in here and make these arguments about demonising people by calling them ISIS brides and bringing the kids up in this dehumanising, brutal language, they seem to forget who it was that defeated ISIS in the first place.

Who has seen the greatest number of deaths from ISIS? Overwhelmingly, it's Muslim communities. Whether they're Kurdish, Yazidi, Syriac or Arab, it has been Muslim communities that have been on the front line fighting ISIS. They're the ones who got martyred in battles in Kobani and in Raqqa. Muslim communities are the ones who have done it. They've taken on ISIS, and they've fought and defeated ISIS. Those same communities are saying to us: 'Bring your children home. Bring their mothers home.' Unlike the armchair warriors in the coalition—who've never been on the ground, never spoken to the administration, never seen the kids and never seen the women—they've fought and defeated ISIS. Unlike these unprincipled scumbags in the coalition and One Nation, they are saying, 'Bring the children and women home.' That's what they are saying.

On a point of order, I would ask that Senator Shoebridge withdraw his comment, which I consider to be an parliamentary.

Senator Shoebridge, I ask you to withdraw the comment.

Sorry, what am I being asked to withdraw?

I'm not going to repeat it, but, for the good running of the Senate, if you could just withdraw, then you can continue your speech.

I want to be clear, Acting Deputy President. I would—

Just withdraw, Senator Shoebridge. It's pretty simple.

They are my and my party's collective views about the motivation and the rationale of the collection that is the coalition.

Acting Deputy President, I don't consider myself or my colleagues in the chamber at the moment to be scumbags, so I would like that to be withdrawn.

So we can move on, I will withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. You now may continue.

Looking into the moral abyss that the coalition have generated with this legislation is hard, I understand, for the coalition. The complete lack of any kind of moral compass—I understand that it must be awkward to realise you belong to a party that wants to make political hay out of a six-year-old Australian kid that is trapped in a desert detention camp. I understand that it's awkward to look into the moral abyss you've created for yourself, but have a good look at it. Because I have been over there. I've spoken to a little six-year-old Australian kid whose only life has been a desert detention camp. She sat there in the meeting that I had with her mum, one of her aunts and another woman and drew a picture of Rapunzel and flowers, and she said that she just wanted to be free. She'd heard that there was grass in Australia, and you could run around on grass.

I spoke to her mum and her aunt, who had been—there are no educational resources in the camp and it's unsafe for the Australian kids to go to school because they're seen as wanting to come home to Australia and wanting a life separate from ISIS. They're actually under threat, and they can't even go to the rudimentary education camps that are there. I've seen the hand-drawn lesson plans that the mums and aunts were producing, trying to remember what their primary school lessons were, and hand-drawn images of the continents around the world or the different bones of the body or basic maths lessons. They're trying to give their kids some kind of future so that they can be ready when they come back to Australia to at least have some of the starting points to help their reintegration. I've seen that. No-one in the coalition has seen that, but everyone in the coalition wants that little kid to spend the rest of her childhood in a desert detention camp. That's what you want to do.

I know it's awkward looking into the moral abyss that you have created for yourselves and that you don't have any boundaries to where you'll take this politics or how you'll demonise. I know it's awkward, but we're just reflecting it back to you, your own selves. You're being reflected back to yourselves. Have a good hard look at where you want to take this country and your complete lack of any kind of moral limitations.

I come back to this: this bill wants to make it a crime to help bring kids out of a conflict zone. I've seen the former leader of the coalition Michael McCormack go to events from Save the Children and talk about how amazing the work of Save the Children is and talk about how they do life-saving work across the world and their absolute commitment as the world's longest continuous charity focused on children. I've seen that happen. I've seen the statements made by the former coalition leader. Now that same man and his party—I said coalition; I meant Nationals leader—wants to criminalise Save the Children. They want to put the people that he was supporting in jail for up to 10 years.

The Greens oppose this bill, and I'm glad to see Labor opposing the bill. I think Labor is opposing it because it's unconstitutional, but the Greens say, yes, the Australian government has an absolute obligation to keep Australians safe. That includes the Australian kids and their mums and it extends to that. We don't have rules like the coalition about who is or isn't Australian. If you're an Australian citizen, the Australian government has an obligation to do what it can to keep you safe. I think back about that little six-year-old who was on a bus a little while ago thinking that she might be free and then went back to the desert detention camp and who you want to keep in that detention camp. You know, she spoke with a really strong Australian accent because she's spent her life amongst the Australians in the camp on a street that's called Australia Street. I asked her about the picture and I asked about what's in the picture. She was pointing at them and said, 'Oh, they're roses.' I said, 'Well, what do you think about them?' She said, 'I've never seen a rose; I've never smelt a rose.' That's the future you want for her. We despise you for it and we see you. We oppose this bill.

Senator Shoebridge, in my speech on the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026, I'm not going to attack your party or your views or the individuals within your party. I think this chamber could be better placed for us to discuss our differences in a manner that doesn't attack one another. That's been the manner in which I conduct myself here, and I think that is what Australians expect from us in a debate as important as this one. It is an important one, and there are many things that you said that made me pause to think about those perspectives. I hope there are some things that I say that may encourage you to pause as well and perhaps not use the kind of language that you did. I don't say it to admonish you; I say it in order for us in this chamber, all of us, to find a better way to engage with each other because I am tired of people attacking each other as human beings when we're trying get across our views on an important debate. I've had enough of it and I expect others have as well. I'm going to change my speech based on some of the comments that you've made, particularly in relation to statements like 'hateful sound bite', 'moral abyss' and 'lack of moral compass'.

You've spoken a lot about children, which is really important, and the fact that some of these children have never been outside a desert camp, have never walked on grass and have never smelled a flower and that, somehow, our desire to keep Australians safe here means that we hate those children. There could be nothing further from the truth. The one thing that we need to remember is that it is the parents of those children that took those children out of Australia to a war zone—to the war zone that you spoke of. They took them there, to that world away from this world, and they took them there with them so that they could go and fight against Australian values for the Islamic State, and that is what we are worried about. That is what many people who have spoken to me at different community events or who have called my office are worried about. They are going, 'Yes, it is actually terrible for those kids, but what kind of parent takes a child out of Australia into a war zone?' and, now, when it hasn't worked out exactly as they would like, they would like to come back. That's not a discussion that I'm going to enter into now, but I think it's an important element of this debate. This isn't a scenario where these women and children have inadvertently found themselves in a war zone. They deliberately went there and took their children there, or the children were born there.

The reality is this legislation presents a way for us to try to protect Australia's way of life by putting a stop to the trafficking of terror and by saying that, if you choose to go to a war zone, to a terrorist hot spot, and if you choose to leave this country for that purpose, then it's going to be very difficult for you to come back and to have that knowledge that that is the circumstance which you will face. We will make it an offence for anyone to assist the repatriation of dangerous people associated with a terrorist organisation without the express permission of both the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. That doesn't mean they can't come back if there is a special circumstance. That means you have to meet that threshold test, and that is what is important.

I've been thinking a lot about the comments that Senator Shoebridge made about the people that he visited in the camp and the stories that they told, and there is another side to this. A couple of weeks ago, I sat in a room with about 30 or 40 people who had either directly or indirectly been impacted by the actions of ISIS. I had two grown men cry in front of me as they retold their stories of what they had endured, and it's difficult to speak of, so I'm not going to do it now, but what they had endured purely because they wanted to maintain their faith—they had been targeted, persecuted and physically harmed simply because they refused to convert from their Christian faith to Islam. These are the types of people that we're talking about. These are the types of mindsets and autocratic ideologues that we are talking about. We have to understand and acknowledge and accept, however uncomfortable, that these individuals chose to leave Australia to go and fight for that—fight for an autocratic regime that forces other people to abide by their faith and that takes away their basic freedoms. We need to think about that. We have all seen what has transpired here in the last few days in relation to the Iranian women's soccer team. That broke my heart, as it did many Australians'—that these young women had to make a choice about whether they stay here and never see their families again or not for very, very long time, because of a choice they make to stay here and be free, knowing that, if they stay here and choose to be free, harm may come to their families back home because of their choice as to what they've done here, or, alternatively, they can go back and also face potential harm because they stood in silence, a silent protest against an autocratic regime when they refused to sing the national anthem. Have a think about that. Have a think about what that really means. This is not about, as Senator Shoebridge said, us 'looking for hateful sound bites' or 'having no moral compass'; this is about us fighting for Australia, fighting for Australians and fighting for the Australian way of life.

The reality is that, if people choose to walk away from that, then the test to come back should be harder. While, yes, we do have an obligation to all Australians, our primary obligation is to ensure that the majority of Australians are safe—that we keep Australians safe and that we don't allow people to come back who want to harm the Australians who are here. One of the individuals that's talked about in the cohort of ISIS brides, before she left, made comments around how she wanted to go and make bombs. That is someone whose decision-making is clear-eyed. That is someone who has left the peace, the green grass and the flowerbeds of Australia. Senator Shoebridge spoke about people who had never smelt or seen a rose, but they chose to leave here to go there and fight for Islamic State and to fight for everything that is opposed to Australian values and the freedoms that we fight for. These are the freedoms that so many people who came to this country fought for in coming here. These are the freedoms that this building is here for, and that each of us is here for.

I'm not going to be ashamed of standing here and saying that I want to defend the people that are here in Australia and the people that share those values, because they are really important—as were every one of the 15 people that was killed on 14 December in Bondi. They too deserved to be safe and they weren't. They weren't safe here in Australia. The same regime and ideology that these people wanted to go and support sent a directive that Australia should be attacked—a synagogue in Melbourne, a restaurant in Sydney. There potentially were other attacks, but those two were for sure. They sent directives that Australia should be attacked because they don't like the freedoms that we have here, and because they don't like the fact that they don't have control over our ideology here in the same way that they have over there. We need to think about that, and we need to think about the risks that that presents to Australians.

Whilst I accept and recognise the concerns for those small children, we also have to accept and recognise that the actions of the parents of those small children were the reason that those children have been placed into danger. Those children and those women are not where they are because of anything that the Australian government, the coalition or the Australian community has done. It is because they supported the apocalyptic Islamofascist ideology over there. It's because they supported the extremism that they went to fight for.

It is not up to us to ensure that their safety is prioritised over the safety of everyday Australians here. That doesn't mean that they can never come back here, but what it does mean is that they have to meet particular tests in order to return. I think that is perfectly reasonable, and I think that everyday Australians would agree that that is perfectly reasonable. I have been struck by your words, Senator Shoebridge, but what has struck me even more is how any parent could take their child into such an environment. We talk about our moral compass, but where is the moral culpability of those parents who took their children there? What were they thinking when they made those decisions?

What were the children thinking?

We need to consider it. You can't have it both ways.

Order! Senator Kovacic, I will just remind you to direct your comments through the chair.

The Islamic State caliphate is no place for children, and yet these individuals took their children there. To protect Australia's national security and our way of life, we need to think about and be very clear on what the implications are of reintroducing potential terrorists into our community. We have to ensure that that is not the case, and we have to understand what the government knows about these individuals. The government needs to be transparent about that so that we can ensure that we are not increasing any danger to our community on their return.

We need to ensure that we have an Australia where people aren't afraid to go outside to practise their faith or celebrate faith events because of who may or may not target them because they don't like the faith that they practise. Someone once said to me, 'There is a great responsibility in being free.' My father actually said that to me many years ago. He came here in the 1960s. He was a political refugee of a former Communist state and he spent a number of years as a political refugee in Europe before he was able to come to Australia. He always talked, before he passed, about the responsibility of freedom—that it is not easy, that it's not simple and that we are very lucky in Australia because we are free. Sometimes, you don't understand how easy it is to lose that freedom if you've always had it. I think that we are at a particular point in time in the geopolitical environment where we need to be very, very careful in protecting our values and our way of life. That doesn't mean that we hate others. It doesn't mean we have no moral compass. It doesn't mean that we are digging at the bottom of the barrel or that we're trying to divide Australia. It actually means that we are trying to protect Australia so that future generations can have the same freedoms that we have had.

One Nation, unsurprisingly, supports the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. Australians are outraged at the way the Albanese Labor government has conducted itself in repatriating ISIS terrorists. Let's be clear. That is what these ISIS brides are. 'Brides' is a lovely euphemism for what is actually Australians aiding and abetting ISIS, one of the most evil terrorist organisations in history. Aiding and abetting might have been making a packed lunch for their terrorist husband or maybe packing a few rounds of ammo. Who knows? But one thing is sure. They, at a minimum, made sure that murderers, rapists and worse had everything that they needed. If you fly to the other side of the world into a declared area to join these vile terrorists, you are as much a terrorist as they are. At that point, you have declared your allegiance to an enemy of Australia, and we do not want you back. You have thrown your lot in with the rapists, murderers, child traffickers and paedophiles. Stay there. You have forfeited your right to this great country.

Labor's response to these faint-of-heart terrorists has, sadly, made this bill necessary. Those that assist known terrorists in returning to our country must be held to account. There is never a good reason to repatriate those who have been engaged in terror. They are not fit or safe to live amongst the Australian people, and we don't want the taxpayer footing the bill for a lifetime in prison. The obvious solution is: don't bring them back. It costs anywhere from $120,000 to $200,000 a year to keep a prisoner in a maximum security facility. Each of these repatriated terrorists would cost up to $10 million if they spent the rest of their lives in prison. It is an indictment of this hopeless Labor government that this bill is necessary, but the people of Australia were not able to rely on the government's protection. Labor repeated over and over that there was no assistance being provided to these terrorists. What a crock. The idea that, if somebody does their own paperwork, the government is therefore not providing assistance is laughable.

The Labor government instead relied on third parties to do their dirty work. Save the Children Australia, Dr Jamal Rifi, a raft of lawyers—all assisting this Labor government in the deception of the Australian people. We cannot have these situations where our government are pretending to the public that they are doing one thing, while using third parties to carry out their covert objectives. It should have been obvious to Labor that these activists working to bring back terrorists from a designated area were working against the best interests of Australia. So what did they do to protect Australians from these activists? Nothing. These amendments would make it criminal for Labor to use third parties to carry out their underhanded support of these terrorists. Instead, the minister, who as we know is working very hard not to offend his electorate, will have to come out and provide explicit written, explicit permission.

Labor, at least tell us what you're up to. Australians have legitimate questions. Since we know that the Albanese Labor government had full knowledge of these repatriations and have been actively assisting them, let's have the rest of the detail. Where are they going to resettle? Which community should be put on notice that Labor is allowing radical Islamic terrorists to come to their neighbourhood? What are they going to cost the Australian public? Will these terrorists be entitled to benefits? I can't imagine these people have acquired any marketable skills while they were packing lunches for their ISIS husbands. How does the government suppose that they will support themselves and their children? Is that burden to fall on the Australian taxpayers, the very people these women renounced and fought against? Now that they have had enough, now that they know about the horrors and deprivation of this murderous ideology, they want to come back. It's too late for that.

Perhaps, instead, these ISIS supporters will be rightfully arrested and prosecuted. Under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, knowingly being a member of a listed terrorist organisation is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. Is that the plan—to let these women in, charge them for being members of a terrorist organisation and, once again, have the taxpayers foot the bill? What will you be doing with the children while you have their mothers incarcerated? I can't imagine a more sure-fire way to make bitter, vengeful threats to Australian security.

Under Labor, all of these questions have been left unanswered. The Australian people have been left in the dark, with questions they are not getting answers to. We shouldn't have to watch our politicians to make sure they aren't sneaking in terrorists. We shouldn't have to take away their cloaks and daggers. It is not the sign of a functioning political system when the criminalisation of government co-conspirators is necessary to keep the country safe. Labor's priorities are completely backwards: terrorists first, Australians last. It is sad that this bill is necessary, but, to keep Australians safe from this Labor government, One Nation will support it.

I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The first duty of any government is to keep Australians safe. National security is the first and most solemn priority of any federal government, and it's the foundation upon which our way of life is built. Yet today that foundation is being eroded. It's being eroded by secrecy, contradiction and the dangerous policy of self-managed returns for those who have turned their backs on our country to join the most brutal terrorist regime of our time.

The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, once told the Australian people, 'My word is my bond,' but, on the matter of national security, we are seeing the exact opposite. For months this Labor government has played a double game. The Prime Minister tells us and tells the public that ISIS sympathisers are not welcome, but at the same time we hear that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is quietly issuing passports. The Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, has told the media that his hands are tied and that he is—ironically and nonsensically—actively doing nothing. Yet we know that federal and state agencies have been meeting for months to manage the return of these individuals. So which is it? Are they unwelcome or are we paving the way for their return? The coalition believes that Australians deserve clarity on this issue, not contradictions, which is exactly why we have introduced this bill. The legislation is a clear and decisive plan to stop the trafficking of terror and restore ministerial accountability to our borders.

Let's be very clear about who it is that we're talking about here. This is the cohort of ISIS sympathisers more commonly referred to in the media as ISIS brides. They are individuals who have willingly, actively chosen to enter and remain in areas controlled by Islamic State. This wasn't a social movement; it was an apocalyptic Islamofascist regime. Security experts have warned us that radicalisation doesn't simply disappear, and, with 18,000 individuals already on the ASIO watchlist, our agencies have told us that they are stretched to their limit. Adding more high-risk returnees to this mix is highly reckless, and it puts our community at grave risk.

Over recent weeks, I have had the honour and privilege of meeting with a number of individuals who are deeply concerned about the prospect of having ISIS sympathisers returned to our shores. When Angus Taylor and I met with members of the Assyrian community in South-West Sydney, we heard the most horrific stories—stories of people being kidnapped and tortured by ISIS operatives. Their lives have moved on here in Australia, but they will bear the scars of those experiences forever. We met with members of the Yazidi community from Wagga Wagga, and we met with an extraordinarily brave young woman named Marteen, who is just 19 years old. She told us about the time she spent in ISIS captivity after being kidnapped at the age of just eight. She told us her story with tears in her eyes, unable to finish her sentences because of the trauma of those memories—the enslavement which was inflicted upon her unwillingly. Hearing her story, you couldn't help but understand why these communities are so rightly alarmed by the prospect of repatriating these so-called ISIS brides. The Assyrian and Yazidi communities have come to Australia to rebuild their lives here, but many of them are now terrified at the thought of what might happen if these people come back. These are people who, when fireworks go off, hide under their beds. They're terrified, they're traumatised, and for some reason this government wants to allow the reliving of the trauma. How can the government provide assurance, given the inconsistent messaging, that ISIS sympathisers returning to Australia won't destroy the lives that these truly beautiful Yazidi people are rebuilding in this country?

Let's be clear that the Albanese government's approach to this situation has been entirely inconsistent. Labor's current policy of self-managed returns has created a very, very dangerous loophole. Allowing third parties—NGOs or private individuals—to auspice the repatriation of people linked to terrorist organisations without any direct authorisation from the Commonwealth is dangerous. National security has been outsourced to intermediaries.

We've seen the consequences of this freelancing approach with Dr Jamal Rifi, a political ally and fundraiser of Minister Burke—such a big ally, I might add, that he attended his election night party and spray-painted Minister Burke's name onto the back of his head. This man recently travelled to Syria carrying dozens of passports for cohorts of ISIS brides—and one male prisoner, I might add. He has himself admitted in the media that he doesn't even know these women or children—he's never met them—let alone the extent of their radicalisation or the threat that they may pose to our safety. That is secondary for him. Well, it's not secondary for us. It's not secondary for the coalition. It should be our priority.

The time for the debate has come to an end. You'll be in continuation.

Pursuant to order, the Senate will now proceed to statements by senators concerning the current conflict in the Middle East. The total time limit for this debate is one hour, and it's five minutes per speaker.

Every day in the Senate for the past sitting week, I have risen to speak on the current conflict in the Middle East and to update on the ongoing hostilities, the situation for Australians in the region and the efforts taken by the government to keep Australians safe in the region and secure at home.

The first priority of the Albanese government is to keep Australians safe. When the initial strikes were conducted by the United States and Israel on Iran, the question we in the government asked ourselves was, 'How do we best protect Australians? How do we best keep Australians safe?' and the judgement the government made was that it was in Australia's interests for Iran not to be able to obtain a nuclear weapon and for Iran to be prevented from continuing to disrupt international peace and security. I've said we are not in a position to determine the legal basis of the decision that the US and Israel have made. What we can do is make a judgement about what is in our national interest and what we support in order to keep Australians safe. We've supported action aimed at preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and from continuing to threaten international peace and security. We have also said that the principles of the Geneva conventions on international humanitarian law continue to apply in this current conflict.

Iran has flouted international law for decades, and the international system has not been able to hold Iran to account and to take appropriate action. We see this now, as Iran attacks 12 countries in its region and continues to threaten international peace and security. This follows decades of Iran sponsoring terrorism in the region. Iran has killed countless people in the region with impunity. Iran has consistently failed to comply with its international obligations in relation to nonproliferation and nuclear safeguards, and we will never forget that Iran chose to conduct antisemitic terrorist attacks here in Australia, on Australian soil.

Colleagues, Iran's reprisal attacks continue at a scale and depth we have not seen before. We have seen multiple countries in the region, which have not been attacking Iran, being attacked by Iran. The UAE alone has been forced to shoot down more than 1,700 Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles and drone attacks. We have seen Gulf countries throughout the region consistently attacked. I have had the opportunity to speak to my counterparts in Gulf countries over the period since the war began, and all are dealing with persistent Iranian attacks in civilian areas and on civilian targets. I'll repeat that—in civilian areas and on civilian targets. These dangerous and destabilising attacks put civilian lives at risk, including Australian lives. As the chamber would have heard me say, we have approximately 115,000 Australians in the region.

The government has made the decision to take defensive action to support our partners' efforts to keep Australians safe, deploying a E-7A Wedgetail to the Gulf and providing advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles to the UAE to help protect and defend Australians and other citizens. These deployed assets will operate according to Australian law and policy and Australian directives. We will also notify the UN Security Council of relevant actions taken under article 51 of the charter. Our government has been clear: we are not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran.

We are also working around the clock to support Australians to safety. More than 27,000 flights to and from the Middle East have been cancelled since 28 February, and there were an estimated 4.4 million airline seats removed from schedules. I'm pleased that, as of this morning, more than 3,200 Australians have returned, on 23 flights, and further services are scheduled in coming days. We've worked around the clock to support Australians in the region, through the 24-hour crisis portal and through deploying crisis response teams to the region, and we have worked with partners to offer bus routes to Australians in Kuwait and Bahrain. I've been advised by airports and airlines that the overwhelming majority of stranded Australian passengers have now left, but there are many more who are still in the Middle East. We would encourage those who do wish to leave to do so now, whilst commercial flights, however limited, remain available.

Finally, one heartwarming moment through this conflict has been the moving way in which Australians have taken the Iranian women's football team into their hearts. Some of players will make Australia their home. This is a beautiful thing. Australia continues to stand with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression.

On behalf of the coalition—Australians are watching the conflict in the Middle East with deep concern, but Australians also instinctively have a clear-eyed understanding of what is at stake, not just for the region but for the international order and for our own national interests here at home. What we are witnessing is not simply another episode in a long-running regional dispute. It reflects a deeper strategic reality that the world can no longer ignore.

For decades, the Iranian regime has pursued a deliberate strategy of destabilisation across the Middle East. It has funded, armed and directed proxy forces—Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It has invested heavily in missile programs. It has pursued nuclear capabilities in defiance of the international community. Iran's strategy has been to wage indirect conflict through militant proxies while seeking to shield itself from direct accountability. That is why the current crisis must be understood in its full strategic context. It forms part of a broader contest, increasingly shaping the international system between authoritarian regimes and democratic nations. That matters to Australia. Our security and prosperity depend on a stable international system and on our own secure sea lanes, functioning energy markets and the rule of law between nations.

I want to be direct about the Iranian regime. The barbaric and brutal regime in Tehran is authoritarian, antisemitic and abhorrent. Since 1979, it has oppressed, imprisoned and murdered countless numbers of its own citizens. It has been responsible for acts of foreign interference here in Australia, including inciting antisemitism and organising at least two acts of terror here on our shores. No freedom-loving person will be shedding tears over the death of the ayatollah. The confirmation of the death of the supreme leader Ali Khamanei was welcome news not just for the people of Iran but for the world. His death is a great setback for tyranny and a leap forward for the cause of freedom. For the first time in almost five decades, the Iranian people have a real chance to secure the freedom they have long desired and that we here in Australia are lucky enough to experience day by day. We pray for the Iranian people at this time—that they be given the courage and the safety to build a better future. The opportunity, of course, has been made possible by the decisiveness and moral fortitude of the United States and of Israel and the combined military strength and bravery of their defence forces. The coalition salutes them.

Israel, like every nation, has the right to defend itself against those who seek its destruction. No democratic nation can be expected to tolerate persistent threats to its citizens or to its existence, and the coalition stands firmly in support of Israel's right to defend itself. But, sadly, there have been some failures by the Albanese government, least of all in terms of the 115,000 Australians in the Middle East—many of them anxious and desperate to return home—and, in a crisis like this, every minute counts. Sadly, this government's response has been marked by confusion, delay and poor communication. On top of that, Labor must explain to the Senate and to the Australian people why Australians travelling to the Middle East were not properly advised of the dangers at the same time as our own officials were evacuated out of the region.

Of course, the consequences of this conflict are also being felt directly by Australians here at the bowser and in their businesses. Again, when confronted with this reality, the Australian government makes excuses. Their response has been to blame the customers. They are in complete denial, they are not on top of the domestic reality, and they do not understand the supply shortages, and, sadly, Australians are paying the price. But, ultimately, Australia stands for democracy and freedom. We stand for the rule of law. This is a critical moment for democracies and countries committed to the cause of freedom.

():  I rise to contribute to this discussion and debate today on behalf of the millions of Australians who are extremely concerned about the war that this government has dragged our country into.

Let's have a think about some facts. What do we know? We know that this illegal war, of the United States and Israel, has already seen bombing of schools and the killing of innocent civilians. We know that it is chaotic. We know that this war is killing the most vulnerable. We know that wars create refugees. We know that the death toll is already well over 1,300. Tens of thousands of civilians have been displaced, with the destruction of homes, schools and hospitals. We know that the war has already spread beyond the borders of Iran into other parts of the Middle East, and we know that Australia is now at war. Australia has sent a warplane with missiles and dozens of personnel. It doesn't matter how the Albanese government tries to spin this, to sugar-coat this. Australia is now at war, dragged there by Donald Trump.

Let me be clear. The Iranian regime is brutal. It has inflicted harm and suffering on its own people for decades, and I do not mourn the horror that has come on their tyrant leaders. But I do mourn for the innocent civilians, the people of Iran, who have the right not just to be free from their brutal regime but free from bombs, further chaos and violence. Australians do not want us in this war. And we shouldn't be.

In 2003 Anthony Albanese, before he was prime minister, criticised Australia joining the war in Iraq, an illegal war that breached international rules and was seeing terror, horror and violence rain down on innocent civilians. The Prime Minister, at that time, was clear that there was something perverse about arguing that the cause of democracy is advanced through weapons of mass destruction. Now Anthony Albanese is the country's prime minister, and he is doing exactly the same thing. So the question I have is was the Prime Minister fudging it in 2003, or is he fudging it now?

War is serious. This is about life and death, democracy, the rule of law and the world we want to live in. If Australia is going to follow Donald Trump into this bloody, chaotic, dangerous conflict—as this Labor government is now making us do—then the least the Prime Minister and the government could do is be honest with the Australian people about what is going on. Yes, we are at war. And we shouldn't be. Australians don't want to be. If you're going to take our troops, if you're going to send warplanes, if you're going to give words of condolence to those who are suffering and if you're going to slam the door shut on refugees, at least have the guts to tell the Australian people the truth. And the truth is Donald Trump has asked us to jump, and the Prime Minister has asked, 'How high?'

The conflict in the Middle East has entered a dangerous and deeply concerning phase. Iran's reprisal attacks continue to escalate in both scale and reach. And now we see 12 countries in the region being targeted by missile and drone strikes. This is not abstract geopolitics. This is a direct threat to civilian life, to regional stability and to Australian citizens abroad. The United Arab Emirates alone has shot down more than 1,500 rockets and drones in recent days. Among those at risk are thousands of Australians who live and work in the Gulf. There are around 115,000 Australians currently in the Middle East, including approximately 24,000 in the UAE. Their safety is the first priority of the Albanese government.

In response to requests from our Gulf partners, the government has decided to deploy an E-7A Wedgetail aircraft with Australian Defence Force personnel to the region for an initial four-week period. Having recently supported Ukraine with advance radar and reconnaissance capability, the Wedgetail will help secure Gulf airspace, strengthen early warning systems and protect civilians from incoming threats.

Australia is not taking offensive action against Iran, and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. I'll repeat that for those who are unclear or who want to put a whole bunch of misinformation about Australia's role in this conflict: we are not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. As is our longstanding practice, deployed ADF assets will operate in accordance with Australian law, policy and directives, and the government will notify the United Nations Security Council of relevant actions taken under article 51 of the UN Charter.

Our diplomatic and consular efforts are moving with equal urgency, with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade activating its crisis centre and deploying response teams to the region. More than 2,600 Australians have returned home, though challenges persist as commercial flights are disrupted and airspace closures continue to evolve. We continue to advise Australians to not travel to the region and those already there to leave as soon as it's safe to do so.

In that same context we cannot overlook the women and children who remain stranded in parts of Syria as a result of travelling into a region consumed by conflict. Their circumstances stand as a sobering reminder of how quickly individuals can become trapped in perilous environments when wars escalate or extremist ideologies take hold. It is a tragedy that anyone should find themselves caught between remnants of such violence and instability. The government continues to approach these matters with discipline and resolve, guided by compassion where it is warranted but uncompromising in its commitment to Australia's safety and national security.

Our response in this parliament must be marked by three qualities: courage to stand with partners in defence of civilians, international peace and security; kindness to support Australians and others whose lives have been upended by this conflict; and stoicism to act calmly and deliberately, refusing to be driven by fear or partisan pointscoring at a moment of genuine peril. Australia's role is not to inflame this conflict but to help contain it, to protect Australian lives and to uphold our commitment to the safety and dignity of all people. That is and will remain the first duty of this government.

Ever since the revolution in 1979 the Islamic Republic of Iran and the ayatollahs who run it have been at war. They have been at war with their own people, they have been at war with their neighbours in the region and they have been at war with Western democracies. In the 47 years since there have been many breaches of international law and convention by the Iranian regime, and the international community and international institutions like the United Nations have failed to hold them to account for their behaviour. It is long past overdue that the international community take decisive action to address these breaches of international law and these destabilising actions of the Iranian regime. That's why the coalition is unambiguous in its support for the actions taken by our friends and allies the United States and Israel against the Iranian regime.

Iran have struck Australia. They have sponsored terror acts on our own soil against our own citizens. They've interfered with our democracy. They have intimidated the Iranian Australian diaspora and sought to weaponise antisemitism to divide our country and terrorise the Jewish community.

Iran has sought and continues to seek nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles in defiance of international law and conventions and resolutions of the United Nations. It is the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors terror proxies and directs their activities, including Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis and others. It does so both overtly and covertly against its rivals in the region, and it has done so for most of its 47 years.

It has obviously repressed its own people in the most brutal and devastating fashion. Tens of thousands alone in the last few months were murdered for peacefully protesting against the regime. In recent years the repression against women in Iran for failing to live up to the religious dictates of the regime has been particularly brutal, most devastatingly demonstrated by the murder of Mahsa Amini and most courageously demonstrated by the 'Woman, Life, Freedom' movement that was stood up by the Iranian people in response to that.

Even now, Iran continues to indiscriminately attack its neighbours who are not parties to the conflict. At the most recent media reporting, 12 non-participant regional neighbours of Iran have been struck by Iranian missiles and drones.

While Australia is not a direct party to this conflict, we should be unambiguous in our support for the actions of the United States and Israel against Iran, and it is entirely appropriate that the Australian government has now provided defensive ADF capabilities to assist our friends and partners in the region, including the United Arab Emirates, to deal with these attacks from Iran. We do so for three reasons. The first is that gulf states like the UAE are friends, and when friends ask you for help you should provide that help. The UAE has provided a base for Australian operations in the Middle East, at Al Minhad, for decades. When they ask us for help we should do so. The second reason is that it is in our interests. It's in our interest that the waterways in the gulf, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, are reopened to international shipping traffic so that oil can resume its flow and prices can come down, which will have benefits for the Australian economy and the global economy. Finally, it's because we will learn very important lessons from this deployment.

Ukraine has demonstrated and Iran reminds us that we are in an age of missiles and drones. Antidrone and antimissile warfare is an area in which the ADF has much to learn. It is, as we've been warned by Sir Angus Houston and others, not inconceivable that we have conflict in our own region in the near future, and we have a lot of work to do to learn how to combat this modern form of warfare. The deployment of an E-7A Wedgetail surveillance aircraft to the region to help interdict these missiles and drones against non-participant gulf states is an important and valuable learning opportunity.

Australia must always stand up for its values. We must always stand up for our friends. This one is not a difficult one. The Iranian regime is no friend of the Iranian people; it's no friend of Australia. If this is the end of it, we will be the better for it.

The Albanese government has taken this country to war. They deny this fact, but legal experts have clearly said that the military assets and personnel Albanese has sent to the Middle East mean we're at war. This government is now an active perpetrator in the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East and Persia. Albanese did not hesitate to join this aggressive, illegal war being waged by the US and Israel where families, children and innocent civilians are paying the price.

Once again the US, Israel and the Albanese government are showing that they have no regard for international law, basic human rights or the lives of innocent people. The fact that strikes were intentionally initiated during Ramadan is a further violation. This military aggression is pushing the region toward a point of no return, likely destabilising it for many years to come.

Within the first hours of these strikes, hundreds of schoolchildren were reportedly killed when their school was bombed. Now an entire population is living under constant fear as they dodge bombs and rocket fire. History will remember that this escalation did not begin with an intention to defend civilians from the regime. That is just an excuse used to mask the imperialist intentions of the attackers. It began with decisions made in war rooms and government offices, far away from the homes that now burn. The people of Iran and of the many Arab nations in the region are now being subjected to the brutal violence and colonial logic of the US, Israel and this very Labor government.

This violence and logic is something First Peoples of this land know well. Dispossession, the destruction of country and culture, and the uprooting of kin are painful realities for us. When we watch other peoples struggle for their land, identity and self-determination under overwhelming military power, we do not see a distant geopolitical dispute; we see echoes of the history that shaped this country. We share that pain. Today, the Middle East stands on the edge of something impossibly frightening: a widening war that could consume nations and generations. There is still a choice before humanity. Either we continue down this road of aggression and violence or we finally recognise that every bomb dropped today is a seed for tomorrow's suffering. The victims deserve truth, and they deserve peace.

The story of Iran is not the story of its regime; it is the story of a proud civilisation whose people have endured repression, intimidation and violence for far too long. For years, we have watched Iranian citizens—students, workers, women and young people—risk everything to demand dignity, democracy and the rule of law. Thousands have paid for that courage with imprisonment, thousands more with their lives, and yet their voices have not been silenced.

Here in Australia, members of the Iranian diaspora, many of whom fled persecution themselves, continue to speak for those who cannot safely speak at home. They remind us that the Iranian people are not defined by the Islamic regime that rules them; they are defined by their resilience and their aspirations for freedom. Australia should always be clear about where we stand because we stand with the Iranian people. We stand with those who demand a democracy, and we stand with those who believe that the future of Iran should be determined by the free will of its citizens, not by repression and fear. But, sadly, not everyone participating in this debate seems particularly interested in the Iranian people.

Instead, this week and last, we have seen a very familiar performance by the Australian Greens. Once again, the Greens have rushed to twist this very complex international crisis into yet another argument against AUKUS, against the United States and against the state of Israel. Every global crisis becomes another excuse to attack Australia's alliances, allies and friends. Every conflict becomes another opportunity to rehearse the Greens's ideological hostility towards the United States and Israel, and every piece of misinformation is deployed in service of a conclusion that they have already reached before the facts are even known.

For the Australian Greens, every crisis overseas is just an excuse to attack Australia at home, and what is striking is not just what the Greens say; it is what they leave out. They speak loudly about the actions of democratic nations, but they remain remarkably quiet about the conduct of the Islamic regime in Iran itself—a regime that has jailed protesters, suppresses women's rights and violently represses its own people. They are quick to criticise Australia's friends and allies but strangely reluctant to confront the authoritarian regime that the Iranian people themselves have been protesting against.

I have also heard directly from members of Australia's Iranian diaspora, particularly from my home state of Victoria, through emails, phone calls and even online. Many of them are angry. They are angry because they see politicians in this country—in this Senate—particularly the Australian Greens, speaking as if the central issue in this story is Australia's alliances rather than the regime in Tehran that has oppressed their people for decades. These are Australians who have fled that regime. They know its brutality. Many still have family living under its rule. When people who have fled authoritarian rule tell us that we are getting the moral balance wrong, we should probably listen. But, while the Iranian people risk their lives for freedom, the Greens seem determined to use their struggle as a prop in a completely different argument—an argument against Australia's alliances and our security.

It is worth noting something else about the current state of the Greens' politics. Since the government recognised Palestinian statehood, the Greens have lost their campaign that once defined their politics. What we are now seeing is a party desperately searching for the next issue that allows them to attack federal Labor. The problem for the Greens is simple: when your politics depend on a permanent outrage, the moment one campaign ends, you have to go looking for the next one. But Australia's national security should never be reduced to a prop in someone else's ideological campaign, because our alliances are not about subservience. They are about sovereignty and shared values.

Just over seven months ago, protesters took to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. At the front of that protest phalanx, a photo of the now deceased Iranian dictator was held aloft. That moment was revolting and revealing—a recognition that the worshippers of dictators and despots walk among us. In discussing the current conflict in the Middle East, one thing is needed above all else: moral clarity—a moral clarity that dispels any idolisation of the Iranian regime. For 47 years, Iranians have lived in fear under the ayatollahs. The Iranian regime has oppressed its people. It relegated women to second-class citizenship. It criminalised homosexuality, making it punishable by death. It tortured and hanged from cranes anyone who spoke out against the regime.

For 47 years, the ayatollahs have been a menacing and malevolent presence in the world. The Iranian regime has sought to wipe the State of Israel off the map. It has supported terrorism through its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, including their own role in the barbaric attacks on Israel on October 7. It has provided weapons to Russia to aid in Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it has long desired nuclear weapons, it has used its ballistic missiles to attack other countries, and it has supported terrorist attacks on our own soil and spread antisemitism. The Iranian regime is one of the most evil regimes to have existed. It's an enemy of its people. It's an enemy of freedom. It's an enemy of civilisation. Anyone with moral clarity would welcome the fall of this odious regime. Anyone with moral clarity would hope that the Iranian people can achieve the freedom they desire. Anyone with moral clarity would thank the United States and Israel for giving the Iranian people this opportunity.

But, in the context of this war, the Labor Party is afflicted by moral confusion. The Minister for Foreign Affairs repeats her usual calls for dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation. I wonder how the Iranian people feel about dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation while the regime that has tormented them for 47 years remains intact. I wonder what Israelis feel about dialogue, diplomacy and de-escalation as they huddle in bomb shelters. In agreeing to provide air-to-air missiles to the United Arab Emirates, the Minister for Defence said, with a straight face, that these missiles were 'defensive weapons'. This is the same minister who was at pains to point out that Australian businesses only build the parts of our F-35s that are 'nonlethal'. Behind this slippery and spineless language from Labor is a supine government that lacks the moral courage to commit to our allies. Why? Because Labor is making foreign policy decisions to indulge in a domestic audience yet again. This government's foreign policy isn't driven by virtue; it's driven by votes.

If the Labor Party is morally confused about standing with our allies in the Middle East, then the Greens are morally inverted. The Greens call this war a crime but turn a blind eye to the crimes of the ayatollahs and Hamas. The Greens condemned the bombing of a girls school yet said nothing about the torture, rape, mutilation and murder of Jewish women on October 7. The Greens criticised the US and Israel but offer absolutely no criticism of the real tyrants and terrorists. In times that demand moral clarity and standing on the side of civilisation, a morally confused Labor Party sits on the sidelines and a morally inverted Greens party sides with our enemies.

I listened carefully to Foreign Minister Wong's justification for Labor's support for this illegal war by the United States and Israel. It was a masterclass in doublespeak and hypocrisy. Foreign Minister Wong commenced by saying that the first priority of the Australian government is to keep Australians safe. Well, isn't it remarkable that Labor has not once mentioned the tens of thousands of Australians in Lebanon right now who are seeing a barrage of Israeli bombs and missiles destroying neighbourhoods, killing hundreds and driving 700,000 Lebanese into homelessness? There has not been one word from Labor about those Australians. Apparently, those Australians aren't an obligation of Labor to keep safe.

We heard Foreign Minister Wong say:

We've supported action aimed at preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Well, not one credible expert has said that Iran was anywhere near getting nuclear weapons, and Labor's great mate Donald Trump said only weeks ago that he'd obliterated Iran's nuclear weapons program. Why the silence from Labor, the coalition and One Nation—the three war parties—on Israel's nearly 200 illegal nuclear weapons? Why won't Labor sign the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons? It's hypocrisy that we get from Labor. I heard Minister Wong say:

Our government has been clear: we are not taking offensive action against Iran.

Again, Australians see through this deception. Labor is dragging us into this war based on deception and lies.

Just look at the AWACS aircraft that we're sending into the war zone—a rare asset in a war zone that is overwhelmingly an air war zone. When Australia sends the AWACS aircraft in, it frees up other US military assets to be used in their illegal war against Iran. Yes, the AWACS aircraft picks up incoming missiles. It can direct outgoing weaponry and missiles. It picks up where the missiles originated from, and it will be sending that targeting information to the United States as part of their illegal war. You also see Australian troops embedded in US nuclear submarines that are sinking Iranian vessels on the high seas—and hundreds more throughout the US military, Pine Gap and North West Cape. Labor, AUKUS and the war parties have dragged us right into the centre of this illegal war, and no-one buys anything different.

We then had Foreign Minister Wong say one heartwarming moment in this conflict was the moving way Australians have taken the Iranian football team into their hearts. Yes, Australians do have warm and open hearts and, yes, Australians want to see our government protect Iranians—Iranian women and others. But, on the very same day that Labor reached out to protect a handful of brave Iranian football players, they shut the door to 7,200 other Iranians that have passports to come to Australia for business and tourism. Why did they shut the door to those 7,200 Iranians with another piece of ugly legislation? Because they didn't want any other Iranians to have the opportunity that the Iranian women's football team had. They've given asylum to five, and they shut the doors to thousands more. Labor back this illegal war. They back this obscene war which is creating the refugees, which is driving people to seek asylum, and in the same breath they shut the gate. The hypocrisy is obscene.

Labor say—Senator Wong says—Australia continues to stand with the brave people of Iran in their struggle against oppression. Do you know what Labor are supporting? Labor are supporting a US missile strike on an Iranian girls school that killed over a hundred schoolgirls in the first few hours of this. Labor say nothing about Donald Trump's lies about it—Donald Trump's latest lie that the Iranians stole a US Tomahawk missile and fired it at the school themselves. They say nothing about Donald Trump's lies, nothing about the schoolkids and nothing about the reign of fear that is all across Iran. The Greens have condemned the Iranian regime and the violence of the Iranian regime, but we condemn the illegal violence of Israel and the US too.

The current conflict in the Middle East has brought into sharp focus a truth that many free nations have too often been reluctant to state with sufficient clarity. The regime in Tehran is not a misunderstood regional actor. It is a dictatorship. It is authoritarian, antisemitic and deeply repressive. For decades, it has brutalised its own people, armed terrorist proxies, spread instability across the region and directed hostility not only towards Israel and the United States but towards the values of liberal democracy itself. It has backed Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; pursued military strength beyond its borders; and supported Russia's war machine in the Ukraine. It has also been linked to hostile activity and interference well beyond the Middle East, including two acts of terror right here in Australia.

When Australians consider this conflict, we should begin with moral seriousness. The Iranian people are not the regime; they are its first victims. Brave men and women in Iran have lived under censorship, intimidation, imprisonment, death and violence. This conflict has demonstrated that the global order is forever changed and that the constant appeasement, tolerance and befriending of terrorists is finally over. That is why one of the most powerful images of this conflict has not come from the battlefield; it has come from young Iranian women right here on our own soil. During the Women's Asian Cup in Australia, members of the Iranian women's football team refused to sing the regime's anthem, and they were denounced as wartime traitors on Iranian state television. Some have now sought refuge and protection in Australia because to return home would be certain death. That fact alone tells us everything we need to know about the nature of the regime they were fleeing. The images of one of the players being pulled by a teammate to get onto a bus to go to the airport I found personally heartbreaking and a stark reminder of what she is to return to.

Australians noticed something else. In a free country, one of the first acts of some of these women escaping the grip of that regime was to cast aside the compulsory symbols of their oppression. That was a profound statement about agency, dignity and freedom. When women are finally safe, they do not reach instinctively for a hijab; they reach for liberty. Those in this country who are forever eager to excuse, sanitise or relativise the oppression of women under Islamist authoritarianism should reflect on that. Those who speak fluently about women's rights at home but grow strangely hesitant when confronted with the misogyny of the Iranian regime should reflect on that too. And those who reduce compulsory veiling to a matter of neutral personal expression without acknowledging the force and fear that stand behind it in places like Iran should listen more carefully to the women who have risked everything to escape it.

Australia's duty in this crisis is to the safety of Australians, and there are around 115,000 Australians in the broader Middle East. Labor's delay, confusion and mixed messaging are not minor administrative failures; they carry real consequences for frightened people and their families, and the families should have been notified earlier. Australia should stand by partners who stand by us, and Israel has a right to defend itself. We should support defensive actions in the Middle East that stabilise, secure airspace and secure maritime routes. This is in our national interest. The deployment of Australian capabilities to assist in that task reflects a simple principle that we will stand with our democratic allies, but we need to learn how we can combat modern warfare—missiles and drones—and we need to make sure that we arm our defence forces with the modern tools of war.

Evil regimes should be named plainly, and democratic nations like ours should not lose their nerve. The cause of freedom is only advanced by defending our values, the rule of law and Western democracy. As Australians, we should never forget that the fights for the freedoms we have were also hard fought.

What is unfolding in the Middle East is complex, dangerous and deeply uncertain. But amid that complexity one thing should remain clear: the lives of innocent civilians must always come first. In the lead-up to the crisis, we saw a brutal crackdown by the Iranian regime on protesters demanding basic freedoms. Thousands took to the streets, and many were killed. Communications blackouts followed, leaving families around the world desperately trying to understand what was happening to their loved ones.

For Iranian Australians, including many here in Canberra, the uncertainty has been agonising. It was in this context that many in the Australian Iranian community reached out with a sense of relief about the death of the former ayatollah Ali Khamenei after US and Israeli strikes. We need to be clear this was the death of a terrible leader who was responsible for the deaths of huge numbers of innocent civilians—tens of thousands of Iranians. At the same time, many Australians hold concerns about the legality of the military action by the US and Israel and about Australia's response, deep uncertainty about what comes next, fears of escalation and concerns for family and friends across the region. My sense is that many Australians want to see civilians protected but are concerned that our country will be drawn into another long-running offensive war in the region.

It's important for me to understand the views of the community I represent here in the ACT, so I'm running a short community survey to ensure I can best represent the views of Canberrans on this difficult issue. So far the responses show real concerns about Australia being drawn into an ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Many Australians both acknowledge the complexity of global geopolitics at the moment—the heightened tension—and are concerned about the perceived lack of sovereignty and the subservience to the US, particularly at a time when we have a president like President Trump in charge in the United States of America. One constituent told me, 'We should not support the US in its aggressive campaign.' Many have echoed this thinking, with another saying, 'Australia needs to ensure we are not drawn into actively supporting US aggression.' Others urge further collaboration and working within international rules based order—'Australia should act through the United Nations.' For a country like Australia, a middle power, international law and the rules based order matter. They are the foundations of the stability that has underpinned decades of relative peace.

In this context, I am concerned about reports that Australia is edging further into this war. This morning, the government refused to say if the wedgetail plane that has been sent to the region can protect itself or will require protection. At moments like this, democratic oversight really matters. Members of the crossbench, who are a significant and growing part of this parliament, are excluded from the key defence and national security committees. That means parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions is limited at precisely the moment that it matters most. Australians expect our parliament to do this, starting with crossbench representation on committees like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. Above all, we must never lose sight of the devastating human cost of war. Reports, including those of the deaths of young female students after a school was struck by attacks from the United States and Israel, are particularly troubling, and they do deserve scrutiny. They deserve the attention of our leaders.

My thoughts are with those in Iran, with Australians who have family and friends across the region and with those currently stranded in gulf states, and my thoughts are also with the Australian service men and women deployed to the region. We may not agree with the deployment, but we thank you for your service. Every one of us in this chamber hopes you return home safely.

I would also like to say that I think this is a time to be reaching out to veterans in the community and checking in on them. This will be an incredibly difficult time for many in that community. They have seen this happen before, and they know the potential consequences.

A few days ago, I spoke about the ongoing military intervention in Iran by the Israeli and American forces, and I'm proud to speak on this critical issue again. These brave men and women are helping freedom-loving Iranians realise their aspirations for democracy and liberty. I am hopeful and I pray for their absolute victory.

There are those in this place who would talk down on these attempts at freedom. There are those that admonish those seeking to free their fellow men and women from servitude, from imprisonment and from subjugation. They speak in naivety that, somehow, the brave Persian populace of Iran will be freed by the force of goodwill alone. I am not one of them. The coalition is not one of them. The coalition will protect Australia's way of life and will defend freedom and democracy when it must. Difficult decisions must be made, and the Persian Iranian people are realising their freedom. Unfortunate but necessary force is being used to remove evil tyrants from their places of power. This liberty has been hardwon, and many more hardfought victories must happen before this freedom can be realised. But I am optimistic, as are many Persian Australians right now, that now is the time for the reckoning of the Iranian regime and the liberation of Persia and Iran. The Greens political party and the Labor Left faction would have Iranian people still in chains with only good thoughts to save them. That is not moral clarity. That is not in the interests of Persian Australians, and that is not in the interest of people who fight and love democracy.

The Iranian regime has consistently threatened Israel with destruction by nuclear weapons and has held an unwavering goal of acquiring these weapons. The UN nuclear watchdog has warned of Iran's hidden nuclear weapons program. The Islamic republic has also murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens for protesting just in recent weeks and condemned thousands more to execution. Let me just illustrate this and how brutal this regime is for you. When a woman is convicted with a death sentence, she is raped by an appointee of the Islamic courts of Iran so that she cannot enter heaven, according to their religion. That is the regime that we are up against.

I want to honour the Iranian soccer team. Those women have made some pretty big and brave decisions this week. The scenes have been extraordinary, and I know how difficult those decisions are, given the potential impact on their family at home. They've had to say goodbye to their brothers and sisters, their parents and their nanna and grandad. It's a very big decision, and I recognise the bravery that it took.

It is abhorrent that there are senators in this place who would say that the Iranian government should not be removed from power. To that end, I welcome the deployment of the brave men and women of the Royal Australian Air Force to the United Arab Emirates to expedite the destruction of the Iranian regime. The deployment of the Australian Defence Force to combat is the gravest decision that a prime minister can make, and that decision was made by Prime Minister Albanese yesterday, with bipartisan support from the parties of government.

Make no mistake: the E-7A Wedgetail, currently collecting intelligence in the Persian Gulf, is in harm's way. While the government states that this is a defence operation, that aircraft and aircrew are now targets of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It will be collecting intelligence on Iranian missiles, radars, communications and aircraft. The signals intelligence of the Defence Force is envied throughout the world, and I am proud of the contribution of our expert war fighters in delivering security in the Middle East.

Australia and Australian troops should not be involved in this illegal war in Iran. This is a war that has been started by a genocidal maniac who, against international law, has overseen the genocide of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza for the last two years, through bombs and starvation, targeting hospitals, schools and civilians. It's a war that has also been started by a deluded, fascist president in the United States—a president who has sent teams of ICE agents out onto the streets to kidnap his own citizens and illegally detain them, a president who has been found to be a sexual predator, a president who has illegally kidnapped the leader of another nation, a president who is illegally denying food and fuel to the people of Cuba. These are the people that our government, our Labor government, has been quick to support.

Let's talk about moral clarity. The Greens have been unwavering in our position that the Iranian regime is a wicked one. The Greens have been unwavering in our position that the women of Iran and the other people who have been targeted by that regime should be freed from that oppression, but it is not up to Western nations to take the law into their own hands and to illegally start bombing civilians. Where that leads is that the next government that doesn't like what our government is doing has open slather to go and do the same thing.

After the Second World War, we introduced laws of war and international rules for a reason: to respect the human rights of everyone involved, to protect civilians. What we have seen is the complete trashing of international law by Netanyahu and Trump and the Australian government and the parties of war in this place—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—cheering them along. Australians are not happy about it, and the Greens will consistently stand for peace.

The time for the debate has expired.

I rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This bill contains several sensible measures which the coalition will be supporting, and I will outline those measures here today. But it also contains provisions that risk weakening competition in superannuation and using the tax system to subsidise divisive political advocacy that has already failed the test of our courts. For that reason, this legislation requires significant changes that we trust the Senate will properly consider through the Committee of the Whole stage, but I will outline the intent of those amendments in my contribution here today.

There are six schedules in this bill, and some—as I said—are entirely reasonable. Schedule 3 provides tax exemptions associated with Australia hosting the Rugby World Cup, and that is standard practice when Australia hosts major international sporting events and is something that the coalition would support. Schedule 4 implements the Australia-Portugal tax treaty. Again, this is a very routine measure in such circumstances, designed to prevent double taxation and strengthen economic cooperation, and, again, the coalition will be supporting this schedule. Schedule 6 increases the wine equalisation tax producer rebate cap, which will provide additional support to Australian wine producers. Australia's wine producers deserve more support, especially with the cost of living rising under this government. As a Tasmanian, I've spoken many times in this place about my fondness for our Tasmanian wine industry and, indeed, our national wine industry, and I'm very glad that the coalition will be supporting these changes to the WET under this bill.

But, unfortunately, as is often the case for these TLA bills, the government has chosen to bundle these very commonsense provisions that I've just outlined in with far more contentious provisions that the coalition finds problematic. These are the provisions which require closer scrutiny.

Superannuation is one of the most significant economic reforms in Australia's history. Australians now have more than $4 trillion saved for retirement. That figure is projected to reach $5 trillion by the end of this decade. Superannuation shouldn't be a political plaything. It supports the retirement incomes of millions of Australians and underpins investment across the Australian economy. But that system only works if Australians trust the government to remember that superannuation is Australians' money—it's not the government's money, it's not Labor's money, it's not even the money of the big super funds that manage that money nor does it belong to any bureaucrats. But, too often, this Labor government approaches superannuation differently. Too often, the government treats super as a large pool of capital that they can reshape, redirect control of and, of course, tax when their spending is out of control. Further, rather than strengthening competition in superannuation, as the name of the bill purports to do, this government repeatedly introduces measures that entrench the dominance of the largest funds and limits the ways that Australians can engage with their own retirement savings. It is that concern for the coalition that sits at the heart of schedules 1 and 2 of this bill.

As I said, the government has titled this bill as though it's 'supporting choice in superannuation', but this title could be straight from George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four because, in reality, those provisions restrict how superannuation products can be presented to employees, thus denying choice. The onboarding process is often the only time that many Australians actively review their superannuation arrangements. It is one of the few moments when workers pause and ask simple questions: Is my fund performing well? Are the fees reasonable? Should I consider another option? Limiting the information available at that moment reduces the ability to compare and weakens competition across the system, so the parliament should be very sceptical of any moves to do this.

As I have foreshadowed, the coalition does support some aspects of the government's proposal. For example, it makes sense that funds promoted during onboarding should be funds that have passed the latest performance test. We agree with that aspect of this schedule. The performance test, indeed, was a coalition reform, and it has played an important role in protecting Australians from persistent superannuation fund underperformance. It should do so during employee onboarding.

But the system proposed in this bill contains a serious flaw. Under the bill, employers and the digital service providers that they use need to receive from the Australian Taxation Office information about an employee's stapled fund, or no options other than the employer's default fund can be shown. The government has said this is necessary to reduce duplicate accounts, and we would certainly support measures to reduce unintentional duplicate accounts with duplicate fees.

For this to work, the entire framework relies on the ATO being able to reliably retrieve stapled fund information, and there was evidence presented to the Senate inquiry into this bill which demonstrated that right now they can't. The government is merely hoping that the ATO will be ready in three months time. But all of this is happening at the same time that the ATO is also being asked to implement payday super, administer the new super tax changes and deliver on a large range of other reforms. Onboarding and employment software providers including SuperAPI, MYOB and Employment Hero told the committee inquiry into this bill that stapled fund retrieval currently only works around 55 to 80 per cent of the time, and that means that, in a significant number of cases, the system simply will not return a stapled fund.

Under this legislation, what happens when the ATO's stapled fund system doesn't work? Well, employees may only be shown the employer's default fund. This is, of course, great news for the largest established Labor aligned superannuation industry, but what it will mean is that a system that is designed to reduce duplicate super accounts will actually result in more of them—more duplicate accounts, more fees and worse outcomes for workers. This isn't simply some sort of ideological concern; this is a practical risk identified by the very businesses responsible for operating the onboarding systems the government will be relying on through their ongoing consultations with the ATO.

For these reasons, we have serious concerns about how these provisions will operate in practice, particularly in relation to employee choice, duplicate accounts, system reliability and transparency. We will therefore be moving amendments in the committee stage to address these concerns and to ensure that the framework is workable before it takes effect, and I certainly hope that this chamber will be supportive of those amendments. They are sensible safeguards for a system that will affect millions of workers and employers. It will influence how Australians choose their superannuation for years to come, and it could mean the difference between, on the one hand, higher fees and multiple accounts and, on the other, lower fees and better outcomes.

Finally, I want to turn to schedule 5, which deals with new deductible gift recipient listings, also called DGR listings. This bill proposes to grant a specific DGR listing to Equality Australia for gifts made after 30 June 2025 and before 1 July 2030. Equality Australia is currently registered as a charity with the ACNC under the subtype of 'Advancing public debate'. But, importantly, this is not an organisation that the regulator or courts have found to be eligible for public benevolent institution status. In fact, the ACNC refused Equality Australia's PBI application. That refusal was then upheld in the AAT and again by the Full Federal Court. Those decisions were clear in their reasoning: Equality Australia is not principally engaged in direct relief of disadvantage.

This matters because DGR status isn't a symbolic label; it is a taxpayer funded financial benefit. It makes donations tax deductible. It is in every practical sense a public subsidy, and, when parliament grants a DGR listing to an organisation, we are making an explicit judgement about the suitability of that organisation to receive this subsidy. It is therefore reasonable, and indeed necessary, for parliament to be incredibly cautious when the government asks us to extend special tax treatment to an organisation that is engaged in active and contested political advocacy, particularly when Australia's charity regulator and the courts have already considered that same organisation's activities in detail and declined to elevate it into a higher benefit charitable category.

There is no doubt that Equality Australia engages in political advocacy. The organisation is heavily involved in campaigning against the sex based rights of women and is in favour of sex ID laws which further erode those rights. Let's be very clear: the debate around these issues is not one where government should be picking a winner by selectively applying a tax advantage to one side and not the other. That is exactly why Australia has a set of principled, well-established DGR categories—so that eligibility for taxpayer support is based on mutual, purpose driven criteria, not political preference or alignment with the government's ideological agenda. The government's proposal in this schedule departs from that very principle. It is asking the parliament to elevate a specific advocacy organisation above others, despite the fact that the regulator and the courts have determined that it does not meet the relevant high standard. It is utterly inappropriate for our DGR framework to reward favoured advocacy groups while excluding others.

For all these reasons, the coalition will be moving an amendment in the committee stage to remove Equality Australia from the list of organisations receiving DGR status. Australians expect DGR status to be reserved for organisations that meet the highest standards of scrutiny. They expect it to be applied consistently, fairly and without political favour. They expect parliament to protect the integrity of that system, not undermine it by carving out special treatment for an advocacy organisation simply because the government happens to agree with its platform. With this amendment in the committee stage, this is what the coalition intends to do.

In conclusion, this bill contains measures that the coalition supports, and I've outlined these here today. But it also contains provisions that raises serious concerns about competition and choice in superannuation and about the proper use of our DGR framework. Those concerns should be addressed, and we will be pursuing them in the committee stage. Australians deserve a superannuation system built on choice, competition and trust, and they deserve confidence that the taxpayer supported gift recipient status is reserved for organisations that meet the highest standards of scrutiny.

I agree with Senator Chandler that superannuation is one of the great economic triumphs of our country and should not be politicised. Labor is the party of superannuation, and this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, is another step in strengthening a system that delivers on its purpose of providing income for everyday Australians for a dignified retirement.

In 2022-23, a review of the Your Future, Your Super reforms found that employee onboarding software providers were being paid to advertise superannuation products, particularly products associated with the software provider. Some of this activity led to suboptimal outcomes for workers. The legislation before us today will introduce a framework around when and how superannuation fund products can be advertised to employees during the onboarding process to protect workers rights.

Starting a new job is one of the few times many people pause and think about their superannuation. It is not the time for organisations to manipulate the system for paid advertising and business development at the cost of working Australians. This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during an employee onboarding.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding, with certain exceptions. Where an onboarding platform chooses to advertise, it will be required to display an employee's stapled fund, where one exists. Products that can be advertised will be limited to the employee's stapled fund, the employer's default fund and MySuper products that have passed the most recent annual performance test.

To be advertised during onboarding, a MySuper product must have passed the annual superannuation performance test and the person advertising the product must not be related to the fund offering the product. The organisation advertising the MySuper product must have requested an employee stapled fund and provided those details to the employee, should they be available. Any advertisement must also be accompanied by clear and unambiguous disclosures. This is particularly important for workers in high-risk industries, where the consequences of losing insurance can be serious. The 'dangerous occupation' exception allows super funds to elect that members employed in certain high-risk occupations will be provided with insurance—including death, total and permanent disability, and income protection insurance—automatically, regardless of their age or account balance. The purpose of this exception is simple—to make sure that workers in dangerous industries are not left without cover at the point they need it most, particularly young workers and new starters.

That is why choice must be informed choice. If information is unclear, incomplete or presented in a way designed to steer people through marketing tactics, then the system is not supporting genuine choice; it is undermining it. The way choices are framed matters. Ensuring workers receive clear, accurate information helps them make decisions that will genuinely protect their retirement savings and their insurance cover. These safeguards are not theoretical concerns; they reflect the real experiences of workers and the risks they face on the job every day. I want to acknowledge the important advocacy of the ACTU and the Electrical Trades Union, who have consistently highlighted the importance of protecting insurance cover for workers in dangerous occupations.

The proposed changes would also reduce needless duplicate super accounts, which would save Australians from paying multiple sets of fees and help to boost their consolidated investment returns, in line with the broader objectives of super. They would protect employees from being unduly influenced to make uninformed decisions, open appropriate products for their circumstances or unintentionally create duplicate accounts. These are important consumer protection reforms which will better safeguard Australians from conflicted sales practices and employee onboarding platforms and further strengthen the payday super reforms.

I'll make a couple of comments just briefly on stapling. Stapling was introduced as part of the Your Future, Your Super reforms in 2021, alongside the annual performance test. Stapling was incorporated to help prevent employees from unintentionally opening new accounts every time they start a new job. A stapled fund is an existing super account that is linked or stapled to an individual employee so it follows them as they change jobs. This helps to reduce fees and avoid new super accounts being opened every time someone starts a new job. Having super in just one account can also help grow a person's investment returns faster. The number of super accounts fell from around 27.4 million in 2019 to about 24.8 million in 2025. The number of Australians who have a single superannuation account increased from 74 per cent in 2020 to 78 per cent in 2024. Before stapling, it was estimated that about 850,000 duplicate accounts were created each year as workers moved between jobs. This bill will assist in this important protection for workers. Treasury estimates a full ban on onboarding advertising could save members between $17 million and $117 million a year from avoiding underperforming products plus additional savings from $3.3 million to $56 million a year from fees saved on having duplicate accounts.

To demonstrate the danger for workers from a practical perspective, I want to highlight a case study that was reported in the AFR in 2023. Accounting software giant MYOB were accused of funnelling workers into an underperforming super fund, Slate Super, through tricky advertising on their digital onboarding platform. Workers' current funds were often buried in the fine print, whereas their feature funds, who were paying for advertising, had clear prominence. Unfortunately, not everyone gets as excited about superannuation as those of us here in the chamber. Most workers probably don't delve into the detail and fine print, especially at the exciting time of starting a new job. These so-called choices without proper analysis do not give workers meaningful choice in their superannuation fund or provide comparable information, which can clearly lead to outcomes that are not in the best financial interests of the consumer.

Slate Super returned 13.44 per cent in its highest growth fund compared with an industry average of 21.8 per cent. That's more than eight per cent less. Its fees were also significantly higher than those of many other funds. A member with a $50,000 balance would pay $645 in fees annually compared with $500 on average. This is exactly the kind of behaviour that this legislation seeks to curb. Signing up to a product like this could substantially disadvantage some workers and leave them with thousands less in their retirement many years later.

Australians deserve protection from inappropriate advertising when they provide their superannuation details to an employer during the onboarding process. This is a key moment for employees, and they should be able to engage with their super in a safe and informed way, free from inappropriate pressure or product promotion. Workers should be confident, when they start a new job, that there are strong guardrails to protect their interests at the point of employee onboarding, to ensure they are not inadvertently being moved into a poorer performing super fund.

In closing, I wanted to make some comments that pick up on Senator Chandler's remarks. I note that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee did inquire into this legislation and recommended that the bill be passed. The coalition senators' dissenting report and the comments we heard just a moment ago said that the bill is Orwellian in suggesting that these restrictions improve choice. The suggestion that sensible safeguards somehow undermine choice misunderstands how the super system works in reality. Choice is meaningful only when it is exercised in an environment that is transparent, fair and free from pressure or misinformation. A choice that guides Australians unknowingly to a decision that leaves them worse off is no choice at all.

Australians can only make informed decisions about their retirement savings when the system operates with integrity. This is what this legislation is designed to do. The real risk to choice arises when people are steered into decisions without adequate information or when commercial interests dominate the process. Sensible guardrails ensure that the decision about where your super goes remains genuinely yours. Protecting the integrity of the decision-making process is not Orwellian; it is a basic responsibility when dealing with a system that manages trillions of dollars of Australians' retirement savings. Again, I would like to thank those stakeholders who submitted to the inquiry, for your submissions and insights, and, more broadly, thank the many organisations who consistently engage in the work to continue to maintain the integrity and fairness of our superannuation system.

In closing, this legislation is another step in the great Labor legacy that is superannuation, a legacy that has completely transformed the lives of retired working people over just one generation. Reforms like this will ensure that the objective of superannuation—that is, a dignified retirement—is not eroded as the system matures. I commend the bill to the chamber.

I offer on behalf of the Australian Greens our support for this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill. As colleagues would know, schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act to limit advertising of superannuation funds, during employee onboarding, to APRA regulated funds. This is an important reform that will protect workers from being influenced to join unsuitable superannuation products when they commence a new job.

This has been more delayed than it needed to be. Last year, Labor failed to include these changes as part of the payday superannuation bill, despite these changes being part of the exposure draft of that bill. We moved a second reading amendment to that legislation here in the Senate and obtained the government's support for that amendment, which called on Labor to honour their previous commitment to introduce legislation to regulate the advertising of superannuation funds during employee onboarding, commencing on 1 July this year. So we are pleased that we are here debating this today. We acknowledge particularly the Super Members Council and Super Consumers Australia, who have fought the good fight and kept the pressure on Labor to introduce these reforms.

I want to speak quickly about some of the amendments that have been circulated in relation to this legislation—in particular to schedule 5, which grants DGR status to several organisations. The Greens are going to support that provision, but I want to make the point that we need to see some broader reforms to deductible gift recipient eligibility. I want to commend my colleague Senator Faruqi for her advocacy in this space and for the amendments that she has circulated in relation to that schedule.

The amendments on sheet 3646 remove DGR status for organisations that have supported in any way, directly or indirectly, an illegal occupation. We know, for example, that there are Zionist charities in Australia with DGR status who are funnelling funds that they've raised in this country back to the IDF and back to illegal settlements in places like the West Bank. It is beyond outrageous that the Australian taxpayer is effectively subsidising funds that are being sent back to the IDF, which is currently engaged in a genocide in Gaza and which is currently perpetrating an illegal war against Iran. There is simply no argument for the Australian taxpayer to be indirectly funding those activities by offering DGR status to a group raising money here and funnelling the money back to the IDF and to illegal settlements in the West Bank.

I don't expect the government to support this amendment because—let's face it—Labor's cheering on an illegal war. It was the first government in the world to come out and cheer on Israel and the United States in their illegal war against Iran. But this amendment does give effect to Australia's international obligations—notably its obligations to the International Court of Justice, which in 2024 called on party states, including Australia, to 'prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory'. So that is what the Greens are doing today. We've been forced to step up and do this because of the vacuum left by Labor, which is refusing to act in accordance with this country's international obligations—specifically, to the International Court of Justice.

The amendments on sheet 3645, in Senator Faruqi's name, seek to widen DGR status eligibility to include animal welfare advocacy organisations. The critical issue here is that the ATO's definition of 'animal welfare' is too narrow, and, as a result, many important areas of animal welfare work are excluded. They're not captured by that definition. As a result of that, the majority of animal welfare organisations actually miss out on DGR status, which, of course, impacts on their capacity to raise funds. Some areas of animal welfare work that currently don't qualify for DGR status include rehoming wild animals, disaster and crisis emergency response for animals, and animal welfare advocacy.

I'm going to take a plunge here and say there wouldn't be a single senator in this place who wouldn't support organisations doing work such as rehoming wild animals, for example, when there's roadkill. My home state is the roadkill capital of the country. In terms of rehoming wild animals when there's roadkill and there's a young animal in the pouch, that animal needs to be, firstly, looked after in terms of crisis response and, secondly and ultimately, if it's able to be, rehomed into the wild. But those efforts by charities are not supported by DGR status.

I'm also going to take a plunge and suggest that advocating for animal welfare is something that every senator in this place would support, and yet advocating for animal welfare, because of the narrowness of the ATO definition that I mentioned earlier, does not qualify for DGR status. The animal welfare advocacy sector has long called for this issue to be addressed and resolved. I don't know why the government won't do it, but we are giving the Senate a chance today to act in support of organisations that rehome wild animals, provide disaster and crisis emergency response for animals and engage in animal welfare advocacy.

I also want to address a couple of amendments that have been circulated by other senators and other parties in this place, in particular those on sheet 3682, under Senator Chandler's name, which seek to prevent the registered charity Equality Australia from getting specific listing as a deductible gift recipient, which is proposed in this legislation. I do note in passing that none of the other five registered charities that this bill proposes to give DGR status to are in Senator Chandler's crosshairs. It is simply Equality Australia.

For those that don't know, Equality Australia advocates on behalf of LGBTIQA+ Australians, and it's particularly disappointing that Senator Chandler, a senator from Tasmania, as I am, is having a go at an organisation that represents nearly five per cent of her constituency; 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians identify as LGBTIQA+. We know that Senator Chandler has had a late-life conversion to fighting for women's sport, and we all know that that is code for transphobic activities. We all know that. I suspect that that late-life, or late-political-life, conversion owes far more to Senator Chandler trying to climb the greasy pole inside the coalition than it does to any genuinely held views of hers.

I've a point of order in terms of impugning the character or motivations of Senator Chandler. Notwithstanding my admiration for Senator McKim's advocacy, I think that was a step too far, and I think he should withdraw.

I withdraw. But I do want to make the point that 4.7 per cent of Tasmanians, which is the percentage of Tasmanians that identify as LGBTIQA+, is more people than the population of Burnie, which is the fourth-largest town in Tasmania. Senator Chandler is coming in here today and basically saying to a group of people in her home state—a state that she is supposed to represent in this place and a group that has more people than the fourth-largest city in Tasmania—that an organisation that represents them and that advocates for them extremely effectively, I might add, does not deserve DGR status.

There is barely a front that the coalition will not engage on to try and fight the culture wars. We're seeing it with their attempts to deny Australian women and Australian children who are currently in Syria the support they need in order to safely return to our country, and here we are again today facing amendments from Senator Chandler that seek to deny DGR status to an organisation that represents and advocates for around 22,000 Tasmanians as well as the many, many hundreds of thousands of other Australians who identify as LGBTIQA+.

I do note that One Nation have circulated a similar amendment to Senator Chandler, and I will say to the opposition that, when you find yourself lining up with One Nation on issues around a fair go for LGBTIQA+ Australians, you know you're on the wrong path—or you should know you're on the wrong path. Senator Roberts might think it's funny, but we know that One Nation regularly come into this place and seek to demonise queer folk and—in particular, I might say—trans folk knowing full well that, as a collective, trans folk are amongst some of the most vulnerable people in our country. They are a group of people who deserve our love and our support, not our hatred, and who absolutely do not deserve to be thrown under the bus in the never-ending culture wars in this country. We know what Senator Roberts and his colleagues in One Nation have got in terms of a track record of transphobia. Frankly, I don't think that will ever change, and I don't expect we'll ever see anything different from One Nation. I think transphobia is baked into who they are. But, honestly, there are good people in the opposition who shouldn't be fighting this front of the culture wars in this way, in a coalition of the nasty with One Nation.

We, I'm sure it is clear, will not be supporting either Senator Chandler's amendment or the One Nation amendment. We will proudly vote with the government to ensure that Equality Australia does receive DGR status, and I say to all LGBTIQA+ Australians: the Greens will always have your back.

I acknowledge and echo a lot the words of Senator McKim in relation to his contribution on schedule 5. But I start off today to rise in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The core of this bill is about ensuring that working people have a genuine choice when it comes to their superannuation. It's about making sure that workers can choose their own super fund when they start a new job without pressure, without confusion and without being steered towards products that serve big corporate interests instead of their own. It's a simple principle. Workers should be able to make an informed decision about their own money. No worker should be pushed into a fund that isn't right for them just because they didn't know their options or they felt pressured to during their onboarding at work. Labor has always stood up for workers, and this bill continues that work.

Schedule 1 of the bill will update the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act to make choosing your super fund simpler. It builds on previous reforms which were introduced to make the system fairer and more transparent and to stop duplicate accounts from draining away workers' savings through duplicate fees. When it comes to stapling, which is where your super fund follows you from job to job, that was part of that. It helps working people avoid paying extra fees, and the bill strengthens those reforms by making it simpler for workers to continue or stay connected with their existing fund when they start a new job. That clarity can save workers thousands of dollars across their working lives.

Schedule 2 will amend the Corporations Act to ban the targeted advertising of superannuation products to workers during onboarding, with some exceptions. This just makes sense. A new job should just be a fresh start—an opportunity to build new skills, meet new colleagues and contribute to your workplace. It should not be an opportunity for vested interests to push sometimes shonky financial products that may not be in a worker's best interests. Workers deserve honest information, not pressure, and this bill makes sure that workers are supported at this key decision-making point. To be clear, this bill will reduce the risk of workers being induced or influenced to choose a super product that is not appropriate to their needs or creating yet another super account that may be detrimental to those savings.

Together, these changes strengthen consumer protections and make sure working people can trust the system and their employers to do right by them. Workers shouldn't end up in the wrong fund because they weren't given clear information, and they certainly shouldn't have anyone pushing them towards a product that isn't in their best interests. In saying that, I encourage all workers to take a keen interest in their super and to look at the many great industry super funds in the market that are owned by their members. This is in stark contrast to retail funds that are delivering for the likes of the big banks.

This bill matters to all Australians, including my constituents in Tasmania. People deserve clear, honest information about their retirement savings, and they deserve transparency and control over their savings. This is just one part of the work that the Albanese Labor government is doing. We've already passed payday super, one of the most significant reforms for worker protection in decades. It ensures that workers get paid their super as they earn it. The ATO found that $5.2 billion in super wasn't paid in 2021-22, and that's $100 million a week taken from working people. From 1 July this year, employers will have to pay super at the same time as wages, and workers will get what they're owed, on time, every time. I'd like to congratulate the many trade unions that fought tirelessly on behalf of workers to get better outcomes for their super.

With this bill that we're debating today, these reforms will make sure workers have better information and better protections. That's what Labor does, and that's what the mighty trade union movement has done for more than a century. It has protected workers' rights, expanded opportunities and built a fairer society. This is just one example. Last year, we passed Baby Priya's bill which protected paid parental leave entitlements for families experiencing unthinkable tragedy. We've strengthened penalty rates and overtime protections. We've delivered 'same job, same pay' laws, putting thousands of dollars into workers' pockets. We've modernised bargaining. We've introduced the right to disconnect, and we've criminalised wage theft and improved job security. We have worked to close the gender pay and superannuation gaps. By expanding paid parental leave, paying super on paid parental leave and increasing the low-income super tax offset from $500 to $800, while lifting the eligibility threshold, we're supporting 1.3 million low-income earners. Sixty per cent of those are women.

Labor has always fought for workers, as have the generations of union members, delegates, organisers and leaders who built the foundations of Australia's workplace protections. Together, we have delivered compulsory super. We've delivered the eight-hour day. We've delivered strengthened protections for weekends and annual leave. We've delivered sick leave, and we have had protections against unfair dismissal. These rights were hard fought for and won by working people who organised and were determined in their fight for fairness. Today, we're strengthening super once again. Only a Labor government stands with workers. Only Labor governments protect Australian super. This bill is another step in helping workers to earn more, to keep more of what they earn and to retire with more.

I'd also like to also touch on schedule 5 of the bill and some of the amendments that are before the chamber—in particular, One Nation's and Senator Chandler's amendments to exclude Equality Australia as a deductible gift recipient. I can't say I'm surprised that we have that coming from the cookers, homophobes and you name it who stand for dividing people, but I am quite surprised that that's coming from the opposition, and I would urge many of the considered people on that side to not support those amendments.

Just the other morning, the Parliamentary Friends of LGBTIQ+ Australians had a wonderful morning reception. It was well attended, including by members of the opposition, which I was really heartened to see. I would ask and plead with people to stand up against—

It being 12.15, we shall now proceed to senators' statements.

Queenslanders are once again facing the harsh reality of widespread flooding across large parts of our state. Hundreds of roads have been cut, and emergency services are undertaking swift-water rescues across Queensland. Just earlier this week, a child was rescued from a car in a flooded road in the Gladstone region. Major flood warnings remain in place across rivers, including the Burnett River and the Mary River, with communities like Bundaberg preparing for major flood peaks of 7.6 metres, expected today. There are evacuations underway in some low-lying areas, with almost 200 people now sheltering in place in the Bundaberg evacuations centre.

While sunshine has returned to parts of South-East Queensland today, no-one should mistake that for the end of this event. The ground remains saturated. Many catchments are still swollen, and the rivers are continuing to rise in some locations. It also means the start of a very long and devastating clean-up for hundreds of businesses and residents. In other parts of the state, particularly across northern Queensland, the forecast continues to warn of further potential heavy rainfall next week, so the danger is not over yet.

While floods are part of life in Queensland, I want Queenslanders to know that they are not facing this alone. The Albanese government is standing beside local councils, who will receive assistance to immediately restore essential services and repair damaged roads once floodwaters subside. But we're not just focused on recovery on this side of the chamber. We're also building the roads of tomorrow to futureproof our great state. In a place the size of Queensland, roads are more than simple infrastructure; they are lifelines. And no road is more important than the Bruce Highway.

The Bruce is the backbone of Queensland, running more than 1,600 kilometres, from Brisbane to Cairns, and connecting communities right along our coastline. When floods hit, the Bruce Highway becomes even more critical. That is why the Albanese government has made the largest investment ever in the Bruce Highway. Thanks to the efforts of Minister Catherine King and our Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, we have committed an additional $7.2 billion to upgrade and improve safety along this critical corridor. That brings the Commonwealth investment in the Bruce Highway to more than $17 billion. This represents a historic federal investment in the Bruce Highway, and it gives certainty for Queensland infrastructure. You may not hear Premier Crisafulli thanking us for it, but the money shows that Queensland roads were the big winner when Australia voted Labor at the last federal election. Labor is committed to making the Bruce Highway safer, making it more resilient to floods and ensuring it can continue to keep Queensland moving during extreme weather events.

Investing in resilience today means fewer communities cut off tomorrow. It also means freight continues moving, suppliers continue arriving and families can travel safely across our state. Even during events like the floods that we are seeing right now, work is happening behind the scenes to ensure essential goods reach communities. I want to assure communities across regional Queensland that the government and major supermarket chains and freight operators have contingency plans in place to keep essential supplies moving in regional Queensland. This includes prepositioning stock in regional distribution centres, prioritising freight movements along the Bruce Highway while it remains open and using alternative logistics options, including rail and air freight, if roads are temporarily cut. Where communities do become isolated, emergency management agencies can coordinate supply deliveries using helicopters, defence aircraft and emergency freight operations. Queenslanders have faced floods before. To everyone currently dealing with rising waters, damaged homes and businesses, closed roads and uncertainty: please know that help is on the way.

In fact, this Labor government is so committed to keeping Queensland moving that I was at the opening of a brand-new stretch of road just last week. I went to Caboolture in the seat of Longman for the opening of a major $48 million upgrade along the Bribie Island Road. This is where we have upgraded a notoriously unsafe stretch of road from two lanes to four lanes, with a median strip in the centre to prevent crashes, along with new traffic signals. We've also added some much-needed oversized U-turn facilities to enable caravans and large vehicles to easily change direction. I'm proud to say this project was not only completed on budget; it was delivered a full month ahead of schedule. This is a tremendous achievement by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, particularly given the recent weather conditions that Queensland has been dealing with. These details may sound small, but they matter. They mean fewer dangerous right-hand turns, safer crossings, better traffic flow and improved protection for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. I'm also proud to say that, while this is a state government road, the Australian government contributed nearly two-thirds of the funding for this project. That's $29 million of a $48 million project.

The Caboolture-Bribie Island road is not just a stretch of bitumen. It is the front door to Bribie Island, it is the connection to Caboolture Hospital and it is a lifeline for local families, tradies, small businesses and emergency services. It's also an economic connector that every tourist, four-wheel drive enthusiast and family visiting Bribie has to travel along. So, in that sense, we're not just improving driver safety; we're also investing in the local tourism economy.

Excitingly, design is already progressing on the next stage of the Bribie Island Road upgrades, with the Hickey Road to King Johns Creek project. This will add traffic signals to the Hickey Road intersection, prepare the corridor for further duplication and create greater flood immunity for this stretch of road. I firmly believe that Moreton Bay communities deserve a road network that matches their growth and their ambition.

Speaking of keeping Queensland moving, today I met with the union that literally keeps Australia moving, the mighty Transport Workers' Union. The TWU have come to parliament to share their experiences and advocate for workers across Australia's transport industry. I have heard directly today from the men and women who keep our transport networks moving and our aviation sector operating every single day.

I want to give a special shout-out to two proud Queenslanders from the delegation here today: Ebonie, a cabin manager for Virgin, and Ryan, a baggage handler for dnata. They spoke of extensive issues relating to rostering challenges, companies cutting corners and not having enough staff on board, and falling safety standards. For Ryan, that resulted in a horrific workplace injury. He had to take two months off work as a result of nerve damage to his shoulder, and he was supposed to return to administrative duties but was almost immediately pressured back to handling bags.

Their visit was a powerful reminder of why the Albanese government's workplace reforms matter so much to workers in industries like aviation and transport. For far too long, workers doing the same job side by side were often paid very different wages depending on whether they were employed directly or hired through labour hire companies. But the Albanese government has closed the loophole that allowed employers to get away with it. Our same job, same pay reforms mean that workers doing the same job as someone employed under an enterprise agreement can apply to receive the same rate of pay. For example, Karlene at Jetstar said some of her colleagues are now earning $8,000 more a year—as they always should have been—because of Labor. Queensland workers should never forget that it was the coalition and One Nation who voted against Labor's same job, same pay laws. They were very comfortable with Jetstar workers getting paid $8,000 less. They voted for that in this chamber, and people should never, ever forget that.

Recently, the TWU reached a landmark in-principle agreement with Jetstar that will deliver meaningful wage increases for almost 1,500 cabin crew. Workers employed through Team Jetstar and Altara will receive average annual pay increases of around $7,000. Labor said that we would get wages moving again, and that is exactly what we are doing. I'm proud to say that, following this morning's delegation, I am now the newest signatory of the TWU's Safe and Secure Skies campaign. Whether it's the truck driver delivering supplies along the Bruce Highway, the aviation worker preparing for a flight or the freight operator keeping our economy moving, working Australians deserve fairness at work. And the Albanese Labor government will always stand up to make sure they get it.

In relation to the Caboolture-Bribie Island Road upgrade, I'd like to put on the record my thanks to everyone in the relevant Queensland LNP government ministry who advocated for this upgrade and everyone in the department who delivered it. I'd also like to thank my good friends Terry Young MP and Ariana Doolan MP. Terry Young, the member for Longman, is continually fighting for his electorate to make sure it gets the infrastructure it needs as one of the fastest growing regions in Australia. Ariana Doolan, the member for Pumicestone, is one of the youngest MPs ever to be elected to the Queensland parliament, and I also acknowledge and recognise her contribution to making sure her community on Bribie Island gets that infrastructure that it deserves.

It was wonderful to see this week that members of the Iranian women's football team secured humanitarian visas to stay in Australia. There were five players in the initial cohort who received humanitarian visas. Subsequently, over the course of the last 24 to 36 hours, an additional player and a support member secured humanitarian visas to stay in Australia at this very difficult time for them and their families. I think all of us were moved by seeing the proceedings of the football game, where the Iranian women's football team refused to sing the Iranian national anthem, given what is happening in Iran at the moment, and we were all horrified to see the response of the current Iranian regime to their silent protest in that regard.

It is a wonderful thing that these players and the support team member have managed to secure humanitarian visas. I'd like to acknowledge government members; the minister; the opposition spokesperson for home affairs, Senator Jonno Duniam; and all of their teams in terms of how they progressed the matter. I note that the minister also acknowledged that the media had been extremely responsible in terms of its reporting. I'd like to acknowledge the staff of the Department of Home Affairs who, no doubt, worked tirelessly on this matter. I'd also like to acknowledge the Australian Federal Police, who collectively made sure that every single one of those team members and everyone who was part of the network supporting that team had the opportunity, in private, to express what their wishes were in terms of their options to seek humanitarian visas in this country.

I'd also like to acknowledge the Iranian Australian diaspora, who have been absolutely tireless in terms of advocating for human rights, for freedom, for democracy and for the rights of women and girls in Iran while also providing support to the Iranian women's football team. This is a wonderful result for those members of the team who secured humanitarian visas to stay in Australia.

This event also coincided with an event last night convened by Parliamentary Friends of Refugees, of which I am a co-chair along with my fellow co-chairs: Sarah Witty MP, Allegra Spender MP and Senator David Shoebridge. It was the first meeting of the Parliamentary Friends of Refugees to be convened during the course of this parliament. I'd like to acknowledge the role of the Refugee Council of Australia, which assisted to bring this event about. It's important to note that last year Australia welcomed its one millionth refugee since 1947. One million people from all over the world who were suffering political persecution have found safety and an opportunity to build their lives in Australia, whatever their cultural background and whatever their religion. It's an opportunity to reflect on our refugee program and its success over so many decades.

I reflect on the groups I have met all over the country during the last 12 months, including the wonderful Australian Vietnamese Women's Association, which was founded in 1983. Last year was the 50th anniversary of the arrival of humanitarian visa recipients from Vietnam in Australia. We think of the wonderful contribution made by our Vietnamese community. The Australian Vietnamese Women's Association was established in 1983, when 15 women got together with Mrs Cam Nguyen and decided they wanted to give back to the community. Since that point in time, this organisation has gone from strength to strength in terms of providing support to community members all across Melbourne.

I also reflect on the visit I had to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Melbourne, a centre that provides food, housing, English skills, pathways to employment, and legal support for those seeking asylum in Australia. I want to acknowledge the contribution of Kon, the CEO and founder of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, as well as Jana and Ogy and everyone involved, and all the volunteers supporting asylum seekers in Melbourne.

In the course of that trip, I visited Dandenong, and the contribution the Hazara Australian community has made to the reinvigoration of Dandenong is just inspiring. I ate at a wonderful Hazara restaurant, and I was speaking to the owner about how long ago he'd opened the restaurant, and he said it was a number of years, under 10 years, but he also had five other businesses in the main street of Dandenong—just an incredible contribution.

Then I reflect on my home community of Queensland. A few weeks ago I attended the opening of the Matu Community hub in Logan. Under the leadership of Lawm and Muan and their team, they're doing outstanding work providing support to members of the Chin community who have come from Myanmar, fleeing political persecution and violence and establishing new lives here in Australia. But they've also established a relationship with the community from Eritrea who came here as refugees. Where else in the world would you see this alignment between community members who have come from Burma as refugees, and community members who came from Eritrea as refugees?

Last night, we heard from some outstanding advocates for refugee communities in this country. We met and heard from Mr Roman Abasy, who was a taekwondo champion, from Afghanistan. He and his family came to Australia, as did thousands of Afghanis, following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021. He was an advocate for human rights, especially for women and girls, in Afghanistan, which is why he had to flee Afghanistan. He's now rebuilding his life here in Australia. He has even opened up his own taekwondo school, which I'm sure provides first-class education to young people.

We also heard from a wonderful woman by the name of Abang Othow, from South Sudan, who came to Australia as an unaccompanied minor under our refugee program. She is now an educator, a speaker, a writer, a leader and the founder of her wellbeing framework, referred to as Buckets of Hope. She provides inspiring leadership all over Australia, including in my home state of Queensland. As a sign of respect to her and her contribution, I want to talk about her father—because every one of these one million refugees who have come to Australia has their own story.

Abang's father was an amazing individual called Professor Anade Othow. He was known as Paul. He was a visionary scholar, public servant and courageous advocate for the people of Sudan. He was one of the first members of his community to receive higher education, and he actually secured a position and served his country in government as minister of the interior, where he advocated for unity, justice and the protection of minority groups, including women and children. Professor Anade's commitment to equality and human rights, though, came at a great personal cost. In 1996 his courage ultimately cost him his life when he was brutally assassinated for standing by his principles. That happened in South Sudan, and now his daughter has found safety and prosperity here in Australia and is contributing to our community. It is just one of the many, many stories of those one million refugees who found a home here in Australia.

This Sunday just gone, on International Women's Day, I spent time with some truly remarkable women. One of them was the formidable Gen Dawson-Scott, who is contesting the seat of Heysen in the South Australian state election. Gen is an early childhood educator, a young mum and a powerful advocate for her community, and will hopefully soon be a member of the South Australian parliament.

When it comes to early learning, what are the Greens working towards, from Heysen to Horsham to Hobart? The Greens want a shared commitment to building a genuinely high-quality, affordable and accessible early education system—one that truly operates like a public service, just like primary and secondary school. Early education is one of the great equalisers that we have in society. It sets up children for success in school and in life but it also opens doors for parents, especially women who disproportionately face barriers to re-entering the workforce. When families have access to early education they can trust, whether that's long day care, kindergarten, preschool, family day care or in-home care, women gain real choice—the choice to return to the workforce, the choice to study, the choice to stay home, the choice on what path is right for them and their families.

A strong early education benefits everyone, but right now the Prime Minister's so-called legacy is failing women by withholding that choice. Access to quality early learning is a postcode lottery in this country, and the dominance of for-profit providers—companies led by men on million-dollar salaries—is draining public subsidy into corporate profits. At the same time, the system is propped up by a feminised workforce and educators who show up every single day doing incredible skilled and important work under conditions that still fail to recognise their true value. I am fortunate to have incredible women in my life who support me and inspire me, I'm fortunate that my young children can attend early education that I love and trust, and I'm fortunate to stand in this place and represent women and girls in my home state of Victoria. But these things simply shouldn't come down to good fortune.

Those of us who have had these opportunities have a responsibility to send the ladder down, and there are many ways we can be doing that right now. Extending paid parental leave to 12 months, as the Greens have long called for, would give families real choice in those vital first months of a child's life. Twenty-six weeks at minimum wage simply isn't enough. Serious paid parental leave, along with increasing income support above the poverty line, would help close the gender pay gap, reduce the number of women retiring in poverty and strengthen women's economic security. There is much to celebrate this International Women's Day but there is also much more work to be done, and many of us here can only show up to our work because our early childhood educators show up to theirs.

When conflict erupts, it is overwhelmingly women and children who pay the highest price. The UN estimates that women and children make up 90 per cent of casualties in modern conflicts. War is not gender neutral, yet for more than a week now we have watched an illegal invasion of Iran driven by powerful men unleashing violence and weapons on civilian populations. What we are seeing from our own government comes from an all-too-familiar playbook—deflection, manipulation and gaslighting day by day.

Australia's involvement in this illegal conflict is being quietly normalised. First it was just words of praise; our Prime Minister rushed to back his mate Donald Trump, eager to prove Australia belongs in the global warmongers boys club. Maybe our intelligence infrastructure helped enable the attack. Maybe a US war plane refuelled on Australian soil. But we were told not to ask questions; we were labelled as divisive for asking the questions that our communities rightly want and expect us to ask in this place. Are we joining another US forever war? It is a pretty bloody simple question and it warrants a straightforward answer. So spare us the theatre. It's classic political gaslighting—convince the public that this conflict is inevitable, convince us that there's no peaceful alternative, trot out the tried and tested 'weapons of mass destruction' line and hope that the public will fall for it. Well, they're not falling for it and the Greens are not falling for it.

This week, we see a predictable escalation: Australian war machines being deployed. Nearly a hundred Australian military personnel will be sent to the gulf. 'Don't worry,' they tell us, 'it's just a defensive deployment,' when we know that it will free up US aircraft for more destruction. What does next week bring? Boots on the ground? More weapons flowing to overseas militaries? Where exactly is this government's red line? It's certainly not the bombing of a school, killing over 150 schoolgirls. It's clearly not the 700,000 people displaced in Lebanon by Israeli air strikes or the selective view on where international law applies and where it doesn't. Australians deserve the truth, not weasel words from Trump's playbook.

… I do not believe it is in Australia's national interest … to be joining any military action that would undermine the legitimacy and supremacy of international law.

Those aren't my words. They're the now Prime Minister Albanese's words. He said in this parliament:

… we must continue to tell them—

the US—

that unilateralism can never be the basis of a satisfactory world model …

Oh, how times have changed! We're watching, in live time, how power corrupts. Labor used to believe Australians deserve a say in whether this country is dragged into an illegal, never-ending war. You cannot gaslight a country into complicity. Australia must not be pulled deeper into an endless war. We must stand for peace.

Finally, from the moment I began this speech to the moment I finish it, Australia will have missed out on roughly $323,000 in public revenue—$323,000 that could have been taxed from the more than 1,300 tonnes of LNG exported off our shores in just 10 minutes. Over a year, that adds up to a whopping $17 billion in public revenue lost, all because Australia has failed, for decades, to meaningfully tax its gas exports.

Last night, in this chamber, we heard some of the usual talking points, so familiar I wasn't sure if I was in the Parliament of Australia or at a Woodside investors meeting. Members dutifully repeated the lines of the gas lobby, defending inflated claims about how much this industry supposedly contributes to our economy. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the $103,000 the coalition received from the Australian Energy Producers last year—a bit of loose change, hey? But the truth is simple. No amount of spin can hide the failures of the petroleum resource rent tax. Our broken PRRT has collected next to nothing from gas exports for years, after decades of loopholes that allow these multinational companies to extract our resources and report massive profits, all while paying next to no tax. It's billions of dollars Australians should have received, billions that could help to clean up the climate damage that these companies leave behind, billions that could fund a truly universal childcare system in this country, billions that could extend paid parental leave many times over and billions that could compensate Australians who have watched domestic energy prices triple since gas exports began, while helping accelerate a fast and fair transition away from toxic gas altogether.

Instead, the gas industry spends millions of dollars on lobbying and glossy advertising. You've probably seen the billboards on the way to the airport: 'Australia runs on gas'. At the same time, the industry claimed that it somehow singlehandedly funded Medicare, when the reality is that it's groups like teachers, nurses and retail workers who collectively pay more tax on their incomes than Australia collects from gas exports. What a shame.

Here's the thing: industries only spend millions on public relations campaigns when they're afraid, and they are afraid. They're afraid of becoming irrelevant, afraid of the public finally understanding their role in the climate crisis and afraid Australians might just realise how badly they're being ripped off, because Australia doesn't run on gas; Australia runs on nurses, on teachers and on everyday workers. It increasingly runs on renewable energy—thank goodness for that—and it should run on a fair return for the resources that belong to all of us. They belong to every Australian; they do not belong to these gas cartels. So to Santos, Woodside, INPEX, Chevron and the lobby groups that speak for them and are crawling the halls of this parliament: Australians are waiting for you to finally pay what you owe.

I am incredibly concerned. Australia has an economy that relies on everybody understanding what pays the bills in this country, and I can tell you that the biggest thing that pays the bills in Australia is the resources sector. Thirty per cent of corporate taxes come from mining. For the well-paid jobs, hundreds of thousands of Australians are employed on at least double the average salary. The royalties that go to states and territories as well as the PRRT—what concerns me in particular is that we have a national interest test that has been abused by people who don't have the same standards as those of us who come to the parliament have. They don't have the same requirements on the reporting of donations. They don't have the same restrictions on overseas donations as members of parliament have.

We have organisations that are receiving significant amounts of money from offshore organisations with no disclosure, and I will list them. The Environmental Defenders Office received the payment for the penalty that was levied by the courts for their confecting of evidence and their behaviour in the Tipakalippa case. Millions of dollars were paid by an unknown donor. According to reports now, it has been forgiven. I have asked the Australia Institute and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis directly, in Senate estimates and at committee hearings, about where their money comes from, and they do not disclose it. Why should we be concerned about that as Australians?

There's a very specific example. In the UK, a big antifracking campaign was run. It was designed to undermine the energy security of the country. As time has played out, we have seen that the reliance of Europe on Russian gas has made them incredibly vulnerable during the Ukrainian war. But those countries could've received their own gas and their own developments. It was only after that incredibly damaging campaign against the gas industry, which leaked into Australia and other countries, that we discovered where that money, the funding for that campaign, came from. It came from Russia. So that was not in the national interest for that country, and now they are paying an enormous price for not having their own energy security.

Australia now runs the same risk. We have organisations on social media, which are funding senators in this place, that are receiving money from offshore organisations whose stated aim is to shut down fossil fuels—yet there's no requirement to disclose where and how much. We know that it was reported—I think it was in the Australian Financial Reviewthat Senator Pocock receives money from the KR Foundation. This is an organisation that states on its home page that it wants to phase out fossil fuels. That money goes to a foundation established by Senator Pocock and his wife, and I believe that his wife draws a salary from it. What other organisations are out undermining our national security with no disclosure about where their money comes from yet are happy to attack me and other people for standing up and defending the industries that pay our bills—to incredibly high standards?

We're about to see legislation come into this place, from another senator, that talks to issues that are designed to shut down investment confidence in this country. It is un-Australian. It is dangerous, because the money from these sectors pays the bills—Medicare, PBS and probably large chunks of schools and roads and hospitals. Yet those behind this dangerous campaign, funded by anti-fossil-fuel companies from offshore, are not being disclosed—are not being restricted. The government should be very, very aware of what it is doing to us in this country. We will be incredibly poor if we don't pull it up.

I think transparency does matter. The Australia Institute runs a podcast called Follow the Money but won't disclose its own sources. Australians deserve to know who is funding campaigns against our precious industries—our national interest—and they deserve to know urgently, before damage is done that we cannot unwind within a generation.

I also want to turn to the fuel crisis in Australia right now. There is no lack of supply in this country. Australia has ships coming on the water. It has deliveries here in this nation. But what we saw from the government was a lack of leadership. Last week, no doubt everyone in this place received messages, as I did, from family members, friends and small businesses: 'Should I go and fill up my car? Should I go and get reserve stores of fuel for my generator?'—or for whatever it might be. The government members would have received those too. There was their opportunity to make a plan, to call together the four big wholesalers and distributors and to prioritise the places that needed fuel first. At the moment, there are fishing boats at the dock unable to go out and catch fish. There are farmers unable to go out and harvest their crop. There are people who own feedlots who are worried about whether they should shoot the stock in the feedlot because they cannot get food to them. There are mining companies that are on rationing for fuel supplies. Why is that? It's because the big wholesalers prioritise their petrol stations and retail outlets.

I understand that Australians were concerned. I know that my family was. I know that I was. But, when you had people driving into places with a thousand-litre pod on the back of their ute and filling it up, and nobody said anything, and when people were bringing in 44-gallon drums to fill, on the back of domestic vehicles, that should have been a warning to the government—to the energy minister. Instead, with his hands in his pockets, he said that people should buy more electric vehicles. What a ridiculous, outrageous, awful lack of leadership!

Australia is a great country. We have all the resources and reserves that we need. But the government of the day must lead. They must lead. In this case, the energy minister and the Prime Minister did nothing, and now we are in a very serious situation where fuel has run out at domestic bowsers, on farms and for fishing boats. I call on the government—stand up, be a leader, stop looking backwards, demand to know where donations from and take some leadership for our country and ensure that we have the right fuel supplies in the right places.

I rise today to acknowledge International Women's Day. This year's United Nations Women Australia theme is Balance the Scales. It's a theme that reminds us that gender equality does not happen by chance. It requires deliberate action to ensure fairness, opportunity and safety for women and girls in every part of our society. Balancing the scales speaks to the reality that, despite the progress we have made, women across the world and here in Australia continue to face barriers in leadership, economic participation, safety and representation. Achieving true equality requires us to recognise these imbalances and act intentionally to correct them.

This message is reinforced in the Status of Women Report Card, recently released by the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. The report highlights that, while Australia is making progress in advancing gender equality, significant challenges remain, particularly in areas such as women's safety, economic security and representation in leadership. Encouragingly, the report notes that Australia has improved its global standing on gender equality, rising to 13th in the world—our highest ranking to date. Yet the report also reminds us that gender equality cannot be taken for granted. Persistent issues—such as the gender pay gap, unequal caring responsibility and gender based violence—continue to affect the lives of many women. These realities underscore why the call to balance the scales is so important.

Over the weekend, I had the privilege of attending an inspiring International Woman's Day celebration organised by the Multicultural Women's Council of Tasmania. The event reflected the spirit of this year's theme and brought together women from many different cultural backgrounds to celebrate leadership, resilience and community. I particularly acknowledge the leadership of commend the leadership of the chair, Sajini Sumar, whose dedication to empowering multicultural women in Tasmania continues to make a profound difference. Through the work of the council, women from diverse communities are given a stronger voice, greater visibility and greater opportunities to participate fully in civic life. The event hosted Lara Giddings, the first female premier of Tasmania. Lara's leadership and service remain an important reminder of the progress women have made in political life and of the responsibility we have to continue opening doors for the next generation of women leaders. Lara also delivered the keynote address.

I was also honoured to receive an award from the Multicultural Women's Council of Tasmania during the event. I accept that recognition with humility and gratitude. It reflects the collective efforts of many women and community leaders who continue to advocate for fairness, inclusion and opportunity. I want to thank the council for this recognition and, more importantly, for the vital work they do every day. Their commitment to empowering women and celebrating diversity strengthens our community and enriches our democracy.

International Women's Day is, of course, a moment to celebrate achievement, but it's also a moment to recommit ourselves to action. Balancing the scale means ensuring women are safe in their homes and communities. It means ensuring women have equal opportunity in education, employment and leadership. It means ensuring that women from multicultural backgrounds, whose voices are sometimes underrepresented, are heard, valued and supported. Events like the one hosted by the Multicultural Women's Council of Tasmania remind us that progress often begins at the community level, where women come together to support one another, share their stories and build pathways for those who follow. As we mark International Women's Day this year on 8 March, we reflect on what we can do in our institutions, in our communities and in our workplaces to truly balance the scales.

Finally, I can extend my congratulations to all of the remarkable women who continue to make a difference in our communities every day. Your leadership, courage and dedication inspire us all.

Today I want to talk about multiple births. I want to talk about how far we have come on this issue and where we will go from here. You may remember me talking about this issue last year, questioning the representing minister on it, meeting with parliamentarians, begging for backing of the parliamentary friendship group. My argument was simple, and it still is: under the government-funded multiple birth allowance, twins are not considered a multiple birth, when they clearly should be. It's two babies—that's more than one, meaning it is multiple. In fact, the dictionary definition of 'multiple' is 'consisting of, including or involving more than one'. I'm not sure what private dictionary the government is using, but last time I checked two is in fact more than one. But I'm not here to talk about maths. Last time I questioned the representing minister, we learned that she does agree that the number two refers to multiples, except apparently when it comes to births.

A twin birth marks the beginning of a joyful journey for many parents and carers. It also marks the beginning of an expensive journey, one that is five times more expensive than a single birth—five times! The government's attitude is: at least it's not triplets. They're even more expensive, apparently, but that is not helpful or fair. All parents of multiple births should be supported equitably, not left to their own devices because they were blessed with two children, not one or three. This is why, with the encouragement and guidance of the Australian Multiple Birth Association, we decided to establish the Parliamentary Friends of Multiple Births. Tomorrow's event is not just another gathering in a busy parliamentary calendar; it's a statement that families with multiples deserve to be seen, heard and supported.

The Parliamentary Friends of Multiple Births group is about bringing people together across party lines. This is not a partisan issue—babies are not partisan. This group is also about education. Many people in this place, including me, have never had to load two newborns into car seats at the same time, pay double childcare fees from the very first day or navigate systems that too often treat a twin birth as a simple extension of a single birth. When we understand the reality, we legislate better. When we listen to families, we do our jobs better. The parliamentary friends group will allow us to hear directly from parents, carers, medical professionals, researchers and advocacy organisations. It will allow us to ask the simple question: are our definitions fit for purpose? Right now they are not. When twins are excluded from the multiple birth allowance, we are effectively saying to families, 'Yes, we recognise you have more than one baby, but not in a way that counts.' That simply does not pass the pub test.

This is about fairness. A twin birth is incredible, but it also brings unique challenges: higher rates of premature birth, longer hospital stays and greater medical oversight. There is double the feeding, doubled the settling, double the equipment and, often, double the childcare fees at the same time, which can push parents—usually mothers—out of the workforce. If we are serious about women's economic participation, cost-of-living relief and supporting families in the early years, we must be serious about supporting families with multiple births. The parliamentary friendship group will also provide continuity. Governments change, ministers change and priorities change, but a cross-party friendship group helps ensure the issue remains on the agenda. It will create a home in this parliament for families of multiples. The launch of the Parliamentary Friends of Multiple Births is a beginning, not an end.

In addition to the Multiple Birth Association, I want to thank Assistant Minister Ged Kearney and Louise Miller-Frost MP, and their offices, for their strong support in tackling this issue. We will continue working with the government to reform the multiple birth allowance—so that twins are recognised—and highlight the lived experience of families raising multiples. At its heart, this issue is simple. If multiple means more than one, then our policy should reflect that. If we truly value families, which I know all of us in this chamber do, then we should support all families equitably. The Parliamentary Friends of Multiple Births group is one step towards that goal, and I, for one, am excited to see where it goes.

It's no exaggeration to say that, if Mr Robert Menzies, the founding father of the Liberal Party, could see the party as it stands today, he would barely recognise it. I think it would be fair to say he'd be rolling over in his grave right now. The legacy of the Liberal and National parties is one of drift and denial. Those opposite are defined not by what they stand for but by what they stand against. Those opposite only ever resist reform, more interested—

Excuse me, Senator Polley. Can I just interrupt you for a second. Senators, the banter across the chamber is quite distracting, and all senators in this place deserve to be listened to in silence. Out of respect, can we either take it out of the chamber or cease the banter.

Those opposite only ever resist reform and are more interested in obstruction than offering genuine alternatives or policies worthy of our country. The sense of national purpose which should unite us all, which we have on this side, no longer exists on that side of the chamber.

Australia faces opportunities but also significant challenges—cost-of-living pressures, a changing energy landscape, the need for accessible child care and the imperative to ensure fair wages and secure retirements. Yet, when these issues arise, the default position of the coalition—those on that side of the chamber—is to say no. Instead of engaging constructively, they oppose the tax cuts that would ease the cost-of-living burden on family households, resist meaningful reform to child care that would help working families and object to wage improvements that would lift millions of Australians out of stagnation. On energy, they blocked pathways to cleaner, cheaper power. On housing, they stymied efforts to make homes more affordable. Even reforms to superannuation, designed to give Australians dignity in retirement, were also met with reluctance.

The pattern of those opposite is very clear. Those opposite represent a party of opposition, not of vision. Let's be clear: they are not abstract policy debates that we've been having in this place. They are decisions that affect every Australian, whether they're in a family, working Australians, our seniors or our pensioners. By fighting against measures to ease our cost-of-living pressures, the Liberal and National parties are failing those they claim to represent. We see their resistance to progress on tax, child care, wages, energy, housing and superannuation—the fundamentals of our society. We know what they think about Medicare and universal health care: they oppose it. At every opportunity when they've been in government, they have slashed money. They used to use the health system and our hospitals as ATMs, cash machines, that they ripped money out of. They, with their actions, leave Australians worse off.

What is even worse is that they're clinging to a very much outdated agenda while everyday people are asking for relief and looking for reform, vision and leadership. You only had to look at the leaked coalition election review. That review outlined, in very bare, stark terms, the truth: the leadership turmoil that they were under during that time, the lack of any compelling policies and how deeply they alienated voters—and we saw how they alienated women in the electorate. But what have they done since then? They have actually rewarded the people who were the masters of those policy areas around taxation, around moving the economy and around energy. What they've done is reward them and put them into leadership.

To make matters worse, the first-ever female leader of the Liberal Party was turfed out after nine months. That's all. And then what did we see yesterday? The turmoil continues. Mr Littleproud—who, while he was the Leader of the Nationals, did everything he could to undermine Sussan Ley while she was the Leader of the Liberal Party—abruptly resigned because the leadership got too much for him. No wonder the Australian people have no confidence in the Liberals and the Nationals and are looking to this government for reform and vision for the future.

This speech is written by the one and only Pride and Protest.

This parliament is failing queer and trans people. This parliament is failing sex workers. We have a broken Sex Discrimination Act which allows for teachers to be unfairly dismissed or denied jobs simply for being LGBTI. We see Trumpian state and territory governments, like the Northern Territory and Queensland, denying trans youth access to gender affirming care and putting trans women and sistergirls in men's lock-ups. We have sex workers harassed at work and even deported by Border Force.

Many Labor MPs and senators signed the Trans Justice Pledge at the last election, and the Prime Minister joined fair day at Mardi Gras. But what do queer and trans people have to see from that? The Labor government has failed to act, and the most glaring example is in antidiscrimination reform. Despite recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission on updating the Sex Discrimination Act to remove the right to discriminate, there has been no action for equality. Recent calls for papers have shown that there have only been meetings with Christian lobby groups.

It is also important to be crystal clear that there is no contradiction between the right to religion and the right to equality before the law. These freedoms by religious employers are not truly about the right to practice one's faith; they are about the right for a boss to terminate the employment of queer people or to expel schoolchildren who are often in their own communities of faith.

Reforming the Sex Discrimination Act is about protecting the right of people to secure jobs and safe schooling, not religious freedom. If the Labor government was serious about supporting religious minorities, rather than ignoring queer rights, they could implement the recommendations by the envoy against Islamophobia to amend the Racial Discrimination Act. There's an entire antiracism framework ready to go, and not one of its recommendations is to get kids kicked out of school.

Labor's other main excuse for looking the other way while gay teachers get the sack is that they support bipartisanship, but who is this bipartisanship with? The same Liberal-National coalition who attacks trans youth in the NT and Queensland? There's nothing progressive about giving transphobes a veto on queer and trans rights. We have the numbers in this chamber and the other to pass this reform to the Sex Discrimination Act and to do so much more. We heard from the Greens that they support action on antidiscrimination reform just a few weeks ago, and independents questioned Albanese in the other House just last week. It's time for Labor to get with the times and stop giving the LNP a veto on queer rights.

This week marks 250 years since the publication of one of the most influential books ever written about how economies work: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in March 1776. It's easy to forget just how radical Smith's ideas were in their time. The world he wrote in was dominated by mercantilism—the belief that trade was a zero-sum game, where one nation's gain must come at another's loss. Governments imposed tariffs and monopolies not to expand prosperity but to hoard it. Smith challenged that orthodoxy with a simple but powerful insight: prosperity grows when people are free to specialise, to trade and to innovate.

He began his famous book with a humble example of a pin factory. One worker making pins alone might produce only a handful in a day but, when production was divided into specialised tasks like drawing the wire, cutting it, sharpening it and attaching the head, 10 workers could produce many thousands of pins. As Smith observed:

The greatest improvement in the productive powers of labour … seems to have been the effects of the division of labour.

From that simple example, Smith drew a larger lesson. The wealth of a nation does not come from hoarding gold or protecting favoured industries; it comes from the productive capacity of its people and from markets that allow them to exchange what they create. He also captured how markets coordinate human activity through incentives. He famously wrote:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Smith's point was not to celebrate self-interest but to observe how markets organise the efforts of ordinary people. Millions of people, each pursuing their own livelihood, cooperate through markets to produce the goods and services that sustain modern life.

But Smith was never the caricature sometimes invoked in modern debate. He did not believe markets should operate without rules. Smith understood that prosperity requires competition and institutions that prevent monopoly and collusion. His warning still resonates today:

People of the same trade seldom meet together … but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public …

Two hundred and fifty years on, Smith's warning still resonates with the modern Australian economy. Across sectors, from supermarkets to airlines to digital platforms, we see how market concentration can undermine competition and raise prices. Adam Smith would have recognised the problem immediately.

For much of the 20th century, Australia operated behind a wall of protection, with tariffs shielding domestic industries from global competition. Over time, it became clear that that protection came at a cost: lower productivity and lower innovation. Beginning in the 1980s, Australia undertook major economic reforms, reducing tariffs, opening our economy to trade and strengthening competition law. Those reforms recognised a truth Smith identified centuries earlier—that open, competitive economies generate greater prosperity. Smith rejected the mercantilist obsession with trade imbalances and protection. On this side of the chamber, that lesson remains as clear as ever: open, competitive markets, supported by strong institutions that serve the public interest.

But not everyone in Australian politics has absorbed those lessons equally well. Too often, those opposite speak the language of free markets while overlooking Smith's deep suspicion of monopoly and corporate power. Over on the crossbench, there are moments when it seems like the law of supply and demand is treated as optional—opposing new housing supply, seeking to fix prices and resisting infrastructure and trade arrangements that expand opportunity.

In different ways, both perspectives risk missing Smith's fundamental balance: markets must be open and competitive but supported by strong institutions that serve the public interest. For Labor, that balance remains central. We support open trade because it expands opportunity for Australian workers and businesses; we support strong competition because markets must work for consumers, not just powerful incumbents; and we support public investment in education, infrastructure and institutions because Smith recognised that these foundations enable markets to flourish. Two hundred and fifty years after The Wealth of Nations was published, Adam Smith's insights remain clear. Prosperity grows not from protection or privilege but from open markets, real competition and institutions that serve the public interest.

For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that's larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we're providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it's voting against one—the uniparty.

Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that's even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That's 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier!

When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can't govern at all.

To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor's union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots.

To illustrate this point, let's compare the new Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected.

The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women's and Children's Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers.

More of the Premier's woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that's exactly what One Nation will build.

More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he's treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That's the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly.

Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what's right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.

The far left like to imagine that they are on a moral crusade fighting all of the ills of the world, but in reality they are experiencing a crisis of self-worth while using protest signs as props. From climate catastrophists predicting doom every decade or so and LGBTQIAQS+—just keep on adding letters—activists policing pronouns with the intensity of an air traffic controller to socialists who have never even run a lemonade stand, these movements look different, but I will argue that they share a common emotional core: grievance dressed up as virtue.

Consider the hypersensitivity to language. They claim that words must be changed so as to not offend various minorities and that entire dictionaries must be reissued annually lest someone feel a tremor of discomfort. Yet, curiously, the people most outraged by words are typically well-educated upper-middle-class Westerners who claim to be bravely defending minorities, rather than the minorities themselves. There are far more Western leftists rebranding Australia Day as Invasion Day than there are Aboriginal people in Alice Springs truly upset about the issue.

Then there's the far left's fixation on weakness. Progressive activism tends to orbit around groups defined primarily by vulnerability, and I argue that this is not accidental. Identification with the oppressed offers instant moral elevation. You don't have to build anything; you just align yourself with perceived fragility and, by association, inherent righteousness. This is the easiest way of compensating for their own perceived weakness. So-called progressives hate displays of strength, merit and competition, which are viewed with deep suspicion. They love the collective because the group enables them to hide from inconveniences like personal responsibility, and they ultimately come to hate truth itself. The problem with truth is that it ultimately creates a bar of measurement, and that is uncomfortable for people who never want their ideas to be tested or their worldview to be evaluated. If outcomes differ, the system's broken. If facts contradict ideology, the facts are just problematic.

At the bottom of all of this is envy. This movement is empowered by not confidence but resentment. It's resentment of strength, success and standards. When a socialist sees somebody doing well in business and succeeding in life, instead of praising and emulating the actions of that person they yell, 'Tax the rich,' and try to tear them down. When they see a mother staying home and raising her children, doing the school drop-offs and building a family, they just call it oppression instead of recognising it as one of the most meaningful and valuable roles a woman can have. When a socialist government sees an individual working hard and doing well in life, it does not say 'good for them' and it does not ask, 'How can I make this person's life easier?' It asks instead: 'How can we milk this person? How can we make their life harder?'

The far left cannot tolerate success, because success exposes failure. It cannot tolerate strength, because strength exposes weakness. It cannot tolerate truth, because truth exposes ideology. So, instead of improving themselves, they tend to rewrite reality. But reality does not bend to slogans and certainly doesn't care about your many silly pronouns. In the end, their movement doesn't elevate society; it doesn't bring it up. It simply drags it down to the level of their own resentment, and resentment has never once built a civilisation. It only seeks to tear it down.

I'm pleased to be able to take some time today to talk about a couple of things that I didn't get to yesterday in the debate to pass the Treasury Laws Amendment (Building a Stronger and Fairer Super System) Bill 2026, which is important legislation.

I spoke a lot about the LISTO yesterday, but what I didn't get a chance to speak about was the other changes to restore fairness and balance around taxation. The division 296 changes in the bill that we passed yesterday will reduce tax concessions available to individuals with total superannuation balances exceeding $3 million, and this is all in the name of fairness. It is important to note with these changes that the legislation will apply to less than 0.5 per cent of Australians, or fewer than 80,000 people in total. That is the current number of Australians with balances over $3 million. The higher rate of taxes on balances above $10 million will affect less than 0.1 per cent of the population—about 8,000 people out of 17 million superannuation account holders. This is really about restoring fairness.

Some facts that were not mentioned in the debate yesterday are that super tax concessions cost the budget more than $60 billion per year and will exceed the cost of the age pension in the 2040s. In particular, tax concessions for those with account balances above $3 million currently cost $55 billion per annum. That's $55 billion per annum going to 80,000 people out of 17 million in this country. This legislation represents a very important and necessary rebalancing of how superannuation is taxed and how concessions should work—all in the name of fairness. As the numbers indicate, existing tax breaks overwhelmingly benefit a small number of people with very high balances that are well beyond what is required for a comfortable and dignified retirement. If you're a retiree with a super balance above $3 million, I'd take a wild guess that you're doing well better off than those who are reliant on the LISTO.

Order! It being 1.30, we will now go to two-minute statements.

A profound shift has happened in our Australian democracy over the last 40 years. The role and the power of our parliaments, the institutions meant to represent the will of the people, have been steadily subsumed, first by an ever-expanding bureaucracy, and, more recently, by powerful private equity interests and superannuation funds.

Despite what the people in this building want to tell you, today the elected body are merely a conduit for private equity through the bureaucracy. The COVID era provided a real-world example of how this new world order operates. When the crisis hit, the response wasn't primarily driven by parliamentary debate or broad consultation; it was shaped by expert bureaucracies in health and emergency management coordinating with global pharmaceutical giants. The rollout became a technocratic exercise—regulators approved, bureaucrats implemented and politicians just largely ratified. The core policy, mass vaccination as a primary exit strategy, was set well upstream from this building. Unelected experts and private actors with skin in the game and pharmaceutical companies backed with vast capital drove that agenda. Politicians reliant on advice and facing public pressure created by that lobby followed suit.

This is the blueprint now—the blueprint for our democracy. The result is that parliaments and parliamentarians all across the country are now at least third in line for policy setting in Australia. First in line are the powerful private equity interests, big pharma and super funds; second in line are the bureaucrats and the expert regulators who frame opinions and then execute; and third are—I'm sorry to tell people in this room—our elected representatives who engage in performative debate while real decisions are locked in well upstream. They think they're in charge, but, in reality, they're now just conduits for private equity.

I want to rise this afternoon to recognise the extraordinary members of the Iranian women's national football team who have been granted humanitarian visas by the Albanese government. Australia is at its best when we stand up for those seeking freedom and safety, and we have a proud history of doing that. Granting asylum to these members—players and a staff member—who have feared persecution if they return home reflects our values and our humanitarian obligations. These women faced immense pressure and threats, but they made a difficult decision to act with integrity, stand up for their beliefs and prioritise dignity over fear. State media in Iran labelled the team as 'traitors' for not singing the national anthem at the opening of the Women's Asian Cup match recently, but the players' bravery speaks louder than any condemnation. Football, the world game, is more than just simply a match; it is a platform where talent meets determination, where dreams confront injustice and where hope can shine, even in the darkest moments. These women have shown the world that the human spirit can't be silenced.

I want to take this moment to thank Minister Burke, the Minister for Home Affairs, and the government, for their decision and decisive action to grant humanitarian visas to these women. I also commend the AFP and security agencies for ensuring these squad members were moved to a secure location. To the Lionesses: your resilience and determination inspire all of us. Here, in Australia, you are safe. Your dreams and your courage will be celebrated, not silenced. Australia welcomes you with open arms, respect and hope for a better future.

Australia is at war with Iran. That is the stark truth under international law, no matter how much the Labor Party, the Prime Minister and the Foreign minister might try to weasel out of it. By deploying personnel, a surveillance aircraft and air-to-air missiles to the gulf, we have joined the war, and Labor is just hoping Australians won't notice. Look at the war we are currently engaged in fighting. One day President Trump says the war is close to finishing; the next day senior US officials warn it could escalate dramatically. We're told it's not about regime change, then President Trump publicly calls for Iranians to overthrow their terrible government. We're told it would be limited, then we're warned it could become far bigger.

These are apocalyptic and contradictory statements about a war that has already pushed the region into chaos, yet the Australian government has joined us to this war, and there has been no consent from this parliament or from the Australian people. This is how wars have happened throughout human history. First, there's surveillance, then there are support missions, then there are deployments, and then the death, the suffering and the misery occur. Scope creep, mission creep—it has happened time and time again, and it's happening now. We must not be led into another war on the other side of the planet on the basis of a lie, but that is exactly where Labor is leading this country.

I've had a big day today, but I don't want to talk about me. I want to talk about the people that have contacted me in the past week that are struggling to access fuel in, often, rural or regional communities. It's hard to fathom how we got to this stage. In particular, our nation's farmers don't know if they can plant a crop in the next week. I spoke to someone yesterday who may even face the shocking outcome of needing to put down livestock because a lack of fuel impacts the mill and the ability to grow food, and there's no way to get the livestock off, who may be starving at the end of this. This is a critical issue. I know the government understands how important it is, but I want to implore the government to focus on the solutions.

There has been, in this place and I think in the media, a focus on why we're in this situation. I don't have access to all the data. Maybe it is because there are people hoarding with jerry cans and the like. Maybe that's the issue. It's certainly not an issue with supply. As the government says, you can track that. You can see the boats still arriving, and fuel is coming into the country. But there's too much focus on why it's happening—and ultimately blaming some people for that outcome—and not enough focus on what we're going to do now. Let us just solve it. We are in this. It's not our doing.

We're not blaming the government for the situation we're in, but it is their responsibility now to work out how we get fuel to that guy who might be facing the shocking, tragic circumstance of putting down livestock. I know the government has the tools to do this. In legislation, they do have the tools to direct supplies of fuel in these kinds of emergencies. The government could be lobbying the International Energy Agency for a release of international fuel stocks like other countries are doing. As I said, I'm not blaming the government for being in this mess, but it is their responsibility as government to fix it. Stop the blame game; just fix it for people as soon as possible.

Sugar is more than just a crop in Queensland; it's part of our identity, part of our history, and for more than a century it has shaped the communities, the families and the towns in regional Queensland. But right now our cane growers are doing it tough. Global sugar prices are volatile, and the troughs are longer and harder for them to ride out. I'm pleased to see the sugar industry is leading the way in embracing sustainable aviation fuel, SAF, to safeguard the future of our growers and mills in Queensland. We're already seeing this in Bundaberg and Isis Central. Sugar mill waste is converted to sustainable aviation fuel and supplied to the Brisbane Airport. Qantas is aiming to use 10 per cent SAF in its total fuel mix by 2030.

I welcomed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's comments last week in the House. He acknowledged the need to improve Australia's self-sufficiency in liquid fuels. The logic is simple. We already grow the cane, and we already have the mills and the infrastructure in regional Queensland, so why would we keep exporting raw product overseas and losing the value-adding opportunities? Why not refine and manufacture those fuels here in Australia instead, which would create jobs, investment and a strong economic future for regional communities?

There is also a clear national security benefit. Given Australia imports more than 85 per cent of our aviation fuel, if we produced more renewable fuel here at home, we would become more self-reliant and less exposed to global supply shocks, and it would help bring back manufacturing to Queensland—something Labor doesn't just talk about; we actually do it. Supporting the sugar industry is not just about protecting a very proud Queensland crop. It's about backing regional communities, it's about building energy security and it's about bringing manufacturing back to Queensland. If we get those policy settings right, the future for regional Queensland is extremely sweet.

With energy in the spotlight, I want to talk about one of the biggest myths the Greens and the crazy lefties love to spruik. The idea that a fuel tax credit is a subsidy given to industries that they don't like is a ridiculous and misguided notion. Whenever activists say things like, 'Oil and gas receive massive government subsidies,' chances are, even if they don't know it, they are talking about fuel tax credits.

This is complete nonsense. When you buy fuel, it comes with an amount of excise included. The excise is there to pay for the use of vehicles on public roads, so what if you use the fuel in something that doesn't use a public road? You get that tax back. If fuel is being used in, say, a commercial fishing boat on the water, a tractor on the farm, generators at a mine site, excavators and dump trucks, the excise is refunded. I made my living in construction and oyster farming, and I can tell you right now: we weren't entitled to any subsidies, but we sure as hell claimed back the fuel tax credits for the excise that we overpaid at the bowser for.

The left would have you believe that the government is forking out millions of dollars for the oil and gas industry and big miners. The truth is that this is the equivalent of someone receiving a tax refund at the end of the year because they paid tax that they shouldn't have. This issue doesn't just affect the big end of town. Thousands of farmers, builders and small businesses also rely on these credits. Are they part of this grand tax scam too?

The effort to conflate these tax refunds with the real subsidies—the real tax dollars—being forked out by this Labor government to the renewables industry is completely disingenuous. The government is paying out billions to renewable energy projects every year straight out of consolidated revenue. That isn't returning the tax they paid; it is giving these projects tax you paid. One Nation wants to see more support for our industries, for our farmers, for our regional communities and for small businesses. One Nation will see an end to your tax dollars filling the pockets of foreign owned entities and net zero zealots.

Last year, I stood here and warned the government about the very real dangers facing my constituents in the Central Highlands of Tasmania—people who fear that, without urgent action, someone in their community will die. For years, the Central Highlands has put up with patchy mobile phone and internet reception, coverage so poor it stops emergency volunteers from doing their jobs. Let's be clear: Miena might be small, but it's a major destination for Tasmanians and interstate tourists heading to the Great Lake, Cradle Mountain and other iconic natural attractions.

Why does mobile phone service matter? Because, in the Central Highlands, our emergency services depend on it. Without reliable phone and internet coverage, response times blow out and lives are put at risk. Over 100 people came to a public meeting last year to raise these exact concerns. We heard that the local police constable sleeps with her police radio on because she can't trust her mobile to receive calls. Residents told us they literally have to hike to the top of the nearest hill just to get reception.

After that meeting, I wrote to the Minister for Communications, Anika Wells, spelling out the urgency of these issues. To say her response was disappointing doesn't go far enough. Instead of providing solutions, the minister pointed the finger at the telcos, blaming their commercial decision to close the 3G network. But the truth is simple. This is an infrastructure problem, and refusing to commit to fixing it is a failure to uphold even the most basic standards like the Universal Outdoor Mobile Obligation. This was proudly spruiked by Labor as part of their re-election promises, but it seems that commitment only counts when the campaign buses are rolling.

For emergency workers and volunteers, telecommunications coverage isn't optional—it's not 'nice to have'. It's a critical tool, just as essential as a uniform, a radio or a first-aid kit, and, when your job is to respond to emergencies, seconds matter. It's time Labor treated this like the serious safety issue it is, it's time they stopped passing the buck, and it's time they delivered the basic services regional communities— (Time expired)

On Monday 16 February I had the great pleasure of joining the member for Braddon, Anne Urquhart, to open the Burnie Medicare Urgent Care Clinic. The Burnie Medicare Urgent Care Clinic now operates from 12 pm to 10 pm daily at the Burnie health hub at 16 Mooreville Road. The clinic provides a much-needed boost to local health services, and it offers convenient, bulk-billed, walk-in urgent care, making it easier for residents to access medical attention close to home when they need it most. Whether it's cuts, burns, sprains, infections or other non-urgent health matters, the UCC provides care without the need for an appointment. With extended hours, including weekends, it ensures support is available outside of typical workday times, a major benefit for busy individuals and families. The clinic's opening also helps ease pressure on Burnie's emergency department, at the North West Regional Hospital, where around 40 per cent of presentations in 2024-25 were for semi-urgent or non-urgent conditions.

I recently went out doorknocking in Park Grove to share the news with the locals about the UCC's opening, and they were absolutely thrilled to hear about the centre opening. It was so close to home for many of them that, in fact, they had been watching the construction with eagerness, aware that soon they would have free medical care almost on their doorstep. Regardless of people's politics, there was an overwhelming feeling of gratitude that they no longer had to sit in line at the hospital emergency department, and all they need is their Medicare card. Since opening, the Burnie urgent care clinic has already seen hundreds of patients, highlighting the strong community uptake of accessible bulk-billed health care.

This is just one of many urgent care clinics that we have opened in Tasmania. There's one in Devonport. In Hobart we've got two. We've got one in Launceston, in Sorell, in Kingston and in Bridgewater. This is the Labor government delivering for Australians. (Time expired)

The Albanese Labor government can no longer hide behind the paper-thin facade that this war is about protecting the people of Iran. You can't keep hiding behind glib words and meaningless lip service. Australia is at war. Labor has taken us to war. And now, as people try to escape the missiles, the toxic rain and the constant bombardment, this government is rushing to block visas, not because of any crime committed but because those visas might be used by people to seek refuge from your illegal and immoral war. This is a cruel, racist law by a cruel and deeply hypocritical government. Labor sanctimoniously frames itself as the saviour of the Iranian women's football team while at the same time shutting the door on anyone else trying to flee death and destruction.

There are many in this chamber who cast themselves as the heroes of this war story, but what kinds of heroes sign up without question to a war that reeks of lies, imperialism and domination? What kinds of heroes line up behind egomaniac men like Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu? What kinds of heroes turn away innocent men, women and children who try to escape the chaos?

Seeking asylum is a basic human right, but, once again, Labor is shirking its moral and legal obligations, blocking refugees from the Middle East. There are no heroes in this decision, only a heartless, gutless government. Unless the Albanese government change course, history will remember them all as the villains that they are.

The biggest lie you've ever been told is that you're free. In the old days, slavery was at least honest; you could see the chains and you knew who owned you. Today, slavery is just as real but disguised so that most people don't even know that they're in chains. The World Economic Forum famously promised us the future: 'You will own nothing and you'll be happy.' Look around. It's already here.

Think about it. The next generation won't own homes; they'll rent forever. You don't own your car; you lease it. You don't own the movies or music you consume; you rent access through subscriptions. You don't own your money; it's digital credit that can vanish with a policy change. You don't own your phone; you're on a contract. You don't own your software; it's all cloud based licensed, never yours. You don't own your social media accounts—one strike and you're gone. You don't even own your own privacy. It's traded for convenience and so-called free services.

You don't own anything, and are you happy? You probably are. Ownership was once freedom. Now everything is leased, licensed, streamed and revoked at the click of a mouse. Here's the genius of it all: step out of line and the system doesn't even need to jail you; it just switches you off. Instead of iron shackles, we wear invisible ones, and debt is the modern overseer. Whereas once the plantation owner fed and clothed his slaves, now we must do that ourselves and we need to thank the system for the privilege. Slavery has never gone away, it has just been modernised to include every man, woman and child.

In a week where we reflect on International Women's Day and its theme of balancing the scales, I've felt an enormous depth of pride to be part of the labour movement that has stood at the forefront of fighting for gender equality in Australia. Of course, under the Whitlam government, no-fault divorce was introduced, tax was removed from the contraceptive pill and women were awarded equal pay for equal work. The Hawke government introduced the Sex Discrimination Act, making sexual harassment illegal and ensuring women had access to the same jobs, services and accommodation as men. Under the government of my friend Julia Gillard, Commonwealth paid parental leave was introduced, 1800RESPECT was established and the first national plan to reduce violence against women and children was introduced.

It is now our turn and our responsibility to build on these nation-changing Labor reforms. Women are at the heart of the Albanese Labor government's agenda, and that's more than evident in what we have delivered so far, including our expansion of paid parental leave to six months. Of course, we're also paying superannuation on that leave. We've expanded access to the single-parent payment, and we've made record investments to end gender based violence. We've published the gender pay gaps of big businesses in Australia for the third year in a row, with the gender pay gap now at a record low. Something I am especially proud to have fought for is our record investment in women's health, offering more choice and better health care at a lower cost. Our investment in women's health includes opening 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics across Australia. It includes new contraceptives and MHT on the PBS for the first time in decades and the introduction of Medicare funded menopause health assessments. It is no coincidence that this comes at a time where we have the first majority-woman government in our history. The labour movement and the Labor Party have always delivered for women, and we always will.

Do you think that politicians should be able to train lobbyists how to lobby? Do you think it's right that there are over 2,200 people with access to Parliament House—the people's house—and no-one knows who they are, whose interests they represent or who gave them that access? Do you think the Parliament Sports Club should be selling access to politicians to people from industries like the gambling industry? Do you think taxpayers should be on the hook for ministers to travel to Melbourne or Sydney for meetings that just happened to coincide with lush dinners with lobbyists in exchange for a cash gift, a gift which was conveniently removed from counting as a donation in Labor's stitch-up of an election reform bill? Do you think ministers should be able to put their mates into plum jobs? All of these things are happening right now.

Currently, we have a system made up of guidance documents and voluntary codes that gives the appearance of doing something but in reality doesn't do enough. For the last four years, the crossbench have been asking the government, on behalf of the people that we represent, to work with us to make reforms to clean up this system to help restore trust in our democracy. Dr Sophie Scamps has introduced a bill to end the culture of jobs for mates in government. Dr Monique Ryan and I have introduced bills to regulate lobbying activities in this place. Zali Steggall and I have been working on truth in political advertising. Dr Helen Haines has been working on ending pork barrelling. Senator Barbara Pocock has been working on cleaning up consultancies and conflicts of interest. The entire crossbench has been pushing, but, unfortunately, the Albanese Labor government has been unwilling to act on most of these things. Australians deserve to know who is accessing their house. (Time expired)

Today I would like to speak about land theft and how it continues to this very day. The ongoing theft and exploitation of our land should worry everyone who believes in justice and self-determination for First Peoples. Connecting to and protecting country is our birthright and a cultural responsibility for us as First Peoples.

Right now, the Albanese government is preparing to sell off Defence land—land that was already stolen from First Peoples to meet so-called current and future capability needs. Long before our lands became military bases and training grounds, they were places of ceremony, connection, song, dance and culture for over 500 clan groups with over 250 languages and dialects, with their own law and governance, spiritual beliefs and kinship systems. Defence is calculating its profit from this defence estate sale to be $1.8 billion and is planning to put this profit into ADF capability. Our land is being stolen all over again, with the profits intended to feed the war machine. We do not consent.

In this whole process, consultation with traditional owners is being bypassed or is, at best, a procedural tick-a-box. There is no free, prior and informed consent. Even when the government goes out there to conduct so-called consultation, there is no final say for our people over what happens next to their land. This is the opposite of self-determination, Labor. And—no surprise here—not once was consideration given to land back. Not once was it considered that the land stolen from us should be given back to us or at least be used to benefit our people. This is the continuation of dispossession and oppression of our people and of the genocide and ecocide occurring on these lands.

Australia is facing the most uncertain strategic environment since the end of the Second World War, and, in times like these, the first duty of government is simple: protect the nation and ensure it can defend itself. And that requires fuel. Modern defence runs on fuel—our ships, our aircraft, our armoured vehicles and our logistics networks all depend on petrol, diesel and aviation fuel. If supply fails, capability fails. Yet, while this vulnerability grows, Labor has spent years focused on its ideological net zero transition, with even the Department of Defence declaring climate change as one of our greatest threats. Australia imports around 90 per cent of its fuel, and, according to the energy minister, we hold just 36 days of petrol and 34 days of diesel in reserve. The International Energy Agency expects advanced economies to maintain at least 90 days of emergency fuel stocks, and Australia is not even close to that standard. While Labor lectures Australia about net zero targets, our strategic fuel resilience has been allowed to fall to dangerous levels, and pressure is already emerging in the real economy.

Farmers report only receiving portions of the diesel that they have ordered, with no certainty around when the next delivery will arrive. Diesel shortages do not remain on farms. Freight, mining, agriculture and food distribution all depend on it, and, when supply is disrupted, the effects move rapidly throughout the entire economy. When systems fail, people do not run out to buy solar panels or batteries, because the trucks that move food and the machinery that produces it are all vehicles that rely on petrol and diesel. Energy policy cannot be built on ideology; it must be built on reliability, affordability and sovereign capability. Labor must start treating it that way. Australia must abandon net zero and expand— (Time expired)

As a former party official, I have been part of my fair share of election reviews, and so I thought today I'd share some recommendations from one I've read recently. It just happened to come across my desk. The 2025 federal Liberal campaign 'is widely considered to be the worst campaign the party has ever fought'. Their leader was seen as 'lacking connection with women and younger voters'. 'Incoherent' was their campaign. Their policies were 'mistimed and alienating' and 'confused and short term'. Their 'comprehensive nuclear policy'—their energy policy—was 'deeply unpopular with women'. It also said:

Women in all the age and socio-economic demographics predominantly voted for non-Liberal parties.

And yet have the Liberal Party learnt their lesson from the failures of that election? I think we heard in the previous senator's contribution that they have not. Instead of being focused on what matters to Australians, they are too busy running a scare campaign on Australians on fuel in a time of national crisis. Have they learnt their lesson? No. They're still talking about a nuclear energy plan which the Australian people comprehensively rejected at the last election. They still won't set quotas for women in their parliamentary party. They ditched their first ever female leader. They are still the very same old Liberals that we all know.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The government says that it has detailed information showing Australia has strong fuel supplies, but participants in Australia's fishing industry tell us the only diesel they have is what is left in their boats when they get back from sea. Minister, if supplies are so strong, where is the diesel for these fishing boats?

Opposition senators interjecting—

If it was asked seriously, there wouldn't be the level of interjections that there always is on this subject. Let me just state very, very plainly what the position is in terms of national fuel supplies. Then I will come to the example that Senator Colbeck has raised, which reflects the experience of not just the example that he raised but some parts of regional Australia. At the national level, there is in terms of petrol supplies 1.56 billion litres of petrol on hand here in Australia. Eighty per cent of it is on land and around 20 per cent of it is on the water between refineries and ports within our exclusive economic zone. There's 32 days worth of diesel—2.97 billion litres. Those numbers have not fundamentally changed since the conflict in the Middle East began. That reflects what the petroleum sector and others have been communicating directly with the minister about since the Middle East conflict began—that ship arrivals have happened exactly as expected. We're watching very closely the movements of ships towards Australia, and they are happening in an orderly, predictable way.

That does not mean that there hasn't been some unusual purchasing behaviour in some areas reported to us. I think I'll have to come to it in answer to the supplementary question, Senator Colbeck, which I'm sure will follow the same line of— (Time expired)

Senator Colbeck, first supplementary?

Minister, I would prefer if you just answered the question. Has the government identified any evidence of hoarding, bottlenecks or supply being held by major suppliers in particular supply chains? If not, why has it failed to work out why fuel is not reaching the Australians who need it?

As I was indicating, there has been a spike in purchases. The President of the National Farmers' Federation said: 'There has been an increasing demand, around 40 per cent, right across the nation.' That's his words. He said, 'Everyone across the economy is forward buying more than they usually do.' Peter Jones, the CEO of the Victorian Automotive Chamber of Commerce, said: 'What I would say is that there is plenty of fuel in the country; the issue is demand—

President, I raise a point of order on direct relevance. My question goes to this particular cohort who are wanting to understand where the fuel that the government says is in the country actually is. The simple question is: where is it and why isn't it making it through the supply chain?

The minister is being directly relevant. You asked the minister about bottlenecks, hoarding and supply chains, so I think he is being directly relevant to your question.

I'm talking precisely, Senator Colbeck, in evidentiary terms, on what it is that industry, people who are engaged in driving trucks, people in the fishing industry and people who are supplying petroleum are saying. Spikes in demand have created some constraints in some regional parts of Australia. Overall, in fuel security terms, we are stronger than we have been for 15 years.

Senator Colbeck, second supplementary?

Given that the fishing industry weren't even invited to the round table, I'm not sure he understands what the fishing industry thinks. Minister, if the fuel stocks are as strong as the government claims, what has the government told suppliers to do to get that fuel to fishing boats, service stations, farmers and regional communities immediately?

One of the things that we had a good discussion about was Minister Bowen undertaking to make sure that the kind of information that I have relayed to you, which is released on a quarterly basis by the Australian government, and that we have been relaying to you on a daily basis will be released in a public way every week so that industry can see in a completely transparent way what is going on in supply terms. That ought to be useful in terms of how purchasing behaviour is shaped over the coming weeks and months. I hope this crisis ends tomorrow. It may continue for some weeks or months. We are going to have to manage these issues in a careful way. Industry has undertaken to make sure that they are communicating effectively with the community, and we will work together as Australians—farmers, fertiliser, fishing, fuel, everybody together—to get the right national outcome.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The conflict in the Middle East continues, with ongoing disruptions for travel for more than 100,000 Australians in the region. Can you tell us what the Albanese Labor government is doing to support Australians impacted by the conflict.

I thank Senator Cox for that question. Before I turn to it, could I take the indulgence of welcoming the four Pacific fellows sitting in the press gallery, who have been supported to visit Australia by the Australian government through the Australia Awards Fellowships program. They are from Fiji, PNG and Vanuatu. Welcome to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

In relation to your question, Senator Cox, I can inform the Senate that Iran's reprisal attacks continue at a scale and depth that we have not seen before. At least nine cities in which we have Australian embassies and consulates have experienced missile and drone attacks. Our missions in Abu Dhabi, Dubai and Tel Aviv have all had to physically close in the last week. We urge Australians to follow advice on Smartraveller, including where we recommend not attending these missions or surrounding areas. The government's No. 1 priority is to keep Australians safe at home and abroad. The dangerous and destabilising attacks by Iran put civilian lives at risk, including Australian lives, and we continue to support Australians affected as limited commercial flights resume and we expand consular efforts.

As of today, more than 3,200 Australians have returned on 23 commercial flights. There will be further scheduled services in coming days. Commercial flights remain the fastest option for Australians to leave the Middle East. Major airlines have extended their refund and rebooking windows to assist passengers whose flights have been impacted. We encourage all Australians to leave the region if possible. Please take a seat on a commercial flight if one is available. It may be the last chance for some time. This conflict is likely to intensify and continue in the near term. Our message to Australians is: do not wait until it is too late. Leave now while commercial flights are available.

Senator Cox, first supplementary?

In recent days, we've also seen an escalation of conflict in Lebanon. Minister, what is the Albanese Labor government's response and what is the advice for Australians in Lebanon?

As I have said, Australia is deeply concerned by the expansion of the conflict into Lebanon, the loss of life and the displacement of more than 750,000 civilians. This is exacerbating the humanitarian situation in Lebanon. Australia condemns Hezbollah's strikes on Israel, and we support Lebanon's efforts to disarm Hezbollah in line with previous agreements. I have been clear for some days that we do not wish to see Israel conduct a major ground offensive in Lebanon. We also welcome the emergency debate in the Security Council taking place later today. We call on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians. To the some 15,000 Australians in Lebanon, we urge you to leave now if it is safe to do so. Repeating my earlier messages, if you can secure a commercial flight and travel to the airport safely, please do so before it is too late.

Senator Cox, second supplementary?

The conflict in the Middle East is also causing economic disruption around the world. Can you please provide an update to the chamber on the Albanese Labor government's work to safeguard Australia's fuel supply?

We understand Australians are concerned about access to fuel. We are not immune to the effect of oil prices on the global economy. As Minister Ayres said, petrol companies are telling us that fuel stock continues to arrive as expected and on time, but there has been a large change in the pattern of demand, and that is having an effect on the supply, particularly in regional communities. We've seen jerry cans coming off the shelves at Bunnings and lines at the pump.

The government has been clear that retailers should not use this period as an opportunity for price gouging. The National Farmers' Federation, Fertilizer Australia, the petroleum industry and the peak group of service stations told Minister Bowen yesterday that we needed to encourage Australians not to panic buy. Yet what we see from the coalition, from Senators Cash and Canavan this morning and again from Senator Colbeck, is really nothing short of irresponsible—winding up people and stoking fear. I demonstrates—

Opposition senators interjecting—

You won't listen to the NFF. Where are the responsible adults on that side?

The time for answering has expired. Senator Canavan, first of all, congratulations on your election. We'll go to your question.

Thank you, Madam President, for those congratulations. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Ripple Creek Transport, a Townsville based business, has reported being hit with a 60 per cent increase in fuel prices. Many truckies cannot pass on these costs, and they then have to suffer with the higher costs of doing business. What practical action has the government taken to protect Ripple Creek Transport from fuel price gouging?

Thank you, Senator Canavan, and congratulations as well for this morning's elevation. I can tell you that, alongside the measures that have been undertaken by this government in the long term—that is, engaging the fuel security measures that you and I have discussed over the last few days—we announced, just a little while ago, that the government will double penalties for false or misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, to a maximum of $100 million per offence for that kind of conduct, across the economy. We've tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel monitoring, reporting weekly with a focus on unusual price spikes.

As consumers will see, petrol stations have moved very fast to adjust for increases in prices for international crude oil. I want to make sure that those price rises are consistent with their obligations, but I also want to see price falls occur when and if international crude prices fall. We're working with industry to increase fuel supply to service stations, including by helping the fuel sector secure ACCC authorisation to coordinate supply and to unlock bottlenecks, removing that constraint in relation to that kind of activity. Those measures are in addition to the substantial action that we've already taken on fuel prices.

Different tone from yesterday, isn't it!

Well, it's a better question, Senator McKenzie. It's a better question. I have been talking to industry, and to—

Opposition senators interjecting—

He'll get another go— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

FlyPelican airline has been advised by their fuel supplier that their fuel costs will be going up 70c a litre effective immediately. Such an increase, if able to be passed on, would force airline ticket costs up by $30 to $40 a passenger. Again, what practical action has the government taken over the past week to protect regional airline passengers from price spikes due to fuel gouging?

It's certainly the case that airline ticket prices in some circumstances are significantly elevated. This is an unlooked-for international crisis. Nobody wants to see what is happening in the Middle East and its impact on fuel suppliers. The measures that Australia has taken, led by the Albanese government, to impose the minimum stockholding obligations mean that today we are more fuel secure—not complacent but more fuel secure—than we have been for 15 years. The measures that I just outlined to you, taken today, on top of the other measures being taken by the government— (Time expired)

Senator Canavan, second supplementary?

Given the issues facing our trucking industry and our aviation industry, how many businesses is the ACCC currently investigating for fuel price gouging, and has the government joined with other countries overnight to ask the International Energy Agency for an emergency oil release from global stockpiles?

It is good, Senator Canavan, to see that your question indicates the National Party now understands the difference between our IEA obligations and minimum stockholding obligations. That is a good thing, because it might improve the kind of information that is being conveyed by members of the National Party, and in particular Queensland Liberal National Party MPs, to the Australian public.

Senator Canavan, on a point of order?

On relevance, there are 30 seconds left; it's a very detailed question. I think people would love to just have an answer. The minister can engage in commentary in other places, but this is to answer questions.

Thanks, Senator Canavan. I'll draw the minister—

Senator McKenzie, I'm not listening to you interject—

Senator McKenzie, I am speaking! You are being incredibly disrespectful. I'm not listening to you interject for the remainder of question time.

It can't be helped.

It can be helped. I will take your interjection. You can either sit here silently or leave the chamber. I don't want to be forced into a position where I have to name you, but that is where it's heading. Every single day, you interject for nearly the whole time. Minister Ayres, I do need you to direct your answers to the question.

I don't think it's possible for me to answer your question in relation to the number of ACCC investigations that are occurring, but if I can come back to you I will. On the IEA question, that is not something that I believe that I can report to the Senate at this stage, but more information will be provided. It is good to see you as the leader of the National Party. It is good to see Senator McKenzie as the leader of the National Party here and Senator McDonald as the deputy leader of the National Party. I just wonder what it is—the painters and dockers couldn't create a job creation scheme as elaborate as that.

Thank you, Minister Ayres.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Is Australia at war?

What I have made clear publicly when I have been asked that is that we are engaged in collective self-defence. The reason we are doing that is that we know that the gulf countries have been the subject of attacks from Iran. They are countries that have not participated in strikes against Iran, but have themselves been attacked with a barrage of missiles and drones, including civilian targets, civilian infrastructure and areas where Australians are present. From the government's perspective, our obligation, our first priority, is to do all we can to keep people safe. That is why we announced that deployment yesterday. The purpose of that deployment is to help the UAE and other gulf nations defend themselves and, in doing so, also help the Australians who are resident—

President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Are we at war?

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

I responded by being clear that we are engaged in collective self-defence with the gulf nations, and I explained why that is in our national interest and why civilians are at risk. We are working to protect civilians. I do find it passing strange. The Greens political party are entitled to be pacifists, but you do not seem to be concerned about civilian lives in gulf states, including Australians. We are not taking offensive action against—

President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was very direct, and we ask the minister to answer it.

Senator Hanson-Young, Senator Waters stood on a point of order on exactly the same matter. The minister is being relevant. I will answer your point of order in the same way. The minister is being relevant. Senator Ayres?

Just on that point of order, the question purports to be a serious question—

Senator Ayres, I have ruled on the point of order. Please resume your seat. Minister Wong, did you wish to continue?

Yes, thank you. What the government have made clear is that we are not taking offensive action against Iran and we are not deploying Australian troops on the ground in Iran. We are taking defensive actions to support our partners' efforts to keep Australians safe. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Last night on 7.30, the Minister for Defence confirmed that the US have requested that Australia deploy missiles, aircraft and personnel. How and when was that US request made, and why are we bowing to Donald Trump's demands?

This is about the safety of Australians.

I will come to that, but you also made a political assertion at the end of your question and I need to rebut that. This is about the safety of Australians. We know, as Dr Thafer from the Gulf International Forum said on Radio National today, the UAE has faced more missile and drone attacks than Israel. We have people in the UAE, so it is our obligation to help them.

Order!

I will come to that. I'm responding to the second part. If you stop interjecting, I might get to that. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

I note that was not answered at all. You are claiming that you're deploying troops to assist Australians, but you've taken no action for the thousands of Australians being attacked by Israeli bombs in Lebanon. Why the double standard? Are you waiting for Trump to tell you what to do here as well?

Senator Waters, I'll say, before I call the minister, I do want to hear her answers. I have asked on several occasions for all of you to come to order. That is what I expect.

Senator Shoebridge, you are not in a debate with me. Come to order!

We act in Australia's national interests. That is what our government does. You have heard me, each day, outline the rationale for decisions that the government has taken. We act in Australia's interests. We responded to a request. I made clear that there have been a number of requests. We also have made clear that the request to which the government is responding is a written request from the United Arab Emirates, who are under attack not because they have partaken in action against Iran but because Iran is seeking to increase the cost of conflict, attacking civilians and—

Senator, you may not consider that a problem; we do. We think attacks on civilians in the Middle East who are not part of combatant nations—

Order, Senator Allman-Payne!

and attacks in locations where there are many Australians—

You had an opportunity today to have a debate. Do you want me to answer the question, Senator Allman-Payne—because I'm trying to, but you're shouting at me. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. On Sunday we marked International Women's Day, a time to reflect on progress, celebrate achievements and recommit to advancing gender equality. This year, UN Women Australia's theme was Balance the Scales. It highlights the ongoing need to address inequality and improve outcomes for women and girls. Can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government is working to help balance the scales on gender equality, and what progress has been made to date?

I thank Senator Walker for the question and I just want to remark how proud we are to have her as a member of our Senate team—a younger woman who has joined a majority-women federal government—and we're so pleased to have her, along with all of my colleagues on this side, who, regardless of their gender, see the point of having gender equality at the centre of our economic and social policy thinking. We have done this since being elected to government, as we recognise that gender equality is good for everybody. It's good for the community. It's good for business. It's good for government.

That's why we have, since coming to government, dealt with structural barriers—barriers that in effect perpetuate gender inequality. We deal with some of those big, significant areas of inequality, like violence against women and children, where we have put significant investments but also, importantly, the policy work to underpin and guide those investments. They're areas like extending paid parental leave, which will reach 26 weeks by 2026, and paying super on that PPL, recognising that women, as primary carers coming in and out of the paid workforce, are often taking an economic hit by pursuing their unpaid caring role. We're making child care cheaper and guaranteeing at least three days of subsidised care a week so women and their families can have the choice they need about how much they work and when they work. Increasing wages in historically underpaid feminised industries, such as aged care and child care, is already making a difference, with more men seeking employment in areas like aged care. Our women's health package is for the first time investing hundreds of millions of dollars to make sure women get access to not only the treatment but the time they need to deal with some of those health issues that are specific to women.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

On Friday, the annual Status of Women Report Card was released to coincide with International Women's Day. What were the key findings of the report card, and why are updates like this such an important tool in tracking progress and driving action on gender equality?

I thank Senator Walker for that question because it is an important one. We do release the report card every year, and this year it shows that we've reached our highest score ever in the global rankings on gender equality, moving from 43rd, when we came to government, to 13th now. It also showed that there are areas like care where dads are spending more time with their children and taking up more of those caring leave arrangements, which is fantastic, including with the government scheme.

It shows that the gender pay gap is continuing to narrow. It is currently sitting at 11½ per cent, and indeed it aligns with WGEA's employer gender pay gap data, which I know Senator Canavan says is the most useless set of data that a government agency has ever collected. We don't agree with that. We think it is important data, and it has shown, year on year, that the gender pay gap has been driven down, but there are obviously areas where we still need to improve.

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

International Women's Day is a celebration of progress and an important opportunity to look ahead and recommit to taking further action on gender equality. Can the minister outline why women's voices and representation in decision-making are so important to protecting hard-won gains and driving further progress?

It was 43 years ago today, in 1983, that Susan Ryan was appointed as the first woman to serve in a Labor cabinet—long before you were born, Senator Walker, but it shows that progress has been made over time, and you are now a member of a government that is 56 per cent women and a member of a parliament that is essentially gender equal, with 49 per cent of members and senators being women. But there is more work to do. We can't accept that we've made enough progress. There is more work to do to ensure that women of Senator Walker's generation and those that follow participate in an economy and a society where equality is sought and, regardless of whether you are a boy or a girl, you get an equal opportunity at every opportunity in life.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator McAllister. Diabetes is the fastest-growing chronic condition in Australia, with prevalence quadrupling since the nineties. Not only does diabetes create significant health impacts; it also increases the risk of more than 50 other serious conditions, including heart disease and cancer, and adds further strain to an already stretched healthcare system. In Tassie, diabetes impacts two in five people under 65, with diabetes costing $190 million per year in health care in Tassie alone. This puts a massive strain on the health system, with diabetes to blame for one in six occupied hospital beds. What is the government doing to specifically reduce the burden of diabetes and its complications in those living with the condition? Will you be committing more funding in the budget?

Senator Tyrrell, the last part of your question asks me to provide an insight into what will be in the budget. I don't mean to disappoint you too much, but that won't be something I can do today; that is something you will have to wait for in the budget.

The government understands that the burden of disease in Australia and the nature of that burden is changing. It was once the case that acute presentations were almost the exclusive focus of health investment. We now, as our demographics change and as our health needs change, understand that chronic diseases like diabetes have a far more significant impact on communities that we serve, and our government understands how important the primary health system is in responding to that. These factors absolutely underpinned our decision to invest as heavily as we have in Medicare and in the role of GPs in local communities.

As your question indicates, there is a relationship between access to primary health and the demands placed on our hospital system. It's why we've made the investments we have to lift bulk-billing. When we came to government, bulk-billing was in freefall under those opposite. We are making an $8½ billion investment to lift Medicare again, to get bulk-billing back on track. In your own home state, we are starting to see the fruits of that investment. We are starting to see greater numbers of bulk-billing clinics, more opportunities for people in your communities to see a doctor and urgent care clinics that allow people to see a doctor for free. These are significant investments that are designed to support Australians across the health conditions that confront them, particularly through investments in primary care.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Way back in 2023, your government and current health minister started an inquiry into diabetes. The committee released its report in mid-2024, almost two years ago, yet we are still waiting for a government response. Where is it? Why won't you respond to an inquiry that you asked for? Why don't you care about diabetes anymore?

Senator Tyrrell, this government does care about access to primary care, and we have put our money where our mouth is through the investments that we are making in primary health care, particularly in bulk-billing. I've been really pleased to report to this Senate over many months the impact that that investment is having—seeing bulk-billing rates rise across our communities. This is really pleasing. Since October 2023 the bulk-billing rate in Tasmania has changed by 6.3 percentage points. That is very, very significant for your community. In Tasmania, 138,000 people have access to Medicare urgent care clinics. These are very significant investments, and they go to the chronic health conditions that we understand are impacting on Australian communities.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

The inquiry into diabetes recommended that subsidised access to continuous glucose monitors be further expanded, including removing the age limitations on subsidised access for type 1 diabetes patients. Will you stand up today and commit to expanding the subsidy on these vital diabetes tools?

Thanks very much, Senator Tyrrell. I concede that I do not have in front of me—I'm representing the Minister for Health and Ageing—information about that specific intervention, but I can tell you that we do take diabetes and its impacts on our communities very seriously. The report that you referred to in your first supplementary did shine a light on a very serious public health issue, and we are committing to delivering for Australians with diabetes. That has included securing the listing of Fiasp—if I have that pronunciation correct—on the PBS and delivering on our election commitment to give all 130,000 Australians with type 1 diabetes access to subsidised CGM products under the National Diabetes Services Scheme.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The government says fuel stocks remain strong and has dismissed Australians' concerns as—in your words yesterday in this chamber—'misinformation', yet Andrew Brown, the owner of a petrol station in the New England region, said he has enforced a fuel limit to ensure adequate fuel supply for the residents and to have supply left over for emergencies, stating—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Nampijinpa Price, I'm sorry. I can't hear the question. There needs to be silence. Could you start the question again. I'm very sorry.

I'm very happy to. The government says fuel stocks remain strong and has dismissed Australians' concerns as 'misinformation', yet Andrew Brown, the owner of a petrol station in the New England region, said he has enforced a fuel limit to ensure adequate fuel supply for the residents and to have supply left over for emergencies, stating:

We could have lifted our prices and been out of fuel in five days but instead we are trying to ration it for up to 15 days.

Minister, if there is no fuel supply problem, why are regional Australians being left without fuel—or is this what the government now calls misinformation?

Not that you care, Minister Watt.

Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. Order! Before I call Minister Ayres, I'm going to remind those on my right that senators have the right to have their questions asked in silence. The fact I had to ask the senator to repeat her question is not okay.

():  Well, I'm very pleased to see, Senator Nampijinpa Price, your first question, I think, since the election. I would say, as somebody who grew up in New England, that I'd be interested to know which town this person comes from. That context might not be available to you yet, but I would be interested in it. If this person that you claim exists exists, I would be interested to talk to them. I'd be interested to know which town they come from.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, resume your seat. Order on my left! I believe it was you, Senator Ruston. You need to withdraw.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

It's an area I know well. The artery that runs through it, the New England Highway, is vital for our trucking sector.

You refer to misinformation. I want to be crystal clear about this question. There are people who have been spreading mischievous misinformation, and that is why it is so important that, on this supply question—I don't doubt that there are petrol stations in regional Australia where exactly the kind of circumstances that you've outlined are the case, but there is not a supply problem in Australia. Just now, the Australian Institute of Petroleum has issued a statement which makes it very clear. There is not a supply problem in Australia; there is some unusual demand behaviour. I'm sure, in a moment, we'll get to come to that. We are in a more fuel-secure position than we have been for 15 years, and that is the result of the government applying the minimum stockholding obligations that we've actually implemented.

Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary?

Sam Clifton—this is a real human, by the way—from Tamworth based Transwest Fuels said yesterday, 'If we can't get access to any fuel by Thursday or Friday, we're looking at shutting our entire service station and network down.' Minister, is Mr Clifton spreading misinformation too, or is he simply telling Australians the truth about what is happening on the ground in regional communities such as your own, evidently?

(—) (): Mr Clifton's experience is precisely the same as what has been relayed to us here in Canberra. The Australian Institute of Petroleum issued a statement that said: 'Over the last week, member companies have been hit by a sudden rush to buy fuel. In some cases, suppliers have seen bulk fuel customers buying four times their usual amount of fuel.' But, in supply terms, we have 1.56 billion litres of petrol. We have 2.97 billion litres of diesel. And that is why it's important for Australians and Australian institutions and Australian political leaders to communicate, clearly and in the public interest, the truth and to be transparent. Spreading misinformation, as some of your colleagues have, is mischievous and not in the national interest. (Time expired)

Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary?

Minister, if there is no supply problem, why are regional service stations already running dry? Or does the government now dismiss every inconvenient fact as misinformation?

No, it's some of your colleagues' behaviour that we dismiss as misinformation. The Australian Institute of Petroleum says:

AIP members have sufficient fuel supply to meet our normal customer fuel demand.

It also says:

In these circumstances, … members have had to prioritise supply to their regular customers and cease spot sales. This is a normal response to high demand …

What we can do, if we actually care about this situation, is to continue to communicate, in an effective and clear and transparent way, the truth of the position—2.97 billion litres of diesel; 1.56 billion litres of petrol here in Australia. If everybody continues in a normal way, not spreading out there for the click and not doing the advanced clicks, then that's what's in the national interest. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation, Senator Ayres. This morning, the ABC reported that social media posts about events that never took place involving myself, Senator Hanson, the Prime Minister and other public figures were being created by foreign actors using AI to drive engagement and generate revenue. At a time when AI is being used more and more as a tool to divide and misinform, the government is backing away from regulation. The decision to abandon the AI advisory body is just one example of this. Minister, at a time when AI is causing harm without consequence, why have you abandoned the AI advisory board after investing $200,000 in a 15-month recruitment process?

The kind of conduct that you refer to—misinformation and disinformation spread often by extremist elements in Australia but sometimes originating from overseas and sometimes supercharged by the kinds of technologies that you refer to—is something, of course, that we all should fight against and that we all should be determined to oppose, because it's corrosive, in democratic terms, when people are misrepresented.

On the approach that the government has taken in relation to artificial intelligence, there are some elements of that question, of course, that relate to social media and to misinformation and disinformation. But, in relation to the artificial intelligence aspect, the approach the government is taking was set out in the national artificial intelligence plan, which I released some months ago. The first two components of that are about capturing the economic advantage here for strategic reasons as much as economic reasons and about making sure we spread the benefits through the community. The third component, on establishing the artificial intelligence safety institute, is the approach that this government is taking to regulation in relation to artificial intelligence.

Senator Payman?

On a point of relevance, I specifically asked about the AI advisory body. With the 30 seconds left, could you please redirect the minister?

There was also a preamble to that question. The minister is being relevant to your question.

We provided $29.9 million in funding to establish the institute. Existing laws, including those on workplace safety, consumer protection, privacy and copyright apply to artificial intelligence right now. They are enforced by strong regulatory agencies, and our approach is to task and build the capability of those agencies so they do that work in an uninterrupted and effective way.

Senator Payman, first supplementary?

Minister, it's not just on social media that AI threatens to disrupt the existing order. In our schools, in our universities, at the GPs and in the office, AI has changed how we work and learn. Since the disappointing removal of former minister Husic, the government has indicated it will take a light-touch approach to regulation. Why has the government discarded the work of Mr Husic on a standalone AI act?

I don't think we've used that language, 'light touch', to describe our approach. It's an effective regulatory approach. And in each of the theatres of activity that you've described there are important benefits that artificial intelligence can offer to Australians—in health terms and in productivity terms. Let's say you wanted to produce 35,000 questions on notice and you had, say, four staff to do that work. And say you thought it was going to take about 30 minutes for each question on notice. I'm more a maths kind of guy than a maths kind of guy, but my maths says that if you could do 304 questions on notice every week, it would take your office 460 weeks to produce that work, but, if you used artificial intelligence to produce 35 questions on notice at home or at work— (Time expired)

Senator Payman, second supplementary?

Minister, you're doing a great job dodging my questions; let's hope you can answer this one. Australians know that influence is power in this place, and industry giants have access to ministers. They present them with talking points and influence the decision-making of executive government. Minister, since you became the Minister for Industry and Innovation last year, on how many occasions have you met with representatives of OpenAI, Anthropic and other AI companies?

I'll say a couple of things on that. If I can assist in terms of meetings, I'd be very happy to. It's my approach to meet regularly with industry, whether it's in the smelter sector, whether it's in the artificial intelligence sector or wherever it is. My office is not a place where we hide from industry. But the implication underlying your question, I think, is utterly offensive. Just because we disagree about the approach that we take—

Senator Nampijinpa Price?

I have a point of order. The minister never directs his answers through you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. I remind the minister to direct his answers to me.

Just because those of us in this place disagree—there's an idea that there's not room for disagreement and that people can't form different views about what is in the national interest here. I happen to think that it's in the national interest to make sure that we secure as much of the technology stack here in Australia and that it's run by Australians in our national interest— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Global energy market volatility continues, driven by the war in the Middle East. In response, the Albanese Labor government is working closely with the fuel importers and retailers and the industry associations of major fuel users to protect businesses and households. Can the minister please put the facts on the record and provide an update on the domestic fuel supply and what actions the government is taking?

I guess I've had a few opportunities to canvass some of this before, so I'll try and do it in a different—

Not convincingly!

and, maybe, as Senator Cash says, more convincing kind of way. The National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee has already met twice and been very clear that there is no shortage of supply.

We've had two meetings—huge!

Senator McKenzie, I'm warning you.

Australia has 1.56 billion litres of petrol on hand, 802 million litres of jet fuel on hand, 2.97 billion litres of diesel on hand—

Senator Colbeck says, 'Where?' Well, not in Texas but here in Australia. This is above—

Senator Wong?

I'm sure he doesn't need assistance, but it was somewhat loud. Point of order: I wonder if we could at least tone the interjections down a little, in terms of volume and repetition.

I'm sure you've noticed, Senator Wong, that for almost the last hour I have been calling fairly consistently for order, but I would ask those on my left to come to order once again. The minister has the right to respond to the question in silence. Minister Ayres, please continue.

Of course, Minister Bowen's work has been ongoing through this process. Yesterday, as was publicly canvassed, we met with the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Trucking Association, Fertilizer Australia, the peak group of service stations and the Australian Institute of Petroleum. We are going to continue with an approach that is about Australians working together to deliver in the national interest, off the back of this government not just talking about but implementing the minimum stockholding obligations and the country performing at a higher level. We are very focused on these issues, but not complacent. As the announcement that came just before question time and I relayed earlier makes very clear, we are increasing penalties, focused on working with the regulators, and we're going to be working through this in a consistent and disciplined way.

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Minister, Australia holds more than its minimum stockholding obligations for petrol, diesel and jet fuel. However, some retailers are rationing purchases. Why are some buyers being rationed, and what are buyers and retailers saying about the state of the fuel market?

Thank you, Senator Polley. Where there is this rationing behaviour from some petroleum retailers, it is because of a spike in purchases. As I relayed, the Australian Institute of Petroleum said:

AIP members have sufficient fuel supply to meet our normal customer fuel demand.

There are some people in our political system who want to seek political profit from a national challenge. Our approach is to act in the national interest, to continue to build our fuel security and to continue to communicate in a reliable and transparent way. Their focus is to try to hype up the misinformation machine and hope to get a political result. Will they ever learn? (Time expired)

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

Australia has two petrol refineries, down from six in 2014. Minister, why did these refineries close, and would different government policies on oil extraction have kept these refineries open?

As reluctant as I am to reflect on the performance of the previous government, the previous government neglected the national interest. They wouldn't recognise the national interest if it bit them. Senator Canavan was a minister in that government—

Order, Senator McGrath!

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I have had to call you to order an extraordinarily high number of times this question time, and almost as many times, Senator O'Sullivan, you have been backing in the disorder. I will ask you to listen in silence to the minister's comments. Minister, please continue.

Senator McGrath is usually funnier! Senator Canavan was a minister in that government. Now he's embarrassed and says that, if the states allowed more oil drilling, these refineries would not have closed. He is dead wrong. Geoscience Australia said Australia has limited conventional oil reserves that are being depleted at a faster rate than they are being replaced by new discoveries. As the new leader of the National Party, perhaps he could pick up the phone to the deputy leader of the National Party in the Senate, who sits diagonally opposite him, alongside the leader of the National Party in the Senate, because Senator McDonald does pay attention to some of these facts, rather than making up alternative facts— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Fuel distributor Gretta Barton from Bartranz Petroleum says the wholesale fuel price spikes following the Middle East conflict are the worst she has seen in 30 years times by 100. She says her company would normally distribute around one million litres of fuel a week but can now collect just 50,000 litres a day. Minister, is Ms Barton telling the truth about the crisis on the ground, or is this government's response to her, 'It's enough from you, I reckon'?

The answer to that question is, firstly, that the Australian Institute of Petroleum says—and I'm not sure whether this facility is a member of that organisation or not—that in some areas:

The rush to buy fuel has been unprecedented, outstripping the surge seen at the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war in 2022.

So consumer behaviour here is different. But, in supply terms, those figures that I outlined to the Senate earlier have fundamentally not changed over the course of the conflict. They are about the same. That is because ships have been arriving as predicted. Ships are on the water to Australia as predicted. We are obviously watching those developments closely. But it is not correct to go around saying that Australia has a supply challenge, because that is just not true.

In terms of price, just as I say a national challenge is not an opportunity for political partisanship and political profiteering, it is not an opportunity for price gouging and price profiteering either. That is why we've announced the doubling of penalties for false or misleading conduct and cartel behaviour to a maximum of $100 million per offence across the economy. That's why the ACCC has been tasked to ramp up fuel price monitoring and report weekly, with a focus on unusual price spikes. I won't go to the next bit, because I won't finish it and I'll hear— (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, first supplementary?

Minister, Australians are interested in the truth. Ms Barton warns trucks are already being parked and that, if shortages continue, people are going to be completely out of fuel. Does the government accept that fuel shortages are already forcing transport operators and businesses across Australia to shut down?

That is the contrast between your political party and the government. Whenever there has been a national challenge over the course of the last few years, the focus of the Nationals, the Liberals and One Nation has been to hyperventilate, drive division, shout at people—

Senator Henderson?

President, it's a point of order on direct relevance. Could you ask the minister to please be directly relevant to the question I asked, which was all about—

Thank you, Senator Henderson; I don't need the question repeated. I have written down the key points. Minister Ayres, could you direct your response to the question, please.

I'm referring to the kinds of communications that make a difference at a time of national challenge like this. The approach of those opposite has been to spread division, anger and rancour—

President, I've a point of order on direct relevance. I did ask about whether fuel shortages are already forcing—

Senator Henderson, as I've said—

transport operators—

Senator Henderson! We've been down this road before.

Yes, but the minister did not address the question.

When I call you, I expect you to stop. You don't need to repeat the question. As I said when you stood last time, the minister is now being relevant. I will continue to listen closely to his response.

It goes in a cycle—national challenge, National Party and Liberal Party division, fear, anger and extremism, and then Australians walk away from them. It goes national challenge, anger, fear and political extremism, and then more Australians walk away from them. It happens again and again, and they get smaller and smaller. (Time expired)

Senator Henderson, second supplementary?

Minister, Australians expect you to answer the question. Ms Barton says farmers could lose entire crops and that piggeries could lose livestock if generators run out of fuel, warning the maths just doesn't work. Will the government stop denying reality and admit Australian industries now face devastating losses because they cannot get the fuel they need? Please answer the question, Minister.

Yesterday I spoke with the President of the National Farmers' Federation in the meeting that Minister Bowen convened. He's a real farmer, not a fake farmer. What he said—

Senator Ayres, please resume your seat.

You've insulted every farmer!

He's not like the fake farmers over there. He is a real farmer, not a fake farmer like that lot over there.

Minister Ayres and Senator Cash, order! I remind you, Senator Ayres, when I ask you to sit, that's what I expect.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Senator Henderson?

I have a point of order on impugning another senator in this place. Seriously, Minister, that's a joke.

Senator Henderson! The chamber needs to come to order. I don't believe the minister was making a direct comment to anyone. I will ask that, if he was, he withdraw, but I believe it was just a general comment.

I was referring to the National Party. The NFF president—

Senator Ayres, in the interests of the chamber, I ask you to refrain from doing that and just answer the question.

The National Farmers' Federation president, Mr McIntyre, said:

… there's been increased demand of about 40 per cent right across the nation … Everyone across the economy … has been forward buying more than they usually do.

What should we do in response to that? Well, one approach is to go and yell at people and tell them there's a supply problem when you know it's not true. The other approach is to communicate directly and transparently in the way that I have done about the amount of petrol and diesel and jet fuel that there is here in Australia: more than there has been for 15 years. (Time expired)

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

I wish to add to an answer that I provided on Thursday 5 March to Senator Ruston in relation to proton beam therapy. I indicated I'd return to the chamber if I had more information to provide.

Senator Ruston sought information about paediatric access to the Medical Treatment Overseas Program. This program helps approved Australians who have a life-threatening medical condition access life-saving treatment overseas where treatment is not available in Australia, such as proton beam therapy. The MTOP program requires a medical assessment to be undertaken against established eligibility criteria to determine whether an application will be supported. The assessment will consider whether the therapy—in this example, proton beam therapy—provides significant improvement in health outcomes compared to any alternative treatment available in Australia, such as photon radiation. Where applications are not approved, it is usually because photon radiation will provide equivalent outcomes for the individual patient.

Between 1 July 2021 and 20 June 2025, 112 applications were considered by MTOP. Of these, 91 were approved and 21 were not approved. The department has worked with the sector to streamline the process for MTOP applications for proton beam therapy. From 20 August 2025, a photon versus proton comparative plan is no longer required for some paediatric and young adult patients, supporting these patients to access PBT treatment more quickly.

by leave—I table two articles relating directly to my questions to Minister Ayres.

I move:

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

I rise to respond to answers to questions. Labor, it's hard to believe you can think it's feasible that, when the pump is dry and when fuel is rationed, there is not a supply issue. When last in government, the coalition implemented a comprehensive fuel security package which included the establishment of a domestic fuel reserve through a minimum stockholding obligation, which safeguarded key transport fuel stocks at a baseline level, with a 40 per cent increase in diesel stock holdings from mid-2024; delivered support to ensure Australia's long-term refining capabilities through the fuel security services payment; and established a diesel storage program.

The coalition has written to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy seeking assurances the government has access to up-to-date data on Australia's fuel stocks and an explanation of the strategy in place to ensure adequate fuel supplies. Despite the government claiming there is plenty of fuel supply in the country, there are reports that wholesalers have begun rationing petrol and diesel and some transport companies have been cut out from bulk supplies and forced to purchase fuel at higher retail prices.

In South Australia, three days ago, people were pulling up to bowsers to be let down not just at the pump but by this Labor government—flat-footed, incapable of recognising risk and even less capable of responding to it. They were met with '20 litres of fuel only due to fuel shortage' signs on the bowsers. Another says that it's $200 for those seeking to fill up tanks. Another quote is: 'Sorry, out of order'—let alone $2.23 per litre for petrol and above $2 per litre for diesel. The list goes on. In fact, you only have to look at a fuel app right now to see that, in Canberra, fuel is $2.40. In Darwin, it's $2 45. It's $2.60 in Alice Springs, $2.50 in Adelaide and $2.60 in Port Augusta. It's not just a supply issue; it's also a cost issue, and Australians deserve better answers than the ones we heard today. For tradies, truckies and everyday Australians, the reality, for them, is that the fuel's not flowing—not on the weekend, not yesterday, not today. They need the wheels to go 'round, not your round table.

The coalition has requested an urgent briefing on the current situation. The coalition has asked why the government's publicly reported petroleum stockholding data has not been updated since December 2025 and whether the department is providing the government with daily updates on fuel stock levels across the country. The letter also seeks advice on what action the government is taking to identify industries at serious risk of fuel shortages, including transport, agriculture, manufacturing, mining and fisheries. What steps are you taking to protect those sectors? Angus Taylor, as energy minister, stepped in to save Australia's last two refineries and legislated the Fuel Security Act to ensure that governments had the powers to prepare for exactly this kind of crisis. The issue today is not whether the government had the tools; it is whether it had the judgement to use them. The buck stops with the energy minister and the Prime Minister.

It is on the government. With all the information it tells us it has at its disposal and all the horsepower of the public service, which we know is growing bigger and bigger, they could have ensured Australia had adequate supplies of fuel. You could have ensured that the risk that the conflict in the Middle East posed was able to be responded to. Last week, we sat in here and I watched five ministers cross the floor over and over again. They shouldn't have been in here; they should have been working out what was going to happen in Australia within their portfolios, given the conflict in the Middle East. But, instead, they were crossing the chamber over and over again in here. We know the Albanese government will not and cannot protect our way of life or restore our standard of living. They're not prepared for it nor are they capable of it.

I rise to address the many questions regarding fuel security that those opposite have sought to prosecute this week. Our government is trying to protect fuel security, while we've got those opposite trying to turn the servo into the toilet paper aisle from 2020. This government's job is to keep Australia moving. The opposition seems to think being the panic-buyer rizzler of the news cycle is somehow economic policy. The government is trying to keep Australia's fuel secure and the economy snatched. The coalition is out here posting panic-buying content and wondering why everyone's filling jerry cans. Moments like this demand national unity, but we've seen nothing like that from those opposite. We all know that you're really desperate for your social media clips, so desperate that you'll seek to run a scare campaign on fuel supply.

I think this is wild behaviour from those who claim to care about supply chains. Barnaby Joyce has said that Australia's fuel supply has been made vulnerable because of Labor's climate policies—high-key embarrassing to be so wrong about two policies in the same sentence. Anyway, I digress. Hearing senators and MPs talk about the crisis in the Middle East, which is experiencing a devastating conflict across the whole region, and use it as an excuse to whinge about climate policies in Australia gives me the ick to the highest degree.

Our ministers are in constant contact with fuel suppliers daily to ensure supplies of diesel and other fuel are delivered to retailers. Petrol companies are telling us that their fuel stock continues to arrive on time and in the quantities that they expect. We're also hearing that in some places about a month's worth of fuel is being sold in a couple of days. Jerry cans of fuel are being put on Facebook Marketplace. Bunnings even reckon they're running out of jerry cans. As Minister Ayres mentioned earlier, the government has been in contact with the ACCC to also make sure that everyday Australians aren't being price-gouged at the bowser. We have as much fuel coming through the ports as was coming in before this began. Those opposite know this but choose to ignore it because it simply suits their agenda.

Of course it's important to acknowledge all of the stories that are coming in from across the country at the moment. As someone who grew up in the regions, I understand the fears and the concerns facing our community. I want to urge people in the metro areas in Australia not to panic. There is enough petrol for all of us. However, if you are trying to stockpile, this will hurt regional and remote Australians.

We all know that the coalition is truly, truly broken, but to seek to take advantage of the situation that we're in for political gain is a real shame. Those opposite need to understand, in relation to the words that we use in this place, that people listen to what we say. We have a responsibility to provide facts to the community, not to play into misinformation.

It's ironic that those opposite raise this not only in the context of fuel security but also in the context of cost of living. I'm aware that those opposite aren't too keen on practical things to actually help everyday Australians with cost of living. We can't forget they're the ones who took higher taxes to the last election. It was really good to have a read of their federal election review as well. To those opposite who haven't had a chance to read the election review: I'd really encourage you to do so. It's a great read.

I should also remind those opposite that Angus Taylor, the then energy minister, stored our fuel reserves in Texas. It was our government that actually changed the law to make sure it was kept onshore for when we needed it. But it's nice to see that—perhaps after reading the election review—Senator Duniam said on 2CC that we only have two refineries in Australia because of legislation passed under the former coalition government.

We are not experiencing a fuel shortage; we are experiencing a localised disruption due to a significant spike in demand. People who are panic-buying must stop. At the end of the day, it's hurting our farmers and it's hurting those who put food on our tables. A petrol station manager from my home state, in Mount Gambier down in the south-east, has said that panic buying is creating unnecessary pressure on fuel supplies and collegiate shortages that don't actually exist. They have suggested that people stay calm and buy as usual.

Everyone knows that the answer to this question is no: is your life better off under Labor? The answer is no—higher energy prices, fewer houses, higher inflation, falling living standards, a trillion dollars worth of debt and higher interest rates. Unfortunately for Australian families and businesses, bad is about to get worse. The discussion today about fuel security is today's challenge—today's crisis—but it will lead to the challenge of tomorrow and next week and next month: rising inflation and rising interest rates. So the precarious situation we are in today is not just for a brief moment; it is for a long time. Higher petrol prices lead to higher inflation, which leads to higher interest rates, and Australian families and businesses will pay for it.

You don't have to believe coalition senators. Listen to what the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia has said today and listen to what the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia was saying on the eve of this Middle East conflict. The Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank has said today that fuel prices will lead to inflation being above the 4.2 per cent that the RBA has already forecast. A crisis in fuel and a lack of preparedness on the government's part are pushing up fuel prices that will put inflation beyond the RBA's forecast. Interest rates will lead to higher pain for Australian businesses and families. The government has left Australians and the economy dangerously unprepared. The deputy governor said that rising inflation is 'toxic' and that high inflation is 'bad for everyone'.

Before the Middle East conflict, the government had let inflation run out of control in this country because it was lazy about restraining government spending. Unfortunately, 2026 is going to be a very difficult year for Australian families. The Governor of the RBA herself said, on the eve of this Middle East conflict:

High inflation imposes real costs on people and the economy. It puts pressure on household budgets, which means people need to spend more time searching for the lowest prices and working out how to make ends meet.

That's the Governor of the Reserve Bank. She also said:

High inflation also makes it harder for businesses to plan.

She said that, when businesses have to spend more time managing rising costs, they have less time to plan how they can grow their business and how they can find productivity improvements.

Today the conversation has been about petrol prices. Next week and next month the discussion will be about higher inflation and higher interest rates because the government has failed for four years to be responsible—to restrain government spending in order to keep a lid on inflation and a lid on interest rates. I started with a question: is your life better under Labor? The answer today is no, and the answer tomorrow and next week and next month will also be no. (Time expired)

Just for the record, I should say—Senator Smith mentioned inflation—that, when Labor first came into office after the 2022 election, let's not forget that those opposite had an inflation rate of 7.8 per cent. After we came in, it was down to 6.1 per cent, and then, by the end of 2024, two years after, the hard work of both Senator Gallagher as Minister for Finance and Treasurer Jim Chalmers in the other place managed to get inflation down to 2.1 per cent, and that is a fact. That is a fact.

It is another fact that the now opposition leader, Mr Taylor, when he was the energy minister, made arrangements that he put in law to have our fuel reserves in Texas, over in the United States of America—not a Texas here in Australia but overseas. When we came into government, we made sure we changed those rules and changed those regulations to make sure that more of that fuel was actually stored onshore here in Australia. In case the worst ever happened, we would have enough in the supply chain domestically before we would have to call on our other reserves over in the United States.

But we understand that people are feeling uncertainty now and feeling very worried about it. That's just human nature. We get that. But the government have listened, and we are making it very clear that we want to reassure them, not scare them like those opposite.

Our nation's fuel reserves are secure. We are above our minimum domestic fuel obligations, and our reserves are stored here in Australia. We're also fuel secure because the government has acted since it was elected back in 2022—and thank God for that. The government has also been very clear that the international crisis we are seeing right now is not one where businesses are seeing a commercial opportunity to raise the cost of petrol but one impacted by what is happening over in the Middle East.

It is also worth mentioning and putting on the record that we have—this is the domestic reserves—36 days of petrol, 29 days of jet fuel and 32 days of diesel. That's a lot more than when those opposite were in government. This shouldn't be a competition, quite frankly, because the people in the gallery and people listening today are sick and tired of the politics that are being played out, and sick and tired of some in this place trying to scare the bejeezus out of people, who are now rushing to petrol stations around their suburbs and their townships both in metropolitan and regional parts of Australia trying to get fuel supply—and I don't blame them, because they are listening to information that they shouldn't be listening to. This fact is true: we do not have a fuel shortage in this country. There is enough fuel in Australia. When we went through COVID, people were panicked—and rightly so—but there was enough in the supply chain to make sure that we had essential goods for people so that they could continue to feed their families.

Petrol companies have informed us that fuel stocks continue to arrive in Australia on time—and, they are also saying, in the quantities they expect. It's also clear that there have been some impacts on the supply chain, but, again, unfortunately, it goes to some of the scaremongering we are seeing. The National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee, which brings all the states together, has already met twice now, as an information-sharing forum, and has considered that there is no shortage of supply.

As Minister Ayres also mentioned in question time—and I want to repeat this—the government is now doubling penalties for any misleading conduct in the fuel market, with fines increasing to as much as $100 million for serious breaches. We're putting petrol companies on notice. These are stronger penalties that send a very clear message that misleading Australians or exploiting uncertainty will have very serious consequences. The government is also ramping up surveillance of suspicious price spikes to ensure that companies can't take advantage of global events to drive up prices unfairly.

I stand here and I'm confused by the comments that come from the other side of the chamber, as if there is a suggestion that those on this side of the chamber are driving some form of misinformation in relation to fuel shortages and fuel price increases. The reality is that, when we've asked these questions of the minister about what is occurring, there's been reference to misinformation and panic buying. Why has this occurred? The panic buying is occurring because Australians don't have clear guidance from government. We have asked questions.

I listened in silence. Deputy President, I expect to be heard in silence as well.

Order in the chamber.

When we ask questions around why the government isn't acting as it should and whether it has identified evidence of hoarding or bottlenecks or supply being withheld, there's prevarication. The reality is that there is evidence of that. People are coming to us and telling us about that. There are people who need fuel for their businesses, for their farms and for their vehicles, and they're not able to get it. Pointing the finger at somebody else isn't the appropriate way to manage the situation at hand.

Minister Ayres talked about how purchasing behaviour has changed—people are buying more, and it's shaped by what's occurred in the last few weeks. It's incumbent upon the government, the Prime Minister and the Energy Minister, Chris Bowen, to actually stand up and say: 'It's okay. We have this under control. We have sufficient supplies of petrol, of diesel and of aviation fuel for Australia's needs. We have sufficient supply of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel to ensure that our supply chain remains intact.' But we haven't had those answers, and that's why people are worried. That's why people are concerned.

Not everybody lives in a city. Not everybody goes to an office job and can jump on public transport or is fortunate enough to walk to work or to school. There are some people who have to use their vehicles in order to be able to effectively run their businesses or get to work, and they want to be certain that there is a stable supply of fuel in our country. When Senator Canavan asked questions around Pelican Airlines and Ripple Creek Transport and Senator Nampijinpa Price asked questions about a petrol station in the New England region, instead of being answered genuinely, those questions were answered with disdain. It was questioned if the petrol station actually exists. It does exist. Australians are telling us about their experiences.

The purpose of this chamber, and particularly of question time, is for us to ask those questions of government. It's not disdainful for us to ask that. It's not misinformation if we ask a question based on information that we've received. It is incumbent upon the government to answer those questions. That's the purpose of this very chamber. To be insulted because you asked a question about something that might be uncomfortable most properly reflects the problems that the government has in managing the economy and in managing the serious issues that we have at hand at the moment.

One of the other things that really interested me was that, in an answer to Senator Canavan, Minister Ayres talked about the minimum stockholding obligations—which, indeed, the coalition put in place—and 'other measures', but he didn't tell what us a single one of those measures is. I put it to the minister that there are no other measures, that nothing else has been done, and that Australians are right to be worried about the fuel supply, to want to have questions answered in relation to the fuel supply and to be worried about what will happen if fuel prices go up even further, given that Australians have suffered nothing but a cost-of-living crisis under this government. Obviously, there are other crises include the housing crisis as well. Australians are paying a great deal for the errors of this government.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Foreign minister to my colleague Senator Waters.

Foreign Minister Wong was asked what you would think is the simplest of questions. The question was: is Australia at war? I listened carefully to Senator Wong's response. There was something about collective self-defence. There was something about Iran. There was something about civilian targets. There was something about civilian infrastructure. There was something about the UAE and gulf nations. There was something about the national interest. There was something about the Greens. But do you know what we didn't get in two minutes of answers from the Foreign minister? We didn't get an answer from the Foreign minister about whether Australia is or isn't at war.

If the Foreign minister can't answer a four-word question about whether Australia is at war or not without ducking out and phoning up Donald Trump and asking and checking, it shows the exact nature of our relationship and the damage that has been done to our sovereignty and our national interest by Labor, the coalition and One Nation—the three war parties in this place—tying us to the hip of Donald Trump and his illegal, aggressive war making across the planet. In this parliament, at a moment like this, when Australians are embedded across the US military, when Senator Wong's government is sending military personnel into the Middle East and when Senator Wong is asked by Senator Waters, 'Is Australia at war?' and the Foreign minister squibs the question and can't answer the question, it goes to show the deceit, the hypocrisy, the double standards and the doublespeak that's coming from Labor.

I'll answer the question for Senator Wong. Australia is at war. We were always going to go to war whenever the United States went to war because the war parties—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—have, with AUKUS, tied us to every single illegal US war. End AUKUS. Get us out of this mess. It's time for an independent Australia.

The second remarkable part about Senator Wong's answers was when my colleague Senator Waters asked about Lebanon: 'Why the silence on Lebanon? Why are there two standards? Why do you say nothing about Lebanon?' I read and listened to Senator Wong's answer, and do you know what she didn't say once in her answer? I'll let you guess: Lebanon. The silence is deafening.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong, was asked a very clear, very simple and very important question in question time today: 'Is Australia at war with Iran?' The fact that our Foreign minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, either could not or would not answer that question says everything about the way Labor is approaching the Australian people on this critical question of whether or not we are at war with Iran.

Spoiler alert—we are at war with Iran! There is no question under international law. It is indisputably the fact that we are at war with Iran. It's one of the most critical decisions a government can make, and yet this government won't be straight with the Senate and, more importantly, won't be straight with the Australian people about whether or not we are at war with Iran. This is not just about semantics. This is about the decision-making that commits our country to a war—who makes this decision, when it was made, how it was made and at whose request it was made. The simple fact is that it was far more likely to be a demand from the United States and Israel, led by the war criminals Trump and Netanyahu, than it was to be a request.

Let's be abundantly clear. Parliament should decide whether this country is at war with another country, not a government who cannot even come clean on whether they've made that decision and, worse, whether or not we are actually at war. I know we live in a post-truth world, but we saw a chilling example of that today from Minister Wong in question time.

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to notice of intention given yesterday, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 12 March 2026, proposing the disallowance of the Digital ID Amendment (Redress Framework and Other Measures) Rules 2025.

On behalf of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention to, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for seven sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Aged Care Rules 2025, made under the Aged Care Act 2024.

I give notice in general terms of my intention to move, on the next day of sitting, a motion relating to the routine of business for tomorrow.

On behalf of Senator Cash, I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 421 till tomorrow.

Leave granted.

Thank you very much.

by leave—I move:

That Senator Bragg be granted leave of absence for the period 10 March 2026 to 12 March 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

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

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 June 2026:

The planning, management, utilisation and disposal of Defence estate assets, with particular reference to:

(a) the alignment of Defence estate planning with Australia's defence requirements;

(b) the processes for planning and conducting acquisition, management, development, upgrade and disposal of Defence estate assets;

(c) how the requirements of the permanent forces, reserve forces and cadet units are captured and incorporated into the planning and management of the Defence estate;

(d) the financial assumptions underpinning estate divestment, including estimated remediation costs, net return projections, previous Defence property disposal programs and the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Defence to the Department of Finance;

(e) the heritage significance of Defence estate assets and the adequacy of measures to protect that significance during and following divestment, including the impact on veteran and community connections to sites of military service;

(f) the Defence estate audit, including its planning, conduct and the potential of the period between its completion and public release to have degraded validity of the audit's findings;

(g) consideration of an amended policy framework for the use of surplus Defence land that prioritises alternative public uses over private development; and

(h) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We don't support this motion today. Obviously, if the Senate supports it, we will work with the committee. But we do believe that the work has been done on the Defence estate audit, which did find that previous governments had deferred hard decisions to make the estate fit for purpose. This government has taken the time to work through the implications for ADF personnel in the community, including in history and heritage. We are focused on delivering the most significant Defence estate reforms ever to ensure the estate is fit for purpose, and I look forward to working with any senator on it as some of this responsibility falls under my portfolio.

Question agreed to.

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

Yes, thank you.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2026:

Epilepsy in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) barriers to diagnosis and access to appropriate treatment options, including the impact of factors such as:

(i) geographic locations,

(ii) availability of medical practitioners, including neurologists,

(iii) costs, and

(iv) cultural and language barriers;

(b) drug-resistant epilepsy and its psychosocial and economic impacts on patients and the community;

(c) the level of community awareness and understanding of epilepsy and treatment options;

(d) barriers to access support services after diagnosis, including the National Disability and Insurance Scheme;

(e) the adequacy of Commonwealth funding for research into epilepsy; and

(f) any other related matters.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 317, agreed on 3 February 2026, relating to price gouging reforms; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on 13 March 2026.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I would like the government's opposition to the motion recorded.

Yes, thank you.

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, by no later than midday 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, created since 13 May 2025, between the Special Minister of State and/or his office, the Department of Finance and the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to proposals to increase the number of senators and, as a consequence of section 24 of the Constitution, the number of members of the House of Representatives.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I would like the government's opposition to the motion recorded, please.

Thank you. That shall be done.

I move:

(1) That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent this resolution having effect.

(2) That the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2020 be restored to the Notice Paper and consideration of the bill resume at the second reading stage.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2026:

Modernising and improving the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act), with particular reference to:

(a) updating the Act to account for advances in technology, where necessary;

(b) ensuring that the Act works for all participants in the freedom of information process;

(c) protecting the right of Australians to access information held by the Australian Government;

(d) what elements of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 ought feature in any future reform to the Act;

(e) what elements of the Freedom of Information Amendment Bill 2025 ought not feature in any future reform to the Act; and

(f) any other related matters.

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

I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than 5 pm on Monday, 23 March 2026:

(a) all information notices issued to social media platforms by the eSafety Commissioner that sought information relating to the platforms' compliance with their obligations under Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Part 4A);

(b) all responses received to the notices referred to in paragraph (a); and

(c) a document which outlines, for each social media platform for which data is available:

(i) the number of accounts held by Australian children who had not reached 16 years with the platform before 10 December 2025,

(ii) the number of accounts deactivated by the platform since 10 December 2025, to date,

(iii) the technologies deployed by the platform to enforce the social media ban, and

(iv) any data related to accounts that the platform deactivated due to obligations under Part 4A that were:

(A) inactive,

(B) duplicate or alternative accounts,

(C) accounts that had been closed by users but remained on the platform's databases, and

(D) accounts that were deactivated then reactivated on appeal.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that our opposition to that motion be recorded, please.

I move:

That the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 be considered during the time for private senators' bills on Thursday, 12 March 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 427 be agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to protect prime agricultural land, 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 world's population is growing, but the world's prime agricultural land is shrinking. Food security has never been more important, and it will increasingly be so.

This Bill is about something fundamental. It's about the land that feeds us, clothes us, and underpins our regional communities.

Once prime agricultural land is lost, it is almost never recovered. You can't rebuild soil that took thousands of years to form. You can't make rain fall where you would like it to, you can't easily relocate or expand irrigation systems, you can't replicate growing conditions with a click of your fingers—nor can you automatically replace the multi-generational farming knowledge tied to a particular place.

This Bill puts a simple principle into law: Australia's best farming land should be protected first, not sacrificed for political agendas.

This Bill is informed by best practice around the world and improves on it, so Australia has the very best protections for prime agricultural land on the planet.

As population grows, as global hunger grows, as housing spreads into farming areas, we must do more than just get the balance right. We must show the world how it is done.

We may have "boundless plains to share" but once the good plains are gone, it impossible to create new ones.

Why This Bill Is Needed

Across Australia, farmers are under pressure. Pressure from poorly planned development. Pressure from projects that promise jobs but leave land worse off. Pressure from foreign-controlled interests buying or controlling our most productive farmland. Pressure from an Albanese Labor Government hell-bent on a political energy target without a care for the prime agricultural land it renders unusable to feed and clothe our nation.

This Bill doesn't seek to shut down development. It doesn't block investment. It doesn't say "no" by default. What it says is this: if you want to use agricultural land for something else, you must prove the land, the farmer, and the community are respected and protected.

Mapping What Matters: Knowing Our Best Land

The first practical step in this Bill is simple but powerful: we must map our agricultural land nationally and do it properly.

There are national tools like the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (known as APSIM), Australian Collaborative Land Use Mapping Program (ACLUMP) and the Queensland and New South Wales statutory mapping of their prime agricultural land. But Australia lacks a national, uniform map.

Australia very quickly ascertained and mapped where the critical minerals are, but we don't seem to have the same focus on mapping where our critical farmland is.

Under this Bill, the Minister for Agriculture, working with peak farming bodies, must produce a national map that divides agricultural land into three clear categories:

Tier 1 Land: The Non-Negotiables

Let me be very clear about Tier 1 land. This Bill draws a firm line.

The Commonwealth must not fund any future project that reduces the farming productivity of Tier 1 land or allows foreign-owned or foreign-controlled corporations to take ownership or effective control of prime agricultural land.

This is not radical. It's responsible. And it's in the national interest.

Nations are searching the world for prime agricultural land to bolster their food security—we have plenty right here to not only secure, but ensure, we produce food for the world.

If land is among the best we have for farming, then governments should not be using public money to damage it or hand it over.

Tier 2 Land: Responsible Development

Tier 2 land allows more flexibility—but it's not a free-for-all. Projects can proceed only if they meet clear conditions.

If a project risks reducing agricultural productivity, the proponent must:

Returning farmland back to equal or better productivity is a claim some make, but the evidence is sketchy and farmers are highly sceptical about project proponents' promises.

In some cases, farmers are left in limbo waiting for a proponent to finish rehabilitating their farm, which just isn't working. This Bill will give them the option to finish the job properly and get on with their lives.

Under this Bill, project proponents' promises of proper rehabilitation must be backed by:

Protecting Farmers' Homes and Livelihoods

Farming isn't just a job—it's where people live.

This Bill will ensure that if a project funded by the Commonwealth forces a farmer out of their primary residence, that farmer must be properly supported.

Farmers must be no worse off—not in terms of the quality of housing, not in distance from their farms, not in their ability to keep farming.

When the Prime Minister says, 'nobody held back, nobody left behind,' that's not what it looks like for farmers. Farmers are not getting a fair go when government-subsidised projects kick them out of their multi-generational family farming home.

Social Licence: Giving Communities a Real Voice

One of the most important parts of this Bill is the ironclad principle of social licence.

Before Commonwealth funding is provided for projects affecting Tier 2 or Tier 3 land, this Bill will require the proponent to produce a genuine social licence report.

A new Agriculture Commissioner will be established as the independent umpire on whether social licence has been secured fair and square.

Too often we see governments and corporations pay lip service to social licence. No more.

Regional Australians have had enough of the box-ticking exercises. This is about trust and being treated with the same respect people expect and get in the city. Regional Australians feel out of sight, out of mind under State and Federal Labor governments. No more.

In addition to blowing the whistle on poorly handled social licence, the Agriculture Commissioner will:

Farmers can't fight big government or big corporations and their armies of lawyers. Disputes need to be affordable, quick and, most importantly, fair.

What This Bill Is—and What It Is Not

Let me finish by being very clear. This Bill is not anti-development. It is not anti-investment. It is not anti-renewables, mining, or infrastructure.

This Bill is pro-farmers, pro-food security, and pro-community.

State and Federal Labor governments are distorting markets with their eye-watering subsidies for projects in their attempts to pick winners for short term political gain.

This Bill picks food security and our farmers as the ones who must be winners every time, because that is in the national interest for generations to come.

This Bill ensures that if development backed by the Commonwealth taxpayer happens, it happens:

Conclusion: A Duty to the Future

We hold this land in trust—not just for today, but for future Australians.

This Bill recognises that food security is national security. That farming land is strategic infrastructure. And that once it's gone, it's gone for good.

This legislation chooses long-term national interest over short-term convenience.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator McGrath has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It's been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to take responsibility for Australia's fuel security issues and outline the actions being taken to ensure adequate fuel supplies instead of blaming others

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 McGrath, I move:

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

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to take responsibility for Australia's fuel security issues and outline the actions being taken to ensure adequate fuel supplies instead of blaming others

Australians in regional Australia in particular—but also those serving our regional communities and our fishing communities—have been unable to access fuel. The government tell us that we have got plenty of fuel in the country. I'm not going to dispute that. They've made that point. They've put the numbers on the table. Not all of it's in the country, if my understanding from question time today is correct, because 20 per cent of it is still on the water, but they're assuring us that we have plenty of supply.

The question that I would ask is, 'Where is it?' because it's certainly not available for communities around the country. I've spoken to friends in the fishing community in South Australia and Queensland. They can't get access to fuel. If they can't get access to fuel, they can't go out and earn a living. We've heard of farmers in farming communities who are about to harvest their crops, and they can't access the fuel.

This motion calls for the government to actually take responsibility for the fuel security issues and outline the real actions that they're taking to deal with the issue. Now, it is a difficult issue and, as the ministers have said in question time and in public over the last couple of days, there are people who are buying up fuel. I will join them and everyone else in urging people to try and act responsibly and buy in a normal way. But there are things that the government can do, and we know those things are in place, because we put them in place. We legislated for particular actions to be taken, and we put in place the frameworks for the Australian community to understand what the actual supply is. The problem is that the government hasn't been using that toolkit. The information that provides details of what the current supply is hasn't been updated since December last year. The framework was put in place at a previous time of fuel shortage so that people could understand where the fuel supplies were and so that we could work with the petroleum companies, the refiners and all of those in the community to make sure that the distribution network was working as it should be.

I asked the minister today if he was aware of any circumstances where there was hoarding within the supply chain. He wouldn't or couldn't answer that question. He did admit that there were some bottlenecks, but the question that I would ask in response to that is: what is the government doing to deal with the bottlenecks? Yes, it's a difficult situation, but the government's role is to work with industry and coordinate the process so that supply can get to where it's needed, particularly to rural and regional Australia, where the shortfall in supply is actually driving another problem, which is price.

The government haven't put on the table any demonstration of what they're actually doing to facilitate the flow of all that fuel that they say we have. 'We've got plenty of fuel' is the line they run, and it's the public's fault for being concerned and wanting to buy it. But what are they doing? What are the government doing, using the toolkit that we know is in place, to inform the community about supplies? The website has not been updated since December last year, which is absurd. We had a roundtable, and all we do is talk about problems. But we're not talking about what the government are doing, using their toolkit, to make sure fuel is getting to where it needs to be. We've got all this fuel, but where is it, and how do we get it to where it needs to be? (Time expired)

I stand to speak on this urgency motion. The previous contributor talked about what he thought the government's role is. Well, I can tell you what the role of the opposition is, and that is not to spread misinformation, which is what this has been about here today.

We understand that people are seeing global uncertainty and feeling worried about it at home, so let's start with the most important fact. Australia has the fuel it needs. Our national fuel stocks are above our minimum domestic fuel security obligations, and those stocks are held here in Australia. Fuel shipments continue to arrive in the country in the quantities expected. There is no national shortage of fuel. What we're seeing instead is something different. We are seeing uncertainty in global markets, and we are seeing spikes in demand in parts of Australia as some people buy more fuel than they normally would. We've seen that, and we heard it earlier today. Industry groups across the country are saying the same thing: calm heads are needed. It's not just government; it's industry groups, those on the ground listening to people in certain sectors.

If Australians continue to purchase fuel as they normally do, there will be enough supply for everyone. That's the reality. But, instead of helping calm the situation, the coalition have brought on an urgency motion in this chamber today. That says something about their priorities. In moments of global uncertainty, Australians expect leadership that reassures people and focuses on the facts—not political theatre or the spread of misinformation.

If we're going to talk honestly about fuel security in Australia, we need to talk about how we got here. Under the former government, Australian taxpayers were even paying to store emergency oil reserves in the United States—not in Australia but in the United States. The Labor government has changed that approach and has made sure that fuel security means fuel stored here in Australia, where Australians can actually access it when it is needed.

So again I say: let's talk about the facts. Australia's fuel position today is strong. On average, Australia currently has more fuel in storage than at any time over the last 15 years. We are meeting our minimum petrol stockholding obligations, and fuel shipments continue to arrive in Australia on time and in the quantities expected. I'm going to say that again. Fuel shipments continue to arrive in Australia on time and in the quantities expected. Those are the facts. That does not mean the government is complacent—far from it. We know that global instability can create pressure in supply chains, particularly in regional Australia and particularly for farmers and transport operators, and that's why the government has acted.

We have brought together fuel suppliers, fertiliser companies and agricultural peak bodies to work together on managing emerging pressures in the supply chain. We're also regularly convening the National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee, bringing together the Commonwealth, states and territories, so the country remains ready to respond quickly if conditions change. That is what responsible government looks like—not panic and not politics, but practical action. The government has also been clear about something else: this is an international crisis. It is not a commercial opportunity. Fuel companies have been told that cooperation is critical to keeping Australian transport moving and farmers growing. So I ask the opposition to stop spreading misinformation. (Time expired)

Australians are being told by the Albanese Labor government that fuel supplies are solid, and Minister Bowen is going on television and telling people fuel stocks are strong. Australians are entitled, then, to ask a very simple question: if that is true, then where is the fuel—why can people not get the fuel they need for their families, their farms and their businesses? That is the question millions of Aussies are asking, because the reality on the ground is not matched by Labor's talking points.

People from all over New South Wales are contacting my office and telling me the local servo's run dry. Farmers are telling me they cannot get enough diesel to keep their machinery moving and get their crops in the ground. I'm being told truckies are being smashed with soaring costs, which are passed through the whole economy, and independent service stations are being left exposed, trying to survive while supplies tighten and prices surge. That is the difference between the talking points we're getting from the Labor government and real life—the reality on the ground. The government is saying that the national fuel position is secure and Minister Bowen is saying supplies remain secure, but regional service stations and distributors are clearly facing serious strain in getting fuel to where it is actually needed.

Reports this week have pointed to regional demand surges, patchy supply and diesel prices surging well above $2.50 per litre in some areas. That is a crisis. That is a real issue. Australians do not live on a page of Labor talking points. They live in towns, on farms, in regional communities and in outer suburbs. They need fuel to work, to harvest, to transport goods and to keep small businesses alive. If the fuel is supposedly here but it's not reaching the bowser, not reaching the paddocks and not reaching the truck yards, then the government has a serious leadership problem on its hands, and this doesn't just stop with fuel. Higher fuel costs feed into everything. With the price of diesel and petrol rising, freight costs rise. When freight costs rise, food prices rise. When transport costs rise, small-business costs rise and Australians end up paying more at the checkout, and then we're dealing with inflation. This is how weak leadership on energy and fuel security turns into higher inflation across the economy.

Labor's fuel price shocks are adding more pressure to household budgets. This is not just about inconvenience, and this is not misinformation; this is about the real economic pressure that is hammering Australian households and Australian businesses. It's about food prices, it's about the cost of living and it's about whether the Albanese Labor government had actually planned for this. I don't think they had. I think they failed to manage foreseeable risk, and I believe they are misleading Australians about the system failures that have led to this cost-of-living crisis, again, under the Albanese Labor government.

What we are seeing is a failure of leadership—a failure of Labor ministers to take responsibility for their failure in preparation—and, instead of action and honest answers, we are getting talking points and lies. Instead of a serious national focus on fuel security, we are getting excuses. Australians are more vulnerable than we should be because we've allowed ourselves to become too dependent on imported fuel and too exposed to overseas affairs. Because of these net zero policies of the Albanese Labor government, we can no longer refine the fuel we need in our own country. We are no longer self-sufficient when it comes to fuel, and that is a matter of leadership. That is a failure of policy.

The Albanese government, Minister Bowen and those on the other side, need to stop relying on talking points. They need to stop accusing—frankly, it is quite disappointing to hear them say that the people calling my office, the farmers and families calling my office, are spreading misinformation, because, when Australians are calling me and saying, 'We cannot get the fuel we need,' I believe them. I don't believe it's misinformation. I believe those Australians who are contacting my office are telling the truth, because empty bowsers, rising costs, forgotten farmers and bankrupt businesses—that's not misinformation. They are trying to warn you. They are begging for your help, and you are failing to listen. Until you start to listen, Australians will keep paying more and getting less. (Time expired)

This is a matter of urgency, no matter what those opposite want to try and portray. The coalition are responding to the many hundreds or thousands of calls to our individual electorate offices and to us directly from people right across Australia, highlighting their concerns. Let's accept for the moment what the government says—that there is sufficient fuel within the Australian system. I'm willing to accept that. But there is also, clearly—and the government should acknowledge this—a severe maldistribution problem.

This is not simply a few people in cities going to Bunnings, buying jerry cans and filling them up. That does not account for the fact that Wandering, Corrigin, Katanning and so many more country towns across Western Australia, let alone the hundreds of centres in the eastern states and South Australia, are low on if not out of fuel. It does not account for the fact that major distributors are telling me directly and via their customers that they have zero allocations from the port terminals. Again, I'm happy to accept the government's claim that there is sufficient fuel in Australia, but the government must address this maldistribution issue.

While they're at it, they must also answer for their lack of action. This is not something that happened in the last 48 hours. Here's an article from Bloomberg from six days ago. I will quote from this article. 'While China is not the region's largest exporter'—talking about South-East Asia—'its sudden withdrawal from the international market is expected to tighten global supplies further.' So this article is talking about how China has ordered its top refineries to halt diesel and gasoline exports to the world. This article goes on to say, 'The directive follows similar moves'—so prior to six days ago—'from refiners in Japan and Thailand, who have also been curbing exports to safeguard their own domestic stocks.'

Let's add to that picture. Malaysia's PRefChem has shut down a crude refinery unit. We've got the Singapore refinery cutting its runs at its Jurong site. This is a major export refinery that supplies directly to Australia, currently producing, apparently, around 60 per cent of capacity. We have another Jurong refinery in Singapore again operating below capacity. So we have plenty of evidence that has been on the public record not just for 48 hours, not since the beginning of the week, not since question time started this week, but since last week, showing that the world's supply chains for refined petroleum are under severe pressure.

Then you combine that with the maldistribution issue that is clearly impacting Australia. Again, we are hearing from those country towns right across Australia that have little or no petrol availability in their country towns. We're hearing from farmers who have a few days worth of diesel left on farm and are being told they're just going to have to wait for the next supply. Who knows when it will come. People are rightly very concerned, and to say that this is somehow the opposition's fault just beggars belief. Does this government seriously think that it can get away with pointing the finger across the chamber and blaming us, when they are in control of the Treasury benches and when they are the ones who hold the levers of power—levers of power, by the way, that a coalition government put in place and that Labor is now claiming credit for? This is an urgent issue. It's a serious issue, and the government and the minister need to show like they understand that. (Time expired)

Australians are understandably watching events around the world and feeling worried about what that might mean here at home. When people see global conflict and volatility in energy markets, it's natural to ask whether Australians will have the fuel they need. But we should be clear about the facts. I've come to expect fearmongering and misinformation for political gain from One Nation and sometimes from the Greens political party, but to get it from the alternative government, from the Liberals and the Nationals, who, when they were in government, frankly, had a pretty poor record on fuel security—to use, I think, Senator Brockman's words—just beggars belief.

The facts are that we are above our minimum domestic fuel-stockholding obligations, and those stocks are physically stored here in Australia. Fuel companies have confirmed that shipments continue to arrive on time and in the quantities expected. There is no evidence that Australia is facing a national fuel shortage. What we are seeing are localised disruptions caused by sudden spikes in demand, and we do take those reports seriously. I've heard from regional communities in my home state of Western Australia. But I think it's really important that we don't use international conflicts—what are really scary times for many Australians—to stoke fear in the community for political gain.

What we've seen in recent days is people buying more fuel than they usually would because they are afraid, and, yes, we do blame the opposition for some of that, and they should take responsibility for the narrative that they're pushing both in this place and in the media. They should absolutely take some responsibility for that, because we are all leaders in this country and we all have a responsibility to do the right thing by the Australian people and not to continue to make people feel afraid in circumstances where they do not need to. We've seen jerry cans selling out in some areas and fuel containers appearing for resale online at jacked up prices. This kind of behaviour has placed unnecessary pressure on supply chains that are otherwise functioning normally. Our message to Australians is there is no need to panic buy or to stockpile. We have the fuel that we need here in the country and coming to the country as supply chains would normally operate. We have enough fuel for everyone if people simply purchase what they need and use it as they normally would.

Industry groups agree. Across the country, they have been very clear and consistent about this. The National Farmers' Federation, the NRMA, local service stations and transport operators have all urged Australians to remain calm and avoid stockpiling fuel. They've made it clear that the issue is not supply but demand being driven by uncertainty—uncertainty that those opposite are using as an opportunity to make Australians afraid.

Our government is actively working with industry to manage these pressures and ensure supply chains move where they are needed. We're maintaining daily engagement with fuel suppliers and wholesalers. The minister has brought together fuel suppliers, fertiliser companies and agricultural peaks at a national roundtable to coordinate supply and respond quickly to emerging pressures in the supply chain. The National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee has already met to assess the situation and ensure that all states and territories are ready to respond should conditions change.

The truth is Australia is in a stronger position today than it was on any day under the former coalition government. Our government took action to strengthen Australia's fuel security. We implemented the minimum stockholding obligation—those opposite did not—to ensure fuel importers and refiners hold minimum amounts of petrol, diesel and jet fuel in Australia, which means it is stored here, not overseas like it was under those opposite, so Australians can access fuel when they need it.

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker. Senator McDonald, I'll take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the Senate. You have the call.

Thank you very much, Acting Deputy President. This afternoon has caused me grave concerns about the quality of representation in this parliament. We have heard the most bizarre comments. We have heard that there's not a problem, that there's plenty of fuel and that the government is managing it, when there are signs at the Brisbane fuel terminal right now that say, 'Independents, do not enter.' They're the very fuel companies that supply regional northern New South Wales and regional South-East Queensland. These are the places that are seeing ships, the shipping fleet, unable to go out and catch fish, because there are no deliveries of fuel for their boats.

This is the same government that says that there's no problem for farmers who are trying to harvest but can't get fuel for their tractors and headers. This is the same government that says there is not a problem when there are feedlots that cannot get fuel in order to supply food to the cattle and are talking about shooting them. This is the same government that says there is no problem when they are rationing fuel into mining regions right now. This is the same government that says that it wasn't their responsibility to take action last week when it became apparent that there was going to be a problem with supply and that Australians were rushing down to petrol stations to fill up their cars and make sure that they had enough.

Last week, when the resources minister and the infrastructure minister got up and said prices were stable—well, that's not true. Prices are up by at least 60c a litre in parts of Queensland, where I'm from. This is the same government that said, 'Supply's not a problem.' In fact, members of the government are still repeating this rubbish today. They're saying that there's never been more fuel in Australia. Well, that doesn't help the people who can't get it, does it! If it is locked up in places where Australians can't get it, they can't go and get fish, they can't harvest their crops, they're having to shoot their stock and mining companies have to cut back on their workforce and activity. It doesn't matter what lies and fabrications—I'm sorry, Acting Deputy President. I withdraw 'lies'.

Senator, I will ask you to withdraw those comments.

I did just say I would withdraw that. I apologise.

Thank you, Senator.

This government is completely fabricating the truth by saying that there is plenty of fuel when there obviously is not.

And it wasn't the opposition that started this. You all should personally know that you would have got phone calls from your families, from your neighbours, from small businesses, saying, 'Should I go and fill up with fuel?' We knew there was a problem last week.

They live in a bubble.

They live in a bubble. If you are coming to Canberra, I think you've got no idea of what is going on. There are service stations around Queensland where fuel has jumped by 40c to 60c a litre. Small trucking businesses that supply around the state and around the country, including those that move food back into the capital cities, are going broke. They can't pay these bills. We can't have a flood recovery effort without fuel. In fact, we can't have the repairs and maintenance done on roads in regional Australia without absorbing these massive increases in fuel costs. And guess who pays? Well, the taxpayer pays and the regional community gets nothing.

We know what's happening in the Middle East. This was not something that a reasonable person could not have foreseen. But to have the government continually gaslight Australians and say there's no problem is bizarre. What sort of representatives of people are you if you're not hearing their desperation? We know that this government has added a brave new tax, the safeguard mechanism, to our Australian refiners. We know that this government has added additional costs to those people who generate energy and fuel in this country. And who is going to pay for it? Well, it is Australians—everyday mums and dads who want to get to work or have a small business and who want to know that they can rely on the basics to get around and to run their business. Instead the government's telling them there's not a problem. Well, wake up and smell the roses, because there is a huge problem right across Australia. Australians are screaming for help. They're calling for their representatives to get up and listen to them.

The question is that the urgency motion standing in the name of Senator McGrath, as moved by Senator Colbeck, be agreed to.

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

The need for the Government to issue an official response to the National Anti-Racism Framework by the end of the month, given this comprehensive and actionable approach to racism was handed down in November 2024 and the Government has so far failed to respond to or action the recommendations in the report.

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.

I move:

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

The need for the Government to issue an official response to the National Anti-Racism Framework by the end of the month, given this comprehensive and actionable approach to racism was handed down in November 2024 and the Government has so far failed to respond to or action the recommendations in the report.

On Sunday, at a peaceful iftar celebration in Ballarat, a white supremacist attacked Muslim community members, storming into the event, threatening children and throwing punches while yelling hateful, deeply racist abuse. Children who were there have since been too traumatised to sleep in their own beds. What did the police do? They gave the perpetrator a move-on order. This is one of the latest examples of rising racism and hate in this country and how it's not being taken seriously.

In the past few years, we've seen racism become increasingly vile and blatant. We've seen the Neo-Nazi attack on Camp Sovereignty, the white-supremacist bombing of Aboriginal people at the Invasion Day rally in Boorloo, threats and planned attacks on mosques and the horrific Bondi massacre. Racism in this country is everywhere, but Labor refuses to act.

This government has a solution sitting on a shelf, but, despite the frightening rise in racism, you have done nothing. Sixteen months ago, in November 2024, the Race Discrimination Commissioner handed down the National anti-racism framework, a road map for how this country can tackle racism. The work was funded by this government, and you patted yourself on the back for it at the time. The framework is based on extensive community consultations, hearing from those most affected by racism about how it manifests and what can be done to address it. It is an actionable framework, presenting 63 clear recommendations across areas such as law, justice, health, education, media and workplaces—including parliament as a workplace, of course. The framework provides a holistic, whole-of-society approach to tackling racism.

The government has been served the solutions on a platter, ready to go, but Labor has gone missing. It's typical Labor—happy to commission plenty of reports and inquiries to kick the can down the road but completely silent when it comes to taking action. That's what we have seen. Sixteen months after the National anti-racism framework was handed down, the government has not formally responded to the recommendations. There has been no acknowledgement of this piece of work at all, let alone any implementation or real action to address racism in this country. So much, Labor, for your commitment to tackling racism! Shame.

Lask week, a group of 12 fellow crossbenchers and I wrote to the Prime Minister, Minister Aly, the Attorney-General and Minister McCarthy about the framework, requesting an official government response by the end of March. My motion here today mirrors this request and couldn't be more timely. We know that the government itself perpetrates racism every day in this very place by shutting down women of colour such as Senators Faruqi, Payman and I and by enabling racism in the chamber rather than addressing it. Last week, you shut down a motion by Senator Faruqi and I calling for racism, sexism and discrimination in the Senate chamber to be addressed. What have you done? You've just introduced a racist migration bill that is blatantly Islamophobic and will prevent people whose lives are currently threatened by a war this government is a part of from being able to seek asylum in this country. Shame.

Today, we will see whether you will stand by a report that you funded and commissioned, whether you stand by your word that your government takes racism seriously or whether you're all talk and no action. It is a small ask—just, at least, respond to the framework's recommendations. It's not much to do, it's not hard, but it's something. Racism stops with me, but does racism stop with the Labor government?

I think I will start where I will finish on this, and that's that a constructive national conversation about racism should focus on strengthening fairness and opportunity for all Australians and not encourage narratives that pit communities against one another. The coalition believes that there is no place for racism in our society and that people should be treated equally and fairly no matter what their background is. We stand against racism. It is contrary to Australian values and the Australian dream. But we do not agree with the National anti-racism framework's sweeping generalisations, the divisive language and the attacks on Australia as a whole. Australia is one of the most successful blends of cultures in the world, and we should be very proud of the country that we can all call home. We have seen just this week the number of people who want to call Australia home. They are trying to escape their oppressive governments in other countries far away from here, and they look to Australia and want to call it home.

Since the 1950s, to the 1990s, this country has undertaken one of the most ambitious and successful immigration programs in the world. Millions of people from every corner of the globe have come to Australia seeking opportunity, freedom and a better life for their families. They've come here to assimilate. Migrants have built businesses, strengthened communities, enriched our culture and contributed enormously to the prosperity and stability of this nation. From our suburbs to our universities, from our hospitals to our small businesses, Australians of every background are working side by side and building a shared future.

So it is fair to say that Australians are appalled when racism occurs. There is no place for racism in our society, and no-one should ever be discriminated against because of their race. Australians overwhelmingly fight against racism because it runs directly against our country's core values of fairness, respect and equality. From an early age, Australians are taught the importance of giving everyone a fair go regardless of their background, ethnicity or religion. This principle is deeply embedded in the national culture and informs how Australians think about justice, opportunity and community life. When racism occurs, it is widely condemned because it violates the fundamental belief that everyone deserves to be treated with dignity.

Millions of Australians are migrants or the children of migrants, and communities from across the world now form an integral part of the nation's social fabric. In workplaces, in schools and in neighbourhoods, Australians interact daily with people of different cultures and different backgrounds. These everyday connections reinforce the understanding that diversity is normal, it's valuable and it actually strengthens our nation as a whole.

As to the problems with this National anti-racism framework, we have very deep concerns about this report because the framework tries to paint the whole of Australia as racist. We strongly oppose Senator Thorpe's motion because it describes this report as a comprehensive and actionable approach to racism, and in our opinion this could not be further from the truth. This report does not help social cohesion. All it does is foster division. It starts off with the quote:

Racism isn't killing the Australian dream. The Australian dream was founded on racism.

This could not be further from the truth. The Australian dream is a dream shared by people of all backgrounds, religions and cultures. The idea that you can work hard, get ahead, provide for your family, own your own home and enjoy a fair go is one that we all aspire to. To suggest that the Australian dream is founded on racism is an insult to every single Australian. The Australian dream has been built on ideas of opportunity, hard work, democratic governance and the belief that people can build a better life for themselves and their families. To define it through the lens of racism is to ignore the many values and achievements that have shaped modern Australia. The coalition will not be supporting this motion.

My starting point today is that Senator Thorpe, like me and all of those on this side of the chamber—and most Australians, I think—abhors racism and detests its power to destroy and its capacity to cause deep and lasting injury. Every Australian, no matter their race or religion, should be able to enjoy their life in any Australian community without prejudice or discrimination. We are debating this motion at a time when there are troubling portents in our society and around the world. We saw the attack on Indigenous Australians and their supporters on 26 January at Forrest Place in Perth, and we've witnessed a spate of antisemitic attacks across this country, including the horrific targeting of Jewish Australians on Sydney's Bondi Beach which left 15 people dead and dozens injured. We have witnessed the growth of Islamophobia, with women targeted by strangers for wearing headscarves or dressing in a way consistent with their religion, and we have seen Islamic leaders attacked in this country. We have seen Indian Australians, Asian Australians and African Australians subjected to racist abuse and assault from strangers on our streets. And we have witnessed Neo-Nazis chanting racist slogans on the steps of the New South Wales parliament.

In this parliament, we have seen the embers of prejudice come to life in Australia's political parties and in the contemplation of all manner of Faustian bargains in which opposition to racism may be jettisoned for political relevance or advantage. It is time—and this is the point I would like to make—for all of us to oppose racism in all its forms and to stand together and be united against the evil of prejudice.

That's why, Senator Thorpe, while I respect you tremendously, I think some of the criticisms you've levelled at the government are not well placed. I think the Australian people know and should have confidence in the Australian Labor Party's commitment to fighting racism. The Labor Party has embodied that creed for generations. It was a Labor government that abolished the White Australia policy and passed the Racial Discrimination Act. That legislation made, among other things, racial discrimination unlawful in Australia, and that was groundbreaking legislation.

That piece of legislation was also essential to the landmark decision in Mabo No. 1, which declared the Queensland Coast Islands Declaratory Act and the purported retrospective abolition of native title rights for the Meriam people invalid. It was a Labor government that paved the way for the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act and, following the decision of the High Court in Mabo No. 2, legislated the Native Title Act. It is the same Labor Party that has fought the coalition's efforts to weaken the Racial Discrimination Act and permit discriminatory speech in this country.

That commitment to equality is not just a matter of legislation for our party. It is no accident that the Labor Party caucus is the most culturally diverse to ever represent this country in this parliament. It's a caucus that reflects modern Australia, a caucus that is committed to fighting racism in Australia and a caucus that lives its values, that selects people from all different colours and creeds to be members of this parliament.

I also disagree with Senator Thorpe in relation to saying the government is doing nothing. The approach of the government to date has been multifaceted and is ongoing. There is a range of different measures, including funding for the Respect at uni report, which examined the prevalence, nature and impact of racism in Australian universities. It's been delivered to the government and is being considered. There's $2 million for the Australian Human Rights Commission's Seen and Heard project, supporting communities affected by the conflict in the Middle East. There is funding for the commission to deliver its antiracism campaign, There's Nothing Casual About Racism. There's a focused review of the Australian curriculum to embed antiracism principles in it. I will just pause on that for one moment. There are lots of things that the passage of a law can do. But, ultimately, stamping out racism in this country needs to be community based and it needs to start at a level of education.

The government has provided funding to the Australian Human Rights Commission to develop a national antiracism strategy, of which the national antiracism framework will be a part. That framework is an important and comprehensive document proposing reform across a range of different public policy sectors. It requires systemic change and reform. It is the kind of reform that the Labor Party delivers.

I will finish by saying that this is a deep and difficult challenge that's emerging in our society. It's not to say that it has not existed, but it's emerging in a particularly alarming way at the moment. In order to address it, it takes time and it takes collaboration. It takes nuance and it takes stamina. It is important work. It is important that it is done well. I'll close on the words of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong:

We have built this country because we have stood for unity, for a collective, for community and for values of acceptance and respect, values that are intrinsic to who we are.

Four hundred and seventy days ago, the Race Discrimination Commissioner launched the national antiracism framework, a road map for building a genuinely antiracist country grounded in First Nations truth-telling and justice. But 16 months later this is still gathering dust on some government shelf—no response, no action, no funding, not even a peep about this framework.

Racism in this country is more open, more vicious and more dangerous than I have ever seen. This month a white-supremacist terrorist was arrested after planning attacks on mosques across Perth. In January another white-supremacist threw a bomb into a crowd of First Nations people and allies. Mosques and Islamic schools are receiving increasingly violent threats. Overnight we learned of another attack on an iftar in Ballarat. Across this country migrants are abused and attacked. We saw the Bondi terrorist attack recently. This hatred is not confined to the fringes. Report after report documents the depth and spread of racism across our schools, our universities, our workplaces and our institutions. These are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of a system that has allowed racism to rot and fester.

The framework acknowledges structural racism which operates alongside other systems of oppression. Its 63 recommendations called for action across sectors and institutions and for the embedding of antiracism work into and across government policy. The solutions are written plainly in black and white, yet Labor refuses to even respond let alone take any action. Perhaps that is because the problem is not only on the streets. It is also right here within these walls.

I tried today to move a motion marking the seventh anniversary of the Christchurch Mosque massacre, where 51 Muslims were murdered by an Australian white-supremacist. I asked the Senate to acknowledge rising Islamophobia. Instead, the minister stood up, attacked the Greens and whitesplained racism and Islamophobia to a brown Muslim migrant woman. This is where Labor is at. Labor and the coalition, just like One Nation, voted against the motion, and hearing Senator Blyth today you can understand why. The coalition has zero understanding of what racism is. Surely, they must live in another Australia to the one that we live in today. When you vote against confronting Islamophobia and you refuse to fund a framework that charts a path towards eliminating racism, you are the problem.

I rise to speak on this matter of urgency, and I commend Senator Thorpe and all my other colleagues for their tremendous efforts in calling out racism wherever it occurs.

I want to highlight a few things that have been said in the chamber. Senator Blyth—I guess she speaks on behalf of all the Liberals—said that the framework and the 63 recommendations that were put into the national antiracism framework commissioned by the government claim that all Australians are racist. Now, there's no truth to that, and I would put this question to Senator Blyth: have you read those 63 recommendations to even say that? Senator Ghosh used, out of the five minutes of his allocated time, the last 49 seconds to mention the national antiracism framework. That just highlights where this government is at when it comes to address the real crux of the problem and the real issues that are underpinning why social cohesion is where it's at.

As a visibly Muslim woman in parliament, I have a live target on my back. I know what racism is and what it feels like, and we've heard that it's not just focused on the Muslim community. We've seen, time and time again, the racism that causes division in our society. If the Prime Minister is so hellbent on addressing social cohesion, then he needs to appreciate and implement the national antiracism framework's recommendations. That's one of the simple things, making it mandatory— (Time expired)

I rise to also speak on this matter of urgency. The government does not support this motion. Racism is an extremely serious issue here in Australia, and every Australian, no matter their race or religion, should be able to live their life in any community without prejudice and discrimination. There's no place in this country for racism, hatred and discrimination of any kind, and we unequivocally condemn it.

I want to echo some of the commentary from Senator Blyth that this does need to have a serious national conversation. That is exactly what has been missing from some of the contributions that I've heard here today. This matter of urgency has been brought today by Senator Thorpe. I agree with some of your commentary in relation to that, but the simple fact is that Australians deserve an honest conversation. Rather than the screaming and shouting and accusing and creating outrage that happens in this chamber, the Albanese Labor government is actually getting on with the work to tackle racism.

You've really sold out. You've sold your soul!

I don't know—you were heard in silence so maybe you could reciprocate that. I know you don't like me, but how about you give it a go just for today?

Senator Thorpe! Could you direct your comments through the chair, please. Senator Cox, could you proceed.

Pull her up, because she doesn't like it when people interrupt her.

Senator Cox, please if you would like to proceed.

See? The suggestion that nothing has happened since the national antiracism framework was delivered is simply false. In October 2022, this government provided $7.5 million over four years and ongoing funding to the Australian Human Rights Commission to develop the National Anti-Racism Strategy, of which the framework forms a part.

The government is taking a multifaceted approach to tackling racism. We funded the Respect atuni report, examining racism in Australian universities. We funded the Seen and Heard project, supporting communities affected by the Israel-Hamas conflict, and we are delivering on an antiracism campaign that's called There's Nothing Casual About Racism. We are embedding antiracism principles in the national curriculum. And last week, this parliament commenced inquiry into racism, hate and violence being directed at First Nations people. That is looking at the rise of that. I'm a very proud member of this government, who worked on that piece alongside my colleagues in this chamber Minister McCarthy and Senator Stewart. We are also working collectively on this with our Attorney-General, who is a proud woman of Fijian heritage and our multicultural minister in Minister Ali. These are practical steps.

Let's not forget that this parliament returned earlier this year to pass the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 following the horrific terrorist attack in Bondi. These reforms make it an offence to promote or incite hatred on the basis of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. It strengthens the bans on hate symbols, creating a framework for prohibiting hate organisations and introducing tougher penalties for those who abuse positions and influence to radicalise others.

That is real action, and that is what our government is doing. I will not cop any further senators in this place standing in this chamber and declaring that Australia is a racist country, full stop. Making those sorts of sweeping condemnations might create your headlines, but it does nothing to reduce racism and nothing to improve the lives of people who you claim to speak for. Instead of the outrage, try engaging seriously with the legislation that comes before us and put the work in. We see the confrontations; we see the disruptions, the stunts, the things that are designed to provoke a reaction and the speeches that denounce everyone else while offering very, very little in the way of solutions. It is politics built entirely around the spectacle that you want to cause.

Senator Dolega, on a point of order?

I just ask for the same respect that Senator Cox showed when other people contributed to the debate. She is a proud First Nations woman on her feet, contributing to the debate.

Good ally there, brother. Good ally!

I did call for order. Senator Cox, if you could please continue.

I thank my colleague. He is a great ally! The truth is that outrage is easy, but governing is pretty hard. Outrage produces some of the headlines, but governing actually produces results, and that is the difference in this debate. While senators want to come in and perform some of that outrage, we over here in the Albanese Labor government are doing the work. We're strengthening the laws against hate, we're investing in education and social cohesion and we're implementing practical policies that actually reduce racism. That work might not produce your viral moments and dramatic speeches, but it actually produces some real outcomes, and that is exactly what our government will continue to deliver while you're still shouting.

I rise today to speak in support of Senator Thorpe's urgency motion and—

Could you please take your seat, Senator Pocock. Senator Cox, I'd ask you to withdraw that, please. It's not helpful to me to have that. Could you please withdraw.

Sorry—withdraw what?

Withdraw the comment that you made about Senator Thorpe, please.

I withdraw.

Thank you. Senator Pocock, please continue.

I might start again. I rise today in support of Senator Thorpe's urgency motion, and I thank her for her continued leadership on this. I repeat my calls for the Albanese Labor government to implement and fund in full the national antiracism framework. This is something that we should see from the government. We know that racism in this country isn't going away. When you speak to people across country, they will say that it is getting worse. We must change that trajectory. It's on all of us in this place to change that trajectory.

I spoke recently in this chamber about local examples of racism that First Nations people here in the ACT have faced, from vile comments directed at respected elders online, to young men being racially profiled and forced at gunpoint off a bus by police. But the racism doesn't end there. This week the parliament is considering legislation motivated by war in the Middle East—legislation that apparently wasn't needed in response to the war in Ukraine. We've passed legislation to combat antisemitism but not racial vilification. That remains parked on the Prime Minister's desk. The government has responded to the recommendations of the report by the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, and rightly so, but not to the 54 proposals put forward by the Special Envoy to combat Islamophobia. This must happen, and it needs to happen with urgency.

The Islamophobia Register, which has been in operation for over a decade now, has recorded a steep increase in assaults, abuse and threats, based on reports recorded between January 2023 and November 2024. Muslim Australians here in the ACT tell me that they do not feel safe. Last year a Muslim leader in our community had her hijab ripped off her head in the middle of Canberra. This is completely unacceptable. Yesterday the Australian National Imams Council wrote to parliamentarians asking for our support next Sunday 15 March, the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. I responded to their request today without hesitation.

We need to stand together at this time of increased racism in all its forms. We need to lead with empathy and focus on what brings us together. Today Muslims are in the midst of Ramadan, with Eid approaching. Christians are in the season of Lent. Easter and Orthodox Easter will follow, and Jewish families will then gather for Passover. It's a reminder that, beneath our politics and our differences, we are bound by something deeper—our longing for meaning, for connection and for hope. As Desmond Tutu reminded us, we can only be human together.

This week the Muslim community in Ballarat, Victoria was subjected to a racist and Islamophobic attack. During an iftar dinner for Ramadan, a man declaring himself to be part of the far right forced his way into a gathering. He hurled abuse and threw punches. Members of the community were forced to restrain him, to protect their families. Children are now too afraid to sleep in their own beds. The police did nothing but issue a move-on notice. This is not an isolated incident; it is the latest in a string of Islamophobic and racist attacks in Victoria and across the country.

It is people in positions of power, people in this chamber, who are to blame for the climate that produces this violence. The Labor government's racist agenda is plain to see. They continue to sit on the national antiracism framework, an actionable plan handed to them a year and a half ago. This week, the Labor government is seeking to ram through legislation to prevent people fleeing violence from seeking safety here—brutal and cynical policy designed with One Nation in mind. By refusing to act while the far right grows louder, Labor is abandoning Muslim Australians, First Nations people and every community bearing the brunt of this racism and hatred. When Pauline Hanson's One Nation are allowed to spew their racist, bigoted hatred towards Muslim Australians with near zero consequences, it creates the conditions where this violence can occur. The far right hears these messages and feels emboldened.

To the Muslim community in Ballarat and across Victoria: you are valued, you are welcome and you deserve to feel safe. The government must respond to the National anti-racism framework, not at some point in the future but now, today.

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

At the request of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present a report in respect of the 2025-26 additional estimates.

At the request of the chairs of respective legislation committees, I present reports in respect of the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2025.

I present additional information received by the Environment and Communications Reference Committee for its inquiry into climate risk assessment.

I present Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 3 of 2026, together with ministerial correspondence, and move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 16 legislative instruments registered between 24 December 2025 and 2 January 2026. In this monitor, the committee has also concluded its examination of two instruments.

The first instrument that the committee concluded its examination of is the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care System Modification) Rules 2025. This instrument directly amends the Aged Care Act 2024 and the Aged Care Rules 2025 to, among other things, allow certain determinations to be corrected if they are deemed to be incorrect and to extend certain notice requirements. The committee is required under Senate standing order 23(3)(l) to scrutinise any legislative instrument that amends or modifies the operation of primary legislation in this way. In this instance, the committee's concerns were further heightened, given that the instrument amends the Aged Care Act to insert new rule-making powers which the instrument then relies upon to make further changes to delegated legislation.

In monitor 1 of 2026, the committee sought advice from the minister as to why it was considered necessary and appropriate for the instrument to directly amend the Aged Care Act 2024. The minister advised that this approach was necessary to quickly and efficiently address unforeseen issues that may arise during the transition to the new aged-care framework. The minister also emphasised that this approach was necessary to secure continuity of care for older Australians, with the instrument seeking to address issues relating to natural justice rights for asset determinations, dates of effect for variations to individual contribution rates for Support at Home and the automatic variation of individual contribution income and asset determinations. The minister also highlighted a number of safeguards on the exercise of powers, including that any instruments made under those powers may be reviewed by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee.

The committee thanks the minister for his response and for his engagement on this matter, and has concluded its consideration of this matter in monitor 3 of 2026. However, in monitor 3 of 2026, the committee also noted its general concerns with the use of delegated legislation to directly amend primary legislation, and stated that instruments that take this approach will, without a thorough justification, be of significant concern to the committee. The committee will continue to consider this important matter in its scrutiny of future investments.

A second instrument that the committee concluded its examination of is the Aged Care Rules 2025. This instrument sets out requirements relating to the new aged-care framework, including care and service obligations, pricing and payment arrangements, complaints handling, compliance and enforcement processes, and aged-care provider registration requirements.

In monitors 8 of 2025 and 1 of 2026, the committee raised a number of concerns in relation to the automation of administrative decisions, consultation, the incorporation of non-legislative documents, the conferral of broad discretionary powers, privacy, coercive powers and the availability of independent merits review. In a previous tabling statement, I thanked the minister for his positive and constructive response in relation to those concerns. I repeat, on behalf of the committee, our thanks in relation to the committee's most recent correspondence and note the proactive way in which the minister, the minister's office and the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing engaged with the committee's scrutiny concerns. Given the significance of the committee's scrutiny work, the collaborative and cooperative nature of the minister's engagement and the forthright advice provided is in the national interest and is a positive example for future engagement with this committee.

In his most recent correspondence with the committee, the minister has undertaken to update the explanatory statement for the Aged Care Rules to include key information provided to the committee relating to automated decision-making, consultation, the incorporation of documents, coercive powers, clarity of drafting, privacy and the availability of independent merits review. The minister has also undertaken to make amendments to the Aged Care Rules to address committee concerns in relation to the incorporation of documents and the availability of independent merits review.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the minister for his attention to these matters. I also take this opportunity to continue to raise awareness of the committee's scrutiny principles and expectations outlined in Senate standing order 23. In previous tabling statements I have discussed scrutiny principles (a) to (h), and in my next contribution I will discuss principle (i). With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor: monitor 3 of 2026 to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

by leave—in relation to the Murray–Darling Basin First Nations water report 2024–25, I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I present Scrutiny digest No. 4 of 2026 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak on the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny digest No. 4 of 2026. This digest contains the committee's consideration of eight bills introduced between 2 March 2026 and 5 March 2026 and amendments agreed to during this period. In this instance, the committee has not commented on any new bills or amendments. However, this digest does contain its concluded examination of four previously introduced bills.

I wish to draw senators' attention to the committee's commentary regarding provisions in two bills that would abrogate the privilege against self-incrimination. The privilege against self-incrimination permits a person to refuse to answer any question or produce any document or thing if doing so would tend to expose them to criminal conviction. It is not just a rule of evidence but a basic and substantive common law right that underpins the presumption of innocence. Any removal of this privilege represents a serious loss of personal liberty, meaning that any proposal to do so should be stringently justified. It is the committee's practice to carefully examine whether the public interest in abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination significantly outweighs the corresponding loss of personal liberty.

Such justifications will be more readily accepted where the abrogation of the privilege is offset by the inclusion of both use and derivative use immunities. By way of explanation, a use immunity ensures that material or answers given by a person under compulsion cannot be directly used against them in most legal proceedings. Yet, without a derivative use immunity, authorities may rely on a person's evidence to identify other material that facilitates their prosecution. Absent this vital safeguard, individuals could be required to point to evidence that may be used to convict them, contrary to the presumption of incident.

The committee has highlighted this concern in regard to the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025. The bill would empower the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner to summon a person to give evidence or require information, documents or things relevant to a special inquiry. The bill expressly provides that an individual's failure to comply would not be excused where answers, information or documents they provide may incriminate them. In Scrutiny digest No. 2 of 2026, the committee queried the appropriateness of abrogating the privilege against self incrimination in this way in the absence of a derivative use immunity. Having considered the minister's response in this digest, the committee does not consider that stated alternative safeguards provide the same level of protection as a derivative use immunity. Given the committee's continuing concern about the absence of this key safeguard, it is recommended that the bill be amended to also incorporate a derivative use immunity.

This can be contrasted with the approach of the National Commission for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People Bill 2026, which expressly incorporates both use and derivative use immunities. In Scrutiny digest No. 3 of 2026, however, the committee had cause to note that the explanatory memorandum to the bill had not provided any justification for abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination. In this digest, the committee has acknowledged the explanation provided for abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination, which emphasises the significant public interest in comprehensive access to all information relevant to systemic issues affecting the safety and wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. Given the importance of the explanatory memorandums as a point of access to understanding the law, the committee has requested that the key information provided in the minister's response be tabled as an addendum to the bill's explanatory memorandum. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny digest 4 of 2026to senators.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning estimates briefs and the carbon credit unit method development.

The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of various committees.

by leave—I move:

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

Community Affairs Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Allman-Payne for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Health Legislation Amendment (Improving Choice and Transparency for Private Health Consumers) Bill 2026

Participating member: Senator Allman-Payne

Economics Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Reporting System Reform) Bill 2026

Participating member: Senator McKim

Education and Employment Legislation Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2025

Participating member: Senator Faruqi

Question agreed to.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This legislation delivers the biggest reform to our financial reporting standard setting institutions in over two decades.

Integrity in our markets matters because when people trust the system to be fair and honest, they're more willing to invest, innovate and plan for their future. That confidence underpins a strong economy for everyone.

The creation of External Reporting Australia or ERA combines the existing standard-setting functions of the Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB), Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (AUASB) and Financial Reporting Council.

ERA will be responsible for accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards.

Our standard setters play a crucial role supporting the integrity of markets, enhancing investor confidence and ensuring accountability in public sector institutions.

The creation of ERA will facilitate a key enhancement to the development and maintenance of standards for sustainability reporting—with the establishment of a standalone specialist board within ERA to undertake this work.

It will put in place a durable framework that allows us to respond quickly and effectively to changes in reporting standards here and overseas, including setting new standards as the system evolves.

This reform helps ensure the governance and structural arrangements of Australia's economic institutions and structural arrangements are best positioned to help build a more competitive, dynamic and productive economy.

The legislation strengthens the existing system by better positioning it to respond to emerging developments both locally and internationally

The introduction of the Bill follows extensive consultation and consideration of feedback. I want to thank all stakeholders for their constructive engagement and insights.

The structure and governance of External Reporting Australia has been designed with a view to balancing three key principles.

The first is flexibility.

By establishing a single body, the Bill removes structural barriers and improves the capacity of our standard setting framework to adjust to emerging issues and evolving priorities as needed over time. This includes taking on new standard setting functions in the future if required.

Making the most of the greater flexibility that comes with having a single body is key to realising the core benefits and longer-term efficiencies of the reforms.

The second is preserving elements of the existing system that have served us well in the past.

The key focus here has been ensuring that Australia can continue to benefit from the high degree of skills and experience that professional experts in each relevant field bring to settling the technical aspects of our accounting, auditing and assurance and sustainability standards.

ERA's new structure will allow it to effectively marshal and harness this expertise within the construct of a single entity by providing for day-to-day standard setting to continue to be undertaken by boards constituted by technical experts.

The third design principle is accountability.

The Bill provides for governance arrangements for ERA which ensure alignment between responsibility for the body's performance and the capacity to drive that performance and address issues that arise in doing so.

These reforms strengthen accountability by introducing new transparency and conflict of interest requirements for ERA.-of-interest requirements for ERA.

When organisations like ERA rely on current, specialised expertise to set high quality standards, it is natural that many of those experts will still be working in their field. That is why it's important to manage any real or perceived conflicts of interest in a practical and sensible way. The measure in this Bill is designed to make sure the public can have confidence in both the integrity of the process and the standards that result from it.-quality standards, it is natural that many of those experts will still be working in their field. That is why it's important to manage any real or perceived conflicts of interest in a practical and sensible way. The measures in this Bill are designed to make sure the public can have confidence in both the integrity of the process and the standards that result from it.

ERA will be led by a Governing Council. The Governing Council will be the accountable authority of ERA with an oversight role covering ERA's full remit.

Allowing the Governing Council to act collectively will promote confidence that standard setting cannot be overly influenced by the perspectives of any individual member or the interests of any particular sector, group or industry. The Minister will also have the power to appoint non-voting associate members to the Governing Council who, while not forming part of the accountable authority, will be able to bring valuable perspectives to its decision-making.

The Governing Council will create, appoint and oversee a number of internal standard setting boards that are each authorised to make and formulate specified standards. At least one board must be established for each of the three 'categories' of standards currently set by the AASB and AUASB, being accounting, auditing and assurance, and sustainability standards.

The Minister will also be able to confer on ERA via legislative instrument additional functions, including for example, responsibility for formulating a new kind of standard. This will enable any future standard setting needs to be efficiently and effectively addressed by leveraging ERA's standard setting expertise and governance structure.

The Bill also contains a new requirement that when making appointments the Minister must have regard to ensuring the Governing Council as a whole has an appropriate level of representation of persons who are, and are seen to be, independent from Australian auditors.

This is an important accountability requirement, as it recognises that as auditors must comply with auditing standards set by ERA, there is a risk of actual or perceived conflicts arising for appointees who work in the industry applying auditing standards.

The Bill also bolsters transparency around the operations of ERA. All parts of meetings of both the Governing Council and standard-setting boards that concern the contents of particular standards must be held in public. Procedural rules governing the operations of the Governing Council will be set out in the legislation while rules and processes for the boards will be contained in legislative instruments subject to appropriate consultation requirements and Parliamentary scrutiny.

The creation of ERA through the amendments set out in the Bill will strengthen Australia's institutional arrangements for setting external reporting standards and ensure they are best positioned for the future.

These amendments set out a new era for financial reporting standard setting in Australia.

Finally, the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations was consulted in relation to the proposed amendments contained in the Bill and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.

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

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

In accordance with standing order 115(3), further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 24 April 2026.

I move:

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

I ask that the motion be divided so that the question that the bill proceed without formalities is put separately. I indicate that I wish to make a contribution on the motion that the bill may proceed without formalities.

That's fine, Senator Shoebridge. You are able to speak.

The motion is that this bill proceed without formalities, and let's be clear what we're dealing with here. We're dealing with the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill is designed to give the home affairs minister pretty much an open discretion, not subject to parliamentary oversight, to stop people who have a valid visa to enter Australia from coming—to put them in the deep freeze for six months.

It's been said by the government—by Labor, the coalition and One Nation—that they want to come together to rush this legislation through and do it without formalities. What does 'without formalities' mean? This is a bill that was rushed through the other place in barely 24 hours. It was warm from the photocopier when they voted on it downstairs. It's not gone to public consultation. It hasn't even sat the usual five days on the Notice Paper before it proceeds. Having been rushed through in the other place, with a guillotine vote from the government to ram it through, it has then been introduced here without formalities.

The government will say, 'Oh, no, we had an inquiry on this.' I was in that inquiry. The inquiry last night was initiated with barely three hours notice, no public submissions were received and no stakeholders were invited to contribute to the inquiry. We had almost no notice and an hour and a half to ask Home Affairs questions about the bill. What did we find out about the bill in that rushed, pretend, faux inquiry that we had? We found out that the government clearly intends to use this rushed legislation to shut the door to 7,200 Iranians who currently have valid visas to come to this country—tourism visas, business visas, perhaps some future spouse visas or family reunion visas, maybe grandparents coming out to see their grandkids. They have been vetted and screened by Home Affairs, and they have legitimate reasons to come to this country.

Do you know what? Yesterday, when the government introduced this bill, the Labor Party opened their media for the day by putting out, effectively, photo opportunities and by running the emotional argument that the Minister for Home Affairs had granted five emergency humanitarian visas to some of the brave Iranian women footballers who have been in this country and potentially face persecution if they return—not just persecution from their own regime; if they're sent back to Iran, they could literally be killed by US bombs or Israeli bombs. Thankfully, five brave Iranian women, who have shown such courage, were saved from that fate. They were saved from that fate because of an urgent application and an urgent resolution so that they could have a humanitarian visa to stay in this country. Since then, another member of the team has been saved from that fate.

Of course those brave Iranian women should have been protected, and of course I am so glad—and I think I am joined by millions of Australians—that those Iranian women have had the chance to apply for a humanitarian visa and be given protection by this country. But you know what? To Labor's utter shame, on the very same day they did that they brought legislation into this parliament—cheered on by their mates in the war parties coalition of Labor, the coalition and One Nation—that they want to ram through without formalities in the other place and want to ram through without formalities here to literally shut the door on 7,200 other Iranians who have valid visas to come to this country. Why are they doing it? Why are they shutting the door on those 7,200? Because they don't want any of those Iranians to come here and do exactly what the Iranian women's football team have done and make an application onshore to be granted asylum and to be granted protection.

Having done the photo opportunity with the Iranian women footballers, having run the media in the morning about Labor coming out and protecting this handful of brave Iranian women, they used the smokescreen of that to, that same day, shut the door to 7,200 other Iranians. You couldn't get more obvious, base hypocrisy than we got from Labor in doing that. To be clear, on the exact process that the Iranian women footballers went through onshore—able to make an application for asylum and granted asylum—Labor said, 'Okay, we've done that for six, but no more.' To the other 7,200 Iranians, who otherwise could have come to this country and made a claim onshore, they say, 'Absolutely not,' shutting the door.

As you would expect, the three war parties in this place—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—all support the war, this illegal war, and its bombing and killing, which is creating much of the grief and the fear in Iran, together with a brutal regime of course. Having supported the war to create the crisis, all three of the war parties are now supporting Labor ramming this legislation through. We have a very real fear—as does the refugee sector and those Australians across the country who expect more from the government—that Labor, the coalition and One Nation are going to join together tomorrow to guillotine this legislation and ram it through without debate, like they're no doubt going to shut down this debate as soon as I sit down. They'll shut down this debate so that anyone who doesn't agree with the three war parties, and their toxic mixture of global organised violence led by Donald Trump and global organised bastardry against people seeking asylum, can't make a contribution on this bill. That's what's going to happen as sure as night follows day.

So what I say on behalf of my party, the Greens, and on behalf of the millions of Australians who are looking at the disaster in Iran; the disaster in the Middle East; the conflict spilling over the borders; the hundreds of thousands of people in Lebanon who have been made homeless because of yet another vicious, illegal attack by Israel; the hundreds killed in Beirut and southern Lebanon; the thousands killed in Iran and the thousands more injured; and the more than a hundred schoolgirls who were killed by a US missile strike in the first 24 hours of the illegal, brutal war that Labor, the coalition and One Nation support—the Greens say, in part to give voice to those millions of Australians who want a different country and a different world, that we're not going to let this be guillotined and rammed through without any scrutiny or debate.

We see you. Again, we see you. We see the three of you—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—coming up with your plans to be cruel to people who have come here to seek asylum and coming up with your plans to back in the US forever wars, and in this moment doing them both together. You support the illegal war. You support the bombing and the killing in Iran, and then, when you think: 'Oh, my goodness. That might actually create refugees. That might create people who need protection from the bombing and killing,' which you actually support and endorse, you say: 'Australia is not going to give anyone protection. We'll just revert to cruelty mode A,' which is your standard operating procedure. Labor had a choice at this moment.

An appalling humanitarian catastrophe started in the region with another US illegal war—an Israeli illegal war, the attacks on a Iran, the attacks on Lebanon. We knew that there would be thousands and thousands displaced. In fact, Labor knows that there are likely to be thousands of Iranians applying for asylum if they can come into this country and apply for asylum under their visas. So what Labor could have done was look back into history—

Senator Shoebridge, I would just draw your attention to the debate being about the motion before us. So I ask you to draw your remarks back to the motion.

So the motion here is that this bill proceed without formalities, which is to cut out the public scrutiny and the parliamentary scrutiny of this. Why does Labor want no scrutiny, and why are they being joined by the coalition and One Nation? Why do the three war parties want no scrutiny? Why do they want to proceed without formalities? Because, when you lift the hood, look in and actually see what this bill is doing, it exposes the three war parties for what they are. It shows that Labor, the coalition and One Nation all have the same pattern. They all take the same approach in moments of crisis like this.

What Labor could have done, instead of trying to ram through this legislation, cut out the public and go to base-A cruelty to try and outflank One Nation in their race baiting and Islamophobia, is look back at what Bob Hawke did at the time of another international crisis. At the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, there were tens of thousands of Chinese students in this country. Back then, Bob Hawke saw a humanitarian crisis and knew that it would be wrong to send people back into China, and he extended the refugee and humanitarian intake. Twenty thousand to 30,000 largely young Chinese students were given a chance to make a life in this country and were saved from being sent back to a regime that was likely to persecute them. He lifted the humanitarian intake for that year. That was an opportunity that Labor could have looked at. They could have looked to the example from 1989 and said, 'Actually, do you know what? There's a shred of decency in our past. We'll look to that decency and we'll make this moment a decent moment.' They could have lifted the humanitarian numbers by 7,200 to give those Iranians the same chance that we gave Chinese students in 1989.

But, instead of looking to Bob Hawke and instead of looking to that example of humanity and decency, Labor decided to look across the Pacific to Donald Trump and look at what he does with migrants—with Iranians who had come to the US seeking asylum. He'd been putting them on planes and sending them back to Iran in November, December and as late as January. That's what your mate Donald Trump has been doing. He's been sending Iranians back into Iran, knowing that they've made claims for protection in the United States. He's been sending them back into the regime. Having sent those Iranians back, you are joining Donald Trump in supporting the bombing and killing of them.

You had a choice. Labor had a choice, right? They could have looked to an example of decency and humanity, or they could have taken Donald Trump's war, killing, brutal, racist approach, and they chose Donald Trump. You chose the racism. In this case, you chose Islamophobia. You chose to try and make One Nation your mate at the expense of 7,200 Iranians who had visas who could have had the chance to come here for a life free from violence and persecution—free from your mate Donald Trump's bombs, free from your mate Benjamin Netanyahu's bombs, free from the killing. You could have given them that chance, and you chose not to.

I said before that we see you and we see how you act, with the coalition, trying to out-bastard One Nation time after time. We see you, and, increasingly, the Australian public sees you. And this country, the core heartbeat of this country, is so much better than you—so much better than any of you in the three war parties. Our country wants peace. Our country wants to see the world as a place we engage with on principles. They want our neighbours to be not our enemies but our friends, our colleagues and our workmates. That's the world that I think the core beating heart of Australia wants, and, every time you do this, you betray those core Australian values.

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the bill proceed without formalities.

I will now put the question that the bill be read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

by leave—I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2026 AUTUMN SITTINGS

MIGRATION AMENDMENT (2026 MEASURES NO.1) BILL 2026

Purpose of the Bill

The Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 would amend the Migration Act 1958 to provide the Minister with a personal power to make an 'arrival control determination', following written agreement from the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, that would temporarily restrict travel to Australia by a class or classes of temporary visa holders.

The amendments in the Bill would allow temporary restrictions on arrival of certain classes of temporary visa holders in Australia, where this is necessary to protect the integrity and sustainability of Australia's immigration system, including when events or circumstances outside Australia mean that there is an increased risk that certain classes of temporary visa holders will not depart Australia when their visas cease to be in effect.

Reasons for Urgency

Introduction and passage of the Bill in the 2026 Autumn sittings is required to respond to the changing risk environment overseas.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

MIGRATION AMENDMENT (2026 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2026

Introduction

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring Australia's migration system works in Australia's national interest.

Australians rightly expect that Government can effectively regulate travel into Australia to prevent unsustainable strains on the functioning of that system.

The current situation in the Middle East demonstrates how quickly circumstances can change that may impact temporary migration to Australia. In these circumstances, it is vital that Government can respond appropriately, including by placing temporary limitations on the ability of certain cohorts of non-citizens from travelling to Australia.

Without legislative change, the only way to prevent travel to Australia by persons holding valid visas is to individually assess whether there are grounds to cancel each visa—a process which is not suited to responding efficiently to international conflict or other rapid international developments.

As we have seen with this conflict and recent global shocks, the migration system must be able to respond quickly and at scale to events where it may be necessary to limit travel to Australia on a temporary basis.

The Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 will allow temporary restrictions on the arrival of certain classes of temporary visa holders in Australia, where it is necessary to protect the integrity and sustainability of Australia's immigration system. This includes when events or circumstances outside Australia mean that there is an increased risk that certain temporary visa holders will not depart Australia.

This Bill will expressly provide the Minister for Home Affairs, with the written agreement of the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, the power to make an 'arrival control determination' in relation to a class or classes of non-citizens.

The Minister may make an arrival control determination where an event or circumstance has occurred or is occurring outside Australia—and where one or both of the following apply:

The Minister must also be satisfied that it is in the national interest to make the determination.

This would result in the temporary prevention of travel to Australia for those temporary visa holders covered by the determination, while it is in force. This will provide Government with time to assess the evolving situation and take the necessary steps to manage any risk to our national interest.

This Bill will strengthen the migration system and enable Government to respond rapidly to any international crisis—importantly with a range of safeguards applying to this power.

The determination is limited to temporary visas. It cannot be exercised in relation to any permanent visas.

The determination can only be in effect for up to six months. It cannot be varied or extended, and must not be longer than the period that the Minister considers appropriate in all the circumstances.

A new determination can be issued upon expiry, but only where all elements of the legislative test are met.

The determination will not impact a visa held by a non-citizen who is in Australia at the time the determination is made.

This Bill recognises the importance of family reunion and our international commitments. The Bill expressly provides that the power to suspend a temporary visa will not apply, if at the time the determination is made, the non-citizen is:

a. The parent of a child under 18 years old who is in Australia.

b. An immediate family member of an Australian citizen or permanent resident.

c. The holder of a temporary protection, refugee or humanitarian visa, or person who holds a bridging visa granted in association with one of those visas.

There will also be the ability to exempt individuals from the determination on a case by case basis, enabling travel for those individuals by issuing a permitted travel certificate. This balances the need to act rapidly, with flexibility to support certain individuals where appropriate. For example, in compelling or compassionate cases, or where it is in Australia's foreign policy interest or the public interest to do so.

The determination would be required to be tabled in both houses of Parliament, together with a statement of reasons. If any 'permitted travel certificates' are issued, the legislation also requires the Minister to tale a report on the number issued in each six month period. These requirements provide appropriate transparency and accountability in relation to the exercise of the powers in this legislation.

The determination will not operate to cancel anyone's visa or refuse the grant of a visa application. Once a determination ends, visa holders will be able to travel if their visa period is longer than the determination. If a non-citizen's temporary visa expires during the period of the determination, they are eligible to apply for a further visa. The determination suspends travel to Australia while it is in force—it is not a bar on visa applications. Any new visa application would be appropriately considered having regard to the applicant's intention, circumstances and other relevant matters at that time.

This new framework will ensure that Government can quickly take the necessary steps to manage risk before it manifests in Australia.

It will also ensure that where risks can be appropriately managed, that travel limitations can be lifted as soon as it is in the national interest to do so. This Bill allows Australia's visa system to continue to operate effectively and to the benefit of Australia.

Conclusion

I commend the Bill to the Chamber.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

PARLIAMENTARY FRAMEWORKS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (REVIEWS) BILL 2026

The Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026 would amend the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023 (PWSS Act), the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MoP(S) Act) and the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 (PBR Act) to allow the forthcoming statutory reviews of these Acts, each of which is required to be conducted during the 48th Parliament, to be combined as part of a holistic review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces.

The Bill would also align the frequency of the future periodic reviews of the PWSS Act and the PBR Act to allow them to be combined or conducted separately.

The parliamentary ecosystem comprises a nexus of legislative frameworks governing the provision of resources to parliamentarians, the employment of their staff, and the services and supports to enable parliamentarians to perform their democratic role. The administration of these frameworks is the responsibility of a number of entities, with support provided to parliamentarians and their staff across the country.

The PBR Act established the legislative framework for the provision and use of public resources by parliamentarians in connection with their parliamentary business.

The provision of staff to assist parliamentarians with their parliamentary business is governed principally by two Acts: the MoP(S) Actandthe PWSS Act. The MoP(S) Act establishes the legislative framework for parliamentarians and office holders to employ people on behalf of the Commonwealth. The PWSS Act established the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service (PWSS) to provide centralised human resources and other employment related support to parliamentarians and their staff. The PWSS Act later established the Independent Parliamentary Standards Commission (IPSC) to independently and impartially investigate conduct in breach of the parliamentary behaviour codes.

Since 2016/17 significant reforms have fundamentally reshaped the parliamentary ecosystem, including:

Set the Standard: Report on the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces(Set the Standard)

The implementation of Set the Standard further led to:

A holistic review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces

Review of the progress of implementation of Set the Standard reforms and the statutory reviews of the PWSS Act, MoP(S) Act and PBR Act are due within the current parliamentary term:

Combining these reviews within a broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces provides an opportunity to examine how the recent reforms are maturing in a holistic way, in particular, to ensure the ecosystem and its supporting legislative frameworks continue to be fit for purpose and accord with community expectations.

Incorporating the PWSS Act, MoP(S) Act and PBR Act statutory reviews within the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces will enable an integrated examination of these statutes, remove the risk of contradictory outcomes, and reduce 'review fatigue' for parliamentarians and their staff.

However, the existing legislated timeframes prevent contemporaneous review:

The Bill will amend the PWSS Act, MoP(S) Act and PBR Act to allow these reviews to be combined as part of the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will be able to commence as soon as practicable from 23 March 2026.

Alignment of future statutory reviews of the PWSS Act and PBR Act

Review of the PWSS Act within the 48th Parliament is timely and appropriate given this government's substantial reforms to Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces in its first term. However, a statutory review each parliamentary term will deliver diminishing benefits following the inaugural review and will not allow sufficient time for the implementation of any prior review recommendations and maturing of associated changes to administration before a subsequent review must be conducted.

The Bill will therefore amend the PWSS Act to extend the frequency at which its periodic statutory review must occur—from each parliamentary term (as currently), to as soon as practicable from 23 March 2031 and every five years thereafter.

The PBR Act already requires statutory review every five years, from 2 August 2022. The Bill will make a minor amendment to this provision to align the timing of future PBR Act reviews with future PWSS Act reviews. That is, the Bill will require ongoing PBR Act reviews to be conducted as soon as practicable from 23 March 2031 and every five years thereafter, rather than each fifth anniversary of 2 August 2022. This will provide future governments the flexibility to combine the statutory reviews of the PWSS and PBR Acts, or to conduct them separately.

Conclusion

In summary, this Bill will enable the statutory reviews of the PWSS Act, PBR Act and MoP(S) Act to be conducted as part of the broader review of the systems and frameworks that govern Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, which will consequently be able to commence from 23 March 2026. The Bill will also align the timing of the future periodic reviews of the PWSS Act and the PBR Act to allow them to be conducted concurrently or be combined.

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

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

by leave—I advise the Senate that, for the purpose of the Senate Standing Committee for the Selection of Bills meeting tonight, Senator Susan McDonald will act on Senator Canavan's behalf as Nationals Whip.

I seek leave to make short statement.

Leave is granted for two minutes, Senator Pocock.

I wish to clarify our decision to not support the referral from Senator Bragg to the Economics References Committee for an inquiry into Housing Australia. The Greens don't support that referral, but I want to also put on record and remind this chamber of the Greens' consistent concerns with Housing Australia and the Housing Australia Future Fund. They're a matter of public record, so we are playing close attention to those aspects of housing, but we don't support this referral at this time. It's a matter which is under consideration through the ANAO. We will be looking with interest at its findings.

We're not averse to potentially, down the track, seeing an inquiry into the HAFF. The HAFF is too slow. It's too complicated. Very few people in Australia understand it—probably 15 people have actually got their heads around it. It relies on investment returns before spending money. It delays building. Its design is imperfect. It subsidises housing without guaranteeing that they enter the long-term, perpetual stock of public housing. It won't build enough housing, and it will potentially put a lot of profit into big developers' pockets. So it's a scheme that really needs a close look, we agree. Housing Australia has had many, many defects in its first years of operation, so we're paying attention. We want to see an inquiry where it's appropriate, down the track—just not right now, until we see the ANAO report.

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

I was talking about amendments to schedule 5 proposed by the cookers, grifters and homophobes of the far right on the other side of the chamber there. They are trying to remove Equality Australia from being a deductible gift—

Point of order: you adversely reflected on the personal characteristics of other members in the chamber.

I don't believe I referenced anyone—

I'm happy to seek further advice from the Clerk.

but, if so, I withdraw. Why are they wanting to remove Equality Australia from being a deductible gift recipient? In this whole lurch to the far right, we have seen more hatred and more division from the other side, deliberately trying to hurt LGBTQI+ Australians by removing Equality Australia from being a deductible gift recipient. If they are not homophobic intentions, why are they focusing only on Equality Australia?

The bill also recognises other organisations, such as the Parenthood Project, which is a similar entity to Equality Australia but, rather than progressing the rights of LGBTQI+ people, it focuses on family and parenting policy—for example, affordable child care—where Equality Australia exists to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTQI+ people in Australia. So, again, all one can take as the motives on the other side—and, I might add, this is backed in by Senator Chandler and the far, far right of the Liberal Party—is more division and hatred towards LGBTQI+ Australians. It is really telling to me as to the motives and intentions of this amendment.

There are many other deductible gift recipients that are currently operating within these laws, and they are perfectly fine to do the things that they do, where punters can come along and make a deduction, make a donation to them and claim it on their income tax return. In the words of Equality Australia: 'There is nothing unique or exceptional about the specific listing of Equality Australia compared with other organisations.' So what is the motive? I don't know. All I can take from it is that they have adverse intentions and are, again, trying to create division amongst Australians.

Equality Australia, I might add, has been a registered charity in Australia since January 2026 and was first incorporated as an Australian public company in December 2015. Upon incorporation it applied for and was granted charitable status by the ACNC and has maintained its status. So there is nothing irregular at all about them being listed in this bill in schedule 5 as a DGR.

That amendment has been backed in by Senator Chandler. I don't know if that is the position of the opposition but, given her new senior position within the Taylor opposition, I am assuming it is the position of the opposition. I thought there were quite reasonable people on that side who would support LGBTQI+ people having a voice in organisations and would be actually supporting LGBTQI+ people in the community, but, again, they're bowing to the likes of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. They are drifting farther to the right, to divide people and to hurt people. I commend the bill.

Last year's pre-election budget contained a hidden announcement indicating the federal government's intention to award deductible gift recipient status to Equality Australia. Additionally, deductible gift recipient is called registered charity status. That allows donations to the organisation to be claimed as tax deductions. Reduced taxation from donors means taxpayers wind up paying more, so, if a body is getting charity status, they better deserve it. The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 makes that happen—granting charity status to a lobby group Equality Australia until 1 July 2030. In other words, taxpayers will pay for donations to Equality Australia.

For those who don't know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. Their strategy is to force religious schools to teach the same perverted agenda taught in public schools, even to the point of forcing religious schools to hire trans teachers. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia as well as other faith based schools, numbering almost 2,800 schools across Australia. It strongly advocates to strip protections that currently and tenuously allow Christian schools to operate in name and in nature—that is, as Christian schools.

Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws which permit schools to fire, demote or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity or to expel or deny enrolment students on those grounds, as being contrary their religious teachings, although only certain religious groups. Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasah on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools. Both religions treat these issues the same way. It is this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group not a charity and a gutless one at that—a dishonest lobby group.

The background to this issue is that Equality Australia has previously sought public benevolent institution status as a way to get tax deductibility for the donor, yet the government's Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission rejected those attempts, and then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected the same attempts, and then the full Federal Court rejected the same attempts. All decided that Equality Australia is not a charity. It's a lobby group. They even say that in their strategic plan. While this was going on, media reports suggest Equality Australia has been rorting the system, channelling donations through another charity, Thorne Harbour Health, formerly the Victorian AIDS Council, and there you have it. What a pile. This arrangement may be allowing an entity which is not a charity but a lobby group to use, in whole or in part, tax deductions to an AIDS trust. This is a clearly non-conforming operation.

Complaints have been made to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Prime Minister's hand-picked governor-general is controversially the patron of Equality Australia, and the Australian newspaper has reported the Governor-General has declined to answer their questions on the appropriateness of this arrangement.

This bill was passed through the House of Representatives on 26 November 2025 and went to the Senate standing committee on economics for inquiry and report, and, of course, they rubberstamped it. One Nation calls for the granting of deductible gift status to Equality Australia to be put on hold until the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission completes investigations into these dodgy financial arrangements.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission grants charity status as a routine measure. It's only when an organisation which does not deserve to be a charity applies that bills like this come before the Senate. You know it—bills that overrule the experts, overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and override the full Federal Court. Does the minister know better than all of these bodies? Of course not. This decision has been taken because there are votes in the urban bubble in this war on Christianity and in Equality Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals pursuing gender.

And there's more. The Productivity Commission is reviewing the whole system for granting charity status. Their final report on philanthropy within Australia proposed a wholesale upheaval of the deductible gift recipient system. Why don't we do that—suspend more of these legislated overrules of the system until these matters can be settled? It would be terrifying to open the door to Equality Australia's having more money to conduct its war on Christianity and on religious schools—sorry, its war on Christian schools. It's not a war on Islamic schools but on Christian schools—not all religious schools, just Christian schools. With stronger campaign finance behind the lobby group, our schools are in danger of coming under attack once more.

In February's Senate estimates hearings, I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia's Governor-General is supposed to be neutral and to not take political positions. This leads to many questions for the government. Firstly, how is it that the Governor-General can be patron of a political activist group like Equality Australia, which actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children? Secondly, why did Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status? Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia such a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the full bench of the Federal Court? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group, the lobby group Equality Australia? Isn't this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirement of neutrality of the Governor-General?

Observing the government's blatant contradiction of the law, does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group, the activist group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government—on your behalf? Is this lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children's futile attempts to change sex, to change gender? One Nation will propose an amendment to the bill as follows: delete clause 4 of schedule 5 of the bill in its entirety and, consequently, delete chapter 5.18 of the bill's explanatory memorandum.

Turning to the bill as a whole, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund made during the onboarding of new employees and ban the advertising of certain superannuation products—fair enough. Additionally, it amends the income tax assessment acts to provide income tax and withholding-tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance. It amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum amount of wine equalisation tax producer rebate that eligible wine producers can claim to $400,000 each financial year.

I now address comments made by Senators McKim and Dolega in their second reading speeches earlier today. By the way, One Nation has members of the LGBTIQ community in its membership and in its voter base. In response to Senator McKim's comments about LGBTQI+, I note that many lesbians, gays and bisexuals oppose gender affirmation as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children. They oppose it, and they oppose it very strongly—I've spoken to them. Like One Nation, they know that surgery to chop body parts off children and the hormone and chemical treatment of adolescents alters brain function and puberty and neuter the victims' ability to have children later. One Nation clearly opposes gender affirmation of children as a way of treating gender dysphoria, a known mental health condition that children pass through. One Nation points to the lack of peer reviewed, double-blind, scientific and medical studies that support gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of studies and experts in the field now discrediting gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of children and parents using legal action, court action, to sue those now known to harm children through surgical, hormonal and/or chemical means implementing gender affirmation.

In response to Senator Dolega's use of labels—through you, Chair—including 'cookers' and 'homophobes', against us, I note that labels are the refuge of those incapable of responding with a rational, fact based argument, whether their claim is ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, desperate, stupid, weak, lazy or fearful. When people resort to using labels, they confirm they have neither the data nor the logical argument to counter their opponent's position. In that way, those who resort to labels admit they lack a counter argument. They're admitting they have lost. It's also not possible to give offence—only to take offence. Calling me a cooker or a homophobe—whatever—has no impact on me. It won't stop me telling the truth. I do not take offence. Until the recipient takes offence, labels are mere words that tell everyone about the labeller, not the labelled.

In conclusion, as I foreshadowed earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to this bill in committee stage. If the amendment is not carried, One Nation will oppose this bill; if the amendment is carried, One Nation will support the bill.

Senator Roberts, before you conclude, I want to draw your attention to standing order 193(2) of the Senate, which directs:

A senator shall not refer to the King, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate …

I would ask you to reflect on your comments with regard to the Governor-General and consider whether you wish to withdraw them.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was referring to the Governor-General's actions and whether or not the government condone them.

Okay. I might refer this matter to the President to look at what you said a bit more closely, but my recollection, Senator Roberts, was that you called into question the partiality or otherwise of the Governor-General. Is that not your recollection?

That is correct.

Then I would ask you to withdraw, because that is a—

I withdraw.

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025. There is nothing particularly offensive about the bill. This is a multischedule Treasury bill that covers a range of unrelated measures—for those who are tuning in and watching Senate time at 6.40 on a Wednesday night. Some elements of the bill are sensible and deserve support. For example, streamlining the process for employees to choose their superannuation fund during their onboarding process is clearly a practical reform that could reduce confusion and unnecessary paperwork. It also gives workers a clearer control over where their super goes, and I think that's a very important element. However, the bill also contains provisions that raise serious concerns about transparency and the priorities of the government.

One schedule in particular that I would like to draw the attention of the chamber to provides tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. This includes income tax and withholding tax exemptions linked to upcoming international events. At a time when Australians are facing a cost-of-living crisis, many people would reasonably ask the question: why is the parliament being asked to prioritise tax concessions for an international sporting body rather than addressing the issues that everyday Australians are facing—whether that be fuel prices skyrocketing; having childcare deserts, such as in my home state of Western Australia; our government pushing us towards an illegal war; or the cost of living remaining completely unbearable? Parents are having to choose between paying bills, buying groceries and paying for their mortgage and putting a roof over their kids' heads—and the priority of the government is to give tax breaks to World Rugby. I don't understand the rationale. I have no idea why this decision was made.

Another issue I have is the lack of transparency that we're seeing when it comes to the financial impact. The explanatory memorandum fails to estimate the cost to the budget. Instead, it uses vague language such as 'significant' or 'unquantifiable'. I mean, come on! That's simply not good enough. Senators are being asked to vote on legislation without knowing how much it will cost taxpayers. Again, this isn't an isolated situation or an isolated case. We've seen it time and time again, and it's become a pattern of the government. It proposes bills before the Senate without any clear financial disclosure. That impacts our role here, as senators. Our job is to scrutinise legislation very carefully, and that job becomes extremely difficult when the financial implications are hidden by the government behind specific types of vague wording. Transparency is literally the bare minimum standard that our parliament should adhere to. Australians deserve to know what decisions have been made, who they benefit and what the cost is to the public purse.

That's why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name. I move:

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

(a) expresses concern that during a cost-of-living crisis that is punishing everyday Australians, the Albanese Government's priority is to provide tax breaks to World Rugby;

(b) notes that the explanatory memorandum for this bill fails to estimate the impact these tax breaks will have on the Budget; and

(c) condemns the rise in explanatory memoranda for government bills failing to quantify their financial impact and instead cloaking the cost of measures in secrecy by using words like 'significant' and 'unquantifiable', leaving the Senate in the dark as to what effect the measures they are voting on will have on the Budget".

The amendment does three very simple things: it expresses concern that, during a cost-of-living crisis, the government's priority includes tax breaks for World Rugby; it notes that the explanatory memorandum does not estimate the budget impact of these measures; and it calls out the growing practice of hiding costs behind vague language, leaving the Senate in the dark. This amendment does not block the bill; it simply asks the parliament to acknowledge the problem of transparency that many across the crossbench and the coalition have been raising time and time again. If the government believes that these tax exemptions are justified then it should have no problem showing us the costs and being upfront about the costs. Good policy requires good scrutiny, and we cannot have good scrutiny without honest information at the table for everyone to see. That's the least that we can provide to the Australian people, and that's what they expect from us, because they've sent us here to make sure that we've crossed our t's and dotted our i's.

I'd like to thank all the senators who have contributed to this debate. I note the Senate economics committee report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025, including the dissenting report and additional comments, but the government does not support the recommendations outlined.

Schedule 1 to the bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the superannuation choice of fund process during employee onboarding. This amendment provides greater flexibility for employers or their agents to request an employee's existing stapled fund details from the ATO earlier in the onboarding process. That way, if a stapled fund exists, the employer can provide those details to the employee during onboarding.

This amendment supports the government's commitment to empowering employees to make informed choices, by making it easier to see, consider and select their existing super fund when they start a new job—if they choose to do so. It will also give employers more timely and accurate superannuation details, supporting their readiness for the government's payday super reforms.

Schedule 2 of the bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to impose a ban on advertising superannuation products to employees during onboarding. Exceptions will be available for showing employees their stapled fund, the employer's default fund and certain MySuper products which are subject to regulation. This amendment reinforces the government's commitment to supporting Australians to make an informed choice about their superannuation, while providing strong consumer protections.

Schedule 3 of the bill implements key budget measures to provide tax exemptions for the Rugby World Cup 2027 and 2029 events, which Australia is proud to host. These exemptions are a standard feature of international hosting arrangements and are critical to fulfilling our commitments to World Rugby. The exemptions are consistent with previous exemptions granted for events such as the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup and the 2020 ICC T20 World Cup. This measure is a practical and necessary step to ensure the success of these events and to uphold Australia's reputation as a trusted and capable host of major international competitions.

Schedule 4 of the bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force of law to the tax treaty between Australia and Portugal. This treaty is the first of its kind between Australia and Portugal and is in Australia's national interest. It will provide closer bilateral linkages with Portugal, particularly in the areas of commercial trade, investment and innovation. It will provide Australian individuals and businesses with increased opportunities to access capital and technology from Portugal by reducing tax on cross-border income and providing greater tax certainty. It will also facilitate labour mobility to strengthen our cultural ties with Portugal. Finally, the treaty builds on Australia's existing tax integrity measures, designed to combat international tax evasion and avoidance, ensuring multinationals pay their fair share of tax.

Schedule 5 of the bill amends the income tax law to specifically list the following organisations as deductible gift recipients: Coaxial Foundation, Community Foundations Australia, Equality Australia, Foundation Broken Hill, Partnerships for Local Action and Community Empowerment, the Paul Ramsay Foundation, Social Enterprise Australia, St Patrick's Cathedral Melbourne Restoration Fund, Sydney Chevra Kadisha, the Great Synagogue Foundation and Project Parenthood Ltd. The schedule also removes the following specifically listed entities: the Bradman Memorial Fund, Clontarf Foundation, NSCA Foundation, Sydney Talmudical College Association Refugees Overseas Aid Fund, the Australian Future Leaders Foundation, the Ranfurly Library Service, the Roberta Sykes Indigenous Education Foundation and WA National Parks and Reserves Association.

Schedule 6 of the bill will increase support available to all eligible wine producers under the existing wine equalisation tax producer rebate scheme from a cap of $350,000 per financial year to $400,000 from 1 July 2026. These changes deliver on the government's commitment to supporting the Australian wine industry as well as regional tourism investment and job creation. I commend the bill to the Senate, and I thank senators for their contribution.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 3682 together:

(3) Schedule 5, item 4, page 14 (lines 13 to 15), to be opposed.

(4) Schedule 5, item 20, page 16 (lines 14 to 16), to be opposed.

Just to foreshadow within the broader Committee of the Whole stage of the debate here this evening, the coalition isn't seeking to take up too much time because I think the vast majority of our amendments have all been foreshadowed in second reading contributions earlier today. The amendments that I have just moved are in relation to the DGR status for Equality Australia. Again, as I and others foreshadowed earlier today, we do not support the DGR listing for Equality Australia given it has failed to meet the standards required of public benevolent institutions to achieve this listing.

Can I clarify what amendments—the Senate moves quickly sometimes. Is it sheet 3682?

I believe it's sheet 3682. I believe the opposition has moved (3) and (4).

Well, the government won't be supporting these amendments because the effect of this is to remove Equality Australia from the list of deductible gift recipients. There are a number of these organisations that have all gone through the same process in order to get DGR status. Equality Australia is a national organisation dedicated to equality for LGBTIQ+ people. They combine legal, policy and communications expertise with thousands of supporters to ensure LGBTIQ+ people are treated with dignity and respect. Equality Australia exists to improve the wellbeing and circumstances of LGBTQI+ people in Australia and their families by: relieving distress and disadvantage to LGBTQI+ people; reducing the prevalence and relieving the effects of depression, suicide, anxiety, bullying and homelessness they experience; reducing the stigma and discrimination they experience; advancing and promoting equality and inclusion; and enhancing their actual and sense of safety, security and acceptance.

The government greatly appreciates the important contribution made to Australian communities and not-for-profit organisations. We understand that advocacy is an important way that charities work to change Australia for the better, and I think the list of DGR recipients that I read out in my second reading speech actually reminds us what an amazing country we live in with a full range of different organisations that have been listed there across education, advocacy, community work, people of different religious faiths, health spaces, social enterprises and in early childhood. I think it's actually a sign of the strength of our country that we would have organisations that should be specifically listed in this bill as deductible gift recipients or getting that status to do the important work that they do across the Australian community.

Minister, I was hoping you could provide some explanation for why a series of animal welfare groups, particularly those doing rehoming of wildlife and those doing advocacy for wildlife, have been excluded from having DGR status? I do this because I'm probably not the only member of the chamber and downstairs who, just earlier today, saw the extraordinary Matilda, an animal hospital truck, out the front. I see Senator Collins. Did you get to nurse a baby wombat outside in the Matilda hospital? It's extraordinary. It'll be there tomorrow. You can go and nurse a baby wombat as part of the extraordinary work that Wildlife Recovery Australia has been doing to help injured wildlife, to help wildlife carers. I'd urge anyone who hasn't been down there to visit the truck. Maybe, Senator Duniam, you'll change your views about the mass shooting of wallabies if you do that. Go down and visit the Matilda animal hospital. If that doesn't fill you with the spirit of protecting Australia's amazing national wildlife—there are two little baby boy wombats and an amazing carer who's been down there raising them from when they were little pink pups.

They've managed to get DGR status for Wildlife Recovery Australia. It cost over $1 million to set up this mobile animal hospital. When you go in, it's extraordinary. There are X-ray machines. There's an operating theatre. There are spaces for nursing and caring. If you want to see the extraordinary nature of Australia's wildlife, you can see this extraordinary X-ray of a fruit bat—the only powered-flight mammals on the planet. They're extraordinary creatures.

I raise this in this debate because not only is that extraordinary out there—I say go and see the Matilda Hospital. They travel around the country. They can go to where there are disasters. If there have been fires or floods, they can go and provide emergency relief for animals. Their daily job is providing emergency support for our wildlife—if they've been hit by trucks, if they've been hit by cars, if turtles get caught up in fishing lines and debris on our coasts or if koalas get run down and attacked by wild dogs. They are extraordinary and they provide that daily relief.

They've got DGR status, so they can actually have a funding method to fund them, and they have the extraordinary generosity of the public. Maybe they could do with some Commonwealth funding, Minister. I tell you what, they could do with some recurrent Commonwealth funding to keep the Matilda hospital up and running and keep it on the road. It's an extraordinary place.

But there are too many animal welfare groups who don't have DGR status because of the narrow requirements for DGR status. If the animal welfare group is just about rehoming wildlife—surely we want groups to be out there rehoming wildlife. If they've recovered a koala that's been burnt in the fires—it goes in, it's been rehomed and nursed back to health. Surely we want those organisations to have DGR status. They are extremely generous, warm hearted members of our community who are out there looking after our wildlife after a disaster or after they've been hit by a car—looking after little wombat pups that were rescued when their mum was hit by car.

I know that there's an amendment that has been circulated. I think it's amendment 3645, which my colleague Senator McKim put, which would widen the DGR status eligibility to include animal welfare organisations and to include those organisations that rehouse our extraordinary native wildlife. I can't work out why the government is resisting that and why we don't value organisations that are out there rehoming wild animals, doing the disaster and crisis emergency response for animals and animal welfare advocacy.

This is a matter that I know many of my Greens colleagues across the country are deeply passionate about, because we see the great work they do. Minister, I suppose the first question is: will the government be supporting amendment 3645? If not, what is your answer to those extraordinary, generous Australians who give their time for these amazing organisations to advocate for our wildlife and to rehome them when they need it?

On the foreshadowed amendments on sheet 3645, I support much of what you said, Senator Shoebridge. I'm a big animal lover. I've been very involved with the RSPCA here in the ACT. My life after politics will involve animals, for sure, and rescuing animals; I look forward to it. However, the arguments you run could also be run around a whole range of voluntary and community organisational work that gets done across the community.

We have the categories that are eligible for consideration for DGR status, and I can run through those: health, education, research, welfare and rights, defence, environment, the family, international affairs, sports and rec, cultural organisations, fire and emergency services, ancillary funds and community charities. Indeed, there are a number of wildlife organisations who are already eligible for DGR endorsement under the existing DGR general categories. Organisations with the principal purpose of short-term, direct care or rehab of animals, such as the Wildlife Information Rescue and Education Service—or WIRES—and Wildlife Recovery Australia, are endorsed as DGRs, as well as certain animal welfare organisations which have been specifically listed in the tax law as DGRs. For example, the RSPCA and each of its state and territory affiliates is specifically listed in the tax law; it treats, protects and rehomes animals, along with empowering and educating communities to improve animal welfare across the country.

However, we will not be supporting the amendments in Senator Faruqi's name that you foreshadowed. In 2023, the Albanese government asked the Productivity Commission to undertake a review of philanthropy to identify opportunities for and obstacles to increasing philanthropic giving. The PC was independent in undertaking this review, and its final report made several findings and recommendations, including that reforms to the DGR system should be introduced to create fairer and more consistent outcomes for donors, charities and the community. The PC found that the complexity of the system continues to increase as new DGR endorsement categories are added in a piecemeal manner.

The government announced in the 2024-25 MYEFO that it would initially implement the following recommendations from the Productivity Commission's final report Future foundations for giving: removing the condition that a gift to a deductible gift recipient be valued at $2 or more before the donor may claim a tax deduction; aligning and increasing the minimum annual distribution rate for public and private ancillary funds, to be renamed giving funds; and allowing funds to smooth distribution over three years. The government continues to consider its response to the PC report's recommendation on DGR reform. We have worked through these reforms with careful consideration, and we will continue to be guided by the recommendations of the PC's report and the sector-led not-for-profit sector development blueprint as we work to double giving in Australia.

Alongside those commitments, we've been working methodically to reform Australia's DGR system and support our charities. We've streamlined the DGR system by returning four key categories to the ATO; created the new 'community charity' category to encourage more local and place based giving and to broaden the pool of regular Australian donors; given the charities commissioner greater discretion to comment on compliance activity; and expanded the ACNC advisory board to be more representative of the sector and to strengthen the network of charity regulators across the Commonwealth and the states and territories.

Thank you for that detailed contribution, Minister, and partial explanation. I'm familiar with the findings of the report, but one of the key things that I think many Australians would be surprised to know is that, as a result of this bill, and if the government doesn't go outside the conclusions of that report, a series of incredibly valued organisations that do animal welfare work will continue to be excluded from DGR status.

One of those organisations that I had the pleasure of working with closely when I was a member of the state parliament was Animals Australia. Animals Australia does extraordinary campaigns to address some systemic issues of animal welfare—for me, some of the most fundamental issues of animal welfare—and I think our society tries to pretend they don't happen. There are cruelties that happen in much of industrial agriculture, and Animals Australia have been extraordinary in exposing those cruelties, such as chickens in battery cages. This cruelty is inflicted on millions of these quite remarkable little creatures every day across this country.

I don't know if any of you have had the pleasure of having backyard chooks, but they have amazing little personalities. They're little, distinct creatures who can be extremely affectionate and have their own distinct personalities if they're given the chance. But, as Animals Australia has pointed out so often and so compellingly, they are put in these cruel cages, unable to express any of their natural attributes and unable to do any of their social activities, all so there can be marginally cheaper eggs produced with marginally lower input costs—as you've reduced their energy output because they can't move. The cruelty that Animals Australia have exposed through their campaigning in this regard has been quite extraordinary, and I'm incredibly grateful for the work they do. But they can't get DGR status; they're excluded because they do advocacy.

There's the work they do pointing out the cruelty in the industrial raising of pigs, with sows kept in narrow cages where they can't roll and can't move—and the wounds they have and the appalling life they have. Pigs are incredibly intelligent and incredibly communal creatures, and Animals Australia has done some incredibly brave work pointing out the cruelty that happens to pigs in those industrial intensive piggeries.

There's the work that they're doing right now in urging the ACT government not to grant permits to kill wombats. I said earlier that there were two beautiful little boy wombats out there in the Matilda truck, but, unless something changes, the ACT government will continue to issue permits to kill wombats. Animals Australia have been doing the advocacy, making the case that wombats in this country should not be subject to killing and trying to get the ACT government to change their plans.

Minister, are you familiar with the work of Animals Australia? I genuinely accept your belief in a post-politics career in caring for animals or in career volunteer work; I genuinely accept it. Sometimes I wonder why the politics divide us in some of these actions of trying to come up with a system that cares for animals and treats them as sentient creatures that we have the enormous benefit of sharing the planet with. And Animals Australia are trying to do that work. They're trying to make our nation, our food production systems and our landscape management actually treat animals as sentient creatures. So, Minister, why won't your government amend the DGR so that Animals Australia and other advocacy groups like them get that DGR status?

As I said in my earlier remarks, the reason we're here and discussing this is that the government has, in this bill, listed a number of organisations to become deductible gift recipient organisations, and, because they don't fit in the existing categories, they were brought to the parliament for consideration through this law. As I said earlier, I have a lot of support for animal welfare organisations. It's a bit scary to agree with you, Senator Shoebridge, on so much of the content of your previous remarks! I have found some things—like when I was Chief Minister here and having to authorise the kangaroo cull—extremely challenging because of my own views about animals and animal welfare. And I understand the live debate about wombats, as well.

And the rabbits, too!

Yes, even the rabbits. There are a lot of rabbits in Canberra at the moment.

There is nothing to prevent those organisations from seeking the same approval as these organisations have. We get a lot of requests for DGR status. Some of them can be met automatically; others can come through this process. But I would also say there are number of animal welfare organisations that have DGR status. If there are others that think they fit the criteria for consideration by government, I would urge them to apply.

Early this year, concerns were raised that Australian registered charities are funnelling tax-deductible funds to illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank as well as the Israel Defense Forces. A recent investigative report and data from the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission identified several organisations linked to these activities. Jewish National Fund Australia is reported to have remitted over $125.4 million to Israel since 2009. An investigative document suggests that these funds have supported illegal settlements and IDF linked projects. An investigation by Michael West Media revealed that the United Israel Appeal Refugee Relief Fund has transferred approximately $376 million to Israel since 2013, via Keren Hayesod, with some funds reaching settlement expansion projects and soldiers. In early 2026 the Chai Charitable Foundation was found to be hosting fundraisers for organisations providing direct support to IDF soldiers and settlement communities in Tekoa and Hebron. I note that it did remove those campaigns from its home page, following media scrutiny. The United Nations special rapporteur has identified IsraelGives and Christians for Israel as having Australian subsidiaries with DGR status that may be enabling similar funding.

It is obviously of significant concern if there are charitable organisations in Australia that are funnelling funds to illegal occupiers and illegal settlements. The ACNC has said that it cannot enforce international law, such as the illegality of settlements, unless it's explicitly incorporated into domestic Australian law. I note that, between October 2023 and December 2025, the ACNC received 896 concerns, related to 88 charities, regarding the Israel-Gaza conflict. Obviously, given that these donations are tax-deductible, if they are finding their way to organisations that are associated with the illegal occupation of those territories, that effectively means taxpayers are subsidising illegal occupation and militarisation.

So the question that I put to the minister is: will the government support the foreshadowed Greens amendment, which would mean a loss of DGR status for organisations that are shown to be supporting illegal occupations?

This relates to the amendment circulating in Senator Faruqi's name, on sheet 3646. The government won't be supporting this amendment, and I'll briefly take you through why.

There is no DGR category or purpose that allows charities to support illegal activities at home or abroad. Registered charities already must ensure that they meet their ongoing obligations to the ACNC, including by complying with the ACNC's governance standards, and the ACNC's governance standards require a charity to remain charitable, operate lawfully and be run in an accountable and responsible way.

Charities that operate overseas, including giving funds, must also comply with the ACNC's external conduct standards. These standards require charities to take reasonable steps to ensure appropriate standards of behaviour, governance, oversight and record keeping when undertaking activities or providing resources overseas. The governance standards require charities to comply with all Australian law, including the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 or hate speech legislation that has passed. The external conduct standards also require a charity to comply with Australian law as it relates to international sanctions, terrorism financing and slavery or slavery-like conditions, and to have reasonable procedures to ensure compliance with those laws. The external conduct standards do not extend to conduct under international law.

Governance and external conduct standards also require a charity to ensure its resources are only used to further its purpose and that it is operating in a way consistent with a not-for-profit entity. Charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met. Where a charity's registration is revoked, the ATO may also remove its access to DGR status and other tax concessions. I would also say to Senator Allman-Payne that, if there are charities that she is concerned about and that she doesn't believe meet those standards, I would urge her or her colleagues to make that known to the ACNC.

I'd like to speak to the amendments that have already been moved by the opposition.

Yes, that's fine. I understand you have ones that are identical. So you'll speak to the opposition amendments?

Thank you, yes. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 is typical of what we've seen from this Labor government: a hodgepodge of issues with seemingly no connection but with a poison pill buried in it. Schedule 5 of this bill includes the addition of Equality Australia as a deductible gift recipient, a designation usually reserved for charities. As with many other far-left organisations, Equality Australia sounds perfectly harmless. Who could argue against equality? But this organisation is a vehicle for radical gender activism aimed at our children. It is focused on lobbying and influencing policy all over Australia. Right now in my home state of Western Australia, religious schools are exempt from equality laws, which allows them to protect and shield children from the harmful gender ideologies that have crept into every crevice of the public education system. On Equality Australia's website, they have an entire report around trying to overturn these protections and forcing Christian schools to accept activists who would peddle transgender ideology to children. This organisation is the agent of an ideology that refuses to allow parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to be exposed to.

The public school system has been captured in its entirety by woke ideology. We have reports of children identifying as animals and we see LGBTQI flags hanging in classrooms, while the curriculum demonises the Australian flag and teaches our kids to see this amazing country as an evil, colonial, genocidal project. It is little wonder that parents are forking out good money to send their kids to Christian schools that have resisted becoming ideological brainwashing camps. The public education system needs complete reform so that those who can't afford private education are not left behind for the delusional far left for 12 years. This is why, when I see an organisation like Equality Australia getting favours from the Labor government, it makes my blood boil. You have the entire public system singing your tune. Can you not leave parents a single off-ramp from your insane ideology so that they can feel safe that their children are not being asked what gender they are today?

But the idea that this organisation is not fit to be treated as a charity—that is, not a public benevolent institution—is not mine. It was a decision of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The ACNC decided that Equality Australia did not qualify under any of the 53 categories of a deductible gift recipient. Their application was rejected on the basis that the group's primary purpose of the group was non-benevolent advocacy for law reform. Basically, they are lobbyists. But it didn't stop there. They appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, who also rejected the case, finding that their primary focus was on changing law and social practices. And it didn't stop there. A further appeal was lodged with the Full Federal Court, who unanimously dismissed the appeal, finding that both the AAT and the ACNC were correct in their assessment that this entity is not a public benevolent institution but a lobbyist group.

After the judiciary made these sensible determinations and rejected the notion that this lobbyist group should be subsidised with taxpayer dollars, what did they do? They went to the one group that loves to give away taxpayer dollars and promote transgender ideology to your children: Labor. Sure enough, the next thing we see is the Labor government burying a decision to promote trans ideology to children in a superannuation bill that has nothing to do with it. This is pathetic, cowardly pandering by the Labor government.

If that isn't enough, the plot thickens again. It turns out that the Governor-General of Australia, Sam Mostyn, is a patron of Equality Australia. Equality Australia's website includes the following quote by the Governor-General:

I look forward to amplifying Equality Australia's mission to build an equal Australia that is fair and inclusive for all LGBTIQ+ people, their families and their communities.

It doesn't say 'children'. The smell of favouritism and nepotism is rife here. There are so many serious problems facing Australians, and here is the Labor government wasting time doing favours—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator Whitten. If you would resume your seat, I have a point of order from the minister.

Earlier, we had a ruling from Acting Deputy President Sharma, as the chair, about the standing orders, where a speech impugns the reputation of the Governor-General. It was on this exact point. Senator Roberts was required to withdraw, and I would suggest Senator Whitten do the same.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: In the spirit of cooperation, if you wouldn't mind withdrawing, that would be excellent.

I withdraw. With so many serious problems facing Australia, here is the Labor government wasting time doing favours for friends that want to push a radical gender ideology. If you have children or grandchildren and you want to have the option to send your kids to a school where they can just be kids and not be exposed to this radical ideology, write to your Labor members and ask them why they want to promote this ideology to children. Ask them why they buried it in an unrelated superannuation bill. Ask them why they are advocating for taking away parents' right to choose what is best for their kids. If you care about the wellbeing of children, the Labor party has abandoned you.

I'm giving those in this room who care deeply about the wellbeing and education of children an opportunity to reject the endorsement of radical gender ideology. If you vote this amendment down, you are telling all the parents of Australia that you agree that all schools, no matter their moral conviction, must adhere to this far-left madness. You will not be on the right side of history. Look at the UK's Cass review and the shutdown of the Tavistock clinic on the basis that the evidence for the treatment of children with puberty blockers was incredibly weak, with huge holes in the collection of data. It is dressed up as science, but any digging below the surface reveals that it is merely ideological fantasy.

Just this month, the Australian released a piece on the collection of data on puberty blockers in Australia. The data is being suppressed, with six out of eight states and territories withholding their information. If organisations like Equality Australia believe that they are doing the right thing, why the secrecy? Why not release all the data that supports the claims? The simple fact is that there is no data to support the claims. Their insane world view harms children. History will not look kindly on those who have hurt children in the name of ideology.

Once again, I ask everyone in this place to carefully consider which side of history they want to be on. How complicit do you want to be in promoting this madness? Let's leave parents with the option to not have their kids exposed to this insanity. Leave Christian and independent schools alone.

Chair, may I speak to the same amendment that the senator has just addressed?

You certainly can.

I wasn't going to speak on this amendment, but I just got off the phone with my wife and my daughter, and it made me think that it would be a good thing to respond to some of the accusations that have been made about this organisation. Equality Australia has helped my family an enormous amount. In fact, we wouldn't be married or have a daughter if it wasn't for Equality Australia. The work that they do to help people in this country who still face discrimination every single day and still face an incredible amount of mental health harm from exposure to comments like this is exactly why Equality Australia should be supported through this bill and why the amendment proposed by the coalition, not One Nation, should be voted down.

The other thing I want to say about this amendment—I'm not going to debate you on the validity of my family and the love that we have. That's not a debate that I'm going to have with you today. We won that debate in this country many years ago, in this chamber and in the chamber over there and in the streets outside. We won that debate because Equality Australia brought people together from all across the country. They brought people from corporate life, from unions, from sporting organisations and from every single part of this political life. The point that I wanted to make is that, now, the modern Liberal Party is moving motions like this.

Back in the day, when we were debating whether I would have the ability to marry the person I love, those on the other marched with us. They marched with Equality Australia, and now they want to take them down. That's how much modern Liberal Party has changed because they're fighting with you—a culture war—to make sure that you don't take seats off them, instead of doing what's right and standing up for people who need the help of an organisation like Equality Australia. I can't believe that, in a bill like this, looking at superannuation, the Liberal Party has managed to find another culture war. We see this all the time. Whether it's LGBTQIA communities, multicultural communities or First Nations people, there isn't a culture war in this place that the Liberal Party isn't prepared to fight so they can take on One Nation.

We will always stand up for people in the LGBTQIA community. I am very proud to stand up for my family and my community, and that's why we will be opposing this amendment.

I rise to associate myself with the words that we just heard from Senator Green, with the very, very minor caveat that, although Equality Australia played an absolutely critical role in the delivery of marriage equality, there were many other advocates who were not involved with Equality Australia who also contributed significantly to that campaign, including many who were campaigning for marriage equality before Equality Australia even existed. The sentiments outlined by Senator Green are exactly sentiments that the Australian Greens would associate themselves with.

I have to say there has basically never been a trans kid in this country that One Nation weren't prepared to sacrifice and throw under the bus in the name of their incessant fighting of culture wars. There has never been a trans kid in this country who One Nation are not prepared to demonise and persecute in the pursuit of their dangerous ideology. I remind people that trans children are some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We need to wrap our arms around them and show them love and support, and I say that as someone who had a trans kid, who is now a fantastic young trans man in my family. I went through Jasper's journey with him, and he knows that I speak about him in this place, and he's very happy for me to do this. I went through that journey with him, and I fought for him and with him and for and with every other trans kid in this country, all the way through, and I will continue to do that. Every time One Nation gets up and tries to throw trans kids under the bus, I'll push back. I know my colleagues in the Australian Greens—every single one of us—will push back, and we will fight for the rights of trans kids to be who they are and to be loved and respected for what they are.

This is not a choice, as is so deliberately miscategorised by people in this debate who are transphobic. This is not a choice; this is a critical fundamental matter of who they are as human beings. Honestly, I can't see why every single senator in this place would not respect the right of people to be who they are and to be embraced and loved and respected for who they are.

What did trans kids ever do to you? What did they do to you to make you go to war with them in such an egregious, foul and despicable way—to bring about such harm to such a vulnerable and marginalised section of our community? What this Senate should do and what all senators should do is show love and respect to trans people in this country and show that we are prepared to support them all the way, as the Australian Greens do.

Progress reported.

As you know, President, communities in northern Australia over the last couple of weeks and, of course, over this season have been experiencing an enormous amount of severe weather, with a lot of rain and a lot of flooding. I think the thoughts of everyone in the chamber tonight are with those people who are facing that flooding and the response and recovery that will follow.

The Queensland floods are an incredibly challenging situation right now, and a flood watch is current for most of the state, with widespread minor to moderate flooding occurring across large areas, and major flooding already being recorded across several river systems. There are currently three active flood emergency warnings—for Warra, Chinchilla and Bundaberg—and we know that people are being told to leave these areas immediately. It is important that people listen to the authorities.

We know that there are also floods across major parts of Queensland, all the way through down to South-East Queensland. Many communities in western Queensland have also been isolated for significant periods, with some northern western communities cut off since December last year. Significant road closures remain across much of North Queensland and western Queensland due to flooding and infrastructure damage. These are incredibly tough conditions. But, if there's one thing that we know about Queenslanders, it's that we are bloody tough. We know that Queenslanders know how to look after each other. We know how to pull together when times get hard, and, right now, communities across our state are doing exactly that.

The Albanese government is standing with these communities. We are working continuously and closely with the Queensland government to provide support and make sure communities have the assistance they need to respond to and recover from these severe weather events. Through the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, support has already been activated across dozens of local government areas impacted by the Queensland monsoon trough, Cyclone Koji and severe weather. As of yesterday, the Australian and Queensland governments have jointly committed more than $66 million in additional recovery funding to support affected communities. The funding is helping support clean-up efforts, recovery programs and the rebuilding of essential public infrastructure. Disaster recovery allowance payments have also been made available to people whose livelihoods have been affected, and personal hardship assistance is being delivered to help families deal with immediate impacts and those events that occurred earlier this year. There is also targeted support for primary producers, small businesses and not-for-profit organisations because we know how important these local industries are to regional communities.

Importantly, I know that both of our governments stand ready to deliver more support if it is needed, and it will be needed. The situation continues to evolve, and we will keep working with local communities to assess impacts and respond accordingly. Right now, our message to Queenslanders is simple: stay safe, follow the advice of emergency services and listen to local warnings and updates.

There really isn't a community in Queensland that hasn't gone through a weather event like this over the past couple of years. It is devastating, but it does bring communities together. You see the very best of what makes Queensland a great state. Our emergency workers, our volunteers, our council staff and our community members are working around the clock to protect lives and support their neighbours. We say a very big thankyou to all of those people tonight.

I'd like to associate myself with Senator Green's remarks. I couldn't agree more with the observations that she made.

I'm rising to speak this evening in relation to this thing called the integrated assessment tool, which is being used by the Commonwealth government to determine home support eligibility. I am becoming increasingly concerned about reports regarding the application of this tool and, in particular, concerns that assessors are unable to override the algorithms that are part of the integrated assessment tool. I spoke about this briefly yesterday evening in relation to the case of an individual suffering motor neurone disease who was seeking additional support, and, when the data was input into the integrated assessment tool, the result that was spat out was less care, not more care.

It is of particular concern that it appears that assessors cannot override the operation of the integrated assessment tool and its algorithm. The more I look into this, the more I feel concerned about the inappropriate nature of how this tool is being applied. I ask those who see this contribution to contact my office. I want to hear your stories, because the stories I've heard so far are terribly concerning. There is a place for automated decision-making, but there is no place for automated decision-making when you are dealing with something as fundamental as home support eligibility and, in particular, when you're dealing with individuals who are suffering from complicated conditions, in environments where they're being supported by loved ones—elderly loved ones. They're finding that this tool is leading to extraordinary outcomes.

I want to quote from a story by Melissa Davey, medical editor for the Guardian. She's referred to a number of cases. Let me quote an article dated 24 February:

A 77-year-old woman who cares for her husband, 83, described the IAT as "terrible and inhumane".

The woman, who wished to remain anonymous to protect her husband's health information, told Guardian Australia he was "practically immobile with constant back pain", leaving her responsible for all everyday tasks and decision-making.

Despite this, he was rejected for any home support after being assessed through the IAT.

"The assessor was surprised and disappointed, as was our doctor and my husband's specialists," she said.

"I am clearly not coping with all this … it is a terrible system that overrides human and professional judgments."

I want to quote another article by Melissa Davey, from 6 March 2026, where she reports that one of the people involved in the development of this assistance tool is absolutely horrified that it's being used in the way it is. I want to quote this lady, whose name is Lynda Henderson. This is what she says:

"It is not the assessment or the questions that is the problem. It's the absolutely ridiculously simplistic scoring algorithm that's been applied to it.'

…   …   …

She said she feels "fury and frustration" about what the assessment has become. "The worst thing the government did was to disallow assessors to override it."

In that article, the journalist refers to the fact that the guidelines provide that assessors can't override the classification. I did some research and found the guidelines that were referred to in My Aged Care. This is Assessor Portal User Guide 6, and that's what it says on page 37: it can't be overridden. It then refers to rule 81-10 of the Aged Care Rules, which make no reference whatsoever to overriding assessments. These Aged Care Rules went before the delegated legislation scrutiny committee, on which I sit. There was no suggestion that there would be these guidelines preventing overruling of assessments.

The Transport Workers' Union has long championed the rights of aviation workers striving for safer, more secure skies and fairer working conditions across Australia's airports. As the aviation industry rebounds from recent challenges, the TWU's campaign has become even more vital. Their mission is clear: to improve pay and conditions for ground crew, flight crew and all those who help keep our skies safe and our flights running.

Major airlines, including Virgin and Qantas, are reporting billions of dollars of profit, demonstrating a robust recovery in the sector. They are charging more for seats than ever before, they cancel flights at any time without notice and they are even asking customers who already have a seat on the plane to bid for an upgraded seat. Yet the workers who make these profits possible—ground crew, baggage handlers, cabin crew and pilots—are often left behind. The average wage for many aviation workers sits between $45,000 and $50,000 per year, barely enough to meet the cost of living. This stark disparity has become a focal point in the TWU's campaign as it highlights the urgent need for meaningful change to how workers are valued and compensated.

Today I heard from Ebanie, who is a cabin manager at Virgin Australia. Ebanie has been instrumental in the TWU's filing of an application to vary the Cabin Crew Award because she isn't being paid enough for the work she does and can't get ahead. She can barely stay afloat on this award. She's had 23 years of experience. The reality for ground and flight crew is far from glamorous. Many face underpayment, insecure contracts and tough working conditions. Restrictions on working from certain locations, such as Hobart in Tasmania, mean that workers often have limited options, forcing them to accept lower wages or relocate. The industry's frequent flight cancellations and delays add further strain, making it difficult to plan, earn a stable income or maintain a healthy work-life balance. I also heard from Matthew, who has been affected by the regional base closures in Canberra and in Hobart. His case is a strong example of the need for an independent decision-maker in these types of decisions, because they are abjectly unfair.

Let's face it. While frontline staff struggle, executive salaries at Virgin and Qantas tell a very different story. CEOs and board members enjoy generous remuneration packages, often in the millions of dollars, outstripping the pay of those who keep the airlines running. This imbalance is deeply concerning, particularly as workers' efforts are crucial to the industry's ongoing success.

The other issue that really concerned me was the fact that there are so many workers in all areas training baggage handlers, engineers and pilots—we know there's a shortage of air traffic controllers—who've lost so much experience. You actually have trainers who have had less than 20 per cent experience trying to teach those new people that are coming on. It used to be a ratio of 80 to 20; now it's 20 to 80. That is a real concern. We've got a very good safety record in this country. That's at risk. And, as I said, if the airlines are making such a huge profit, we really do owe it to those workers who keep a very safe, successful industry. They should be remunerated with what they deserve.

I want to give a big shout-out to the TWU, particularly the national secretary, Michael Kaine, for bringing his delegates here and telling their real stories which are so powerful for senators and members and their staff to understand the issues that they're confronted with. Things do not change unless people speak up, and that's why it's so important that we take advantage of the opportunity to hear firsthand from these delegates. Their stories are real, and we know on this side of the chamber that we will always stand up for Australian workers. We will stand up for fair wages and good conditions, because it's also part of our DNA. (Time expired)

Senate adjourned at 19:44