COMMITTEES

Meeting

If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised.

MOTIONS

Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the resignation of the Bondi royal commission special adviser, Dennis Richardson, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion giving precedence to a motion relating to the resignation of the Bondi royal commission's special adviser, Dennis Richardson.

Again, this is one of the most important matters to ever come before not just this chamber but also Australia. That is why the motion to suspend standing orders is so important. In December of last year, Australians were utterly horrified when news reports started coming through of a mass terrorist event at Bondi Beach. Fifteen innocent people were slaughtered. As a result of that, Australians demanded that this government establish a royal commission. They were dragged, kicking and screaming, to do just that, and they eventually did.

But one of the things that the Prime Minister said at the time was that Mr Dennis Richardson's review—the Richardson review—would be folded into the royal commission. Why? Because the Prime Minister himself told Australians that Mr Richardson, given who he is and what his qualifications are, was the person best qualified in our country to examine the intelligence and security surrounding the Bondi massacre. Then, this morning, Australians woke to the news that this person, the Prime Minister's hand-picked adviser, appointed by the Prime Minister because of his expertise in relation to, putting it in plain English, working out what the hell went wrong that ended up with 15 people being slaughtered at Bondi Beach, has actually quit the royal commission. Again, national security matters and the protection of Australians matters. That is why the coalition has taken this step this morning to put forward a motion to suspend what would otherwise be the normal business of the Senate to actually address this matter.

One of the issues the government now faces, though, is this: Mr Richardson did not leave quietly. He has left with words for those Australians who did not hear him this morning, and these words should stop not just Australians but also every single senator in this chamber cold. They should reflect very, very carefully on whether or not they support this suspension. This is what Mr Richardson told the Australian people this morning:

… I was surplus to requirements.

How in God's name is the man who formerly headed our intelligence services, who has one of the most impeccable resumes this country has ever seen when it comes to protecting Australia and Australians—he is the Prime Minister of Australia's hand picked adviser to the royal commission.

The Prime Minister himself, when he announced the folding of the Richardson inquiry into the royal commission, specifically said Mr Richardson is the best qualified person in the country to examine the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Bondi massacre, yet this morning Mr Richardson hasn't just handed in his resignation; he has gone public and said he is surplus to requirements. That is something that this Senate should be incredibly concerned about. They are words that should send not just a chill down the spine of every Australian but more so a chill down the spine of all Jewish Australians, because those on the opposite side of this chamber failed to protect you.

Fifteen innocent people were slaughtered on Bondi Beach. The government was dragged kicking and screaming to set up the royal commission. It eventually did that, and without even providing a first report the man who was chosen by the Prime Minister to look into the potential intelligence failings which resulted in 15 people being slaughtered in a mass terrorist attack last December has this morning said he is surplus to requirements. This is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. This is an absolute indictment on the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and, quite frankly, the entire government. They need to stand before the Australian people today and address this: what did Mr Richardson mean when he said he was surplus to requirements, and why are you failing the Australian people when it comes to getting to the bottom of the Bondi massacre?

I rise on behalf of my party to indicate we won't be supporting this political hatchet job the coalition is trying to make of a royal commission that's barely had the ink dry on the appointment.

If you want to read an extraordinary proposition from the coalition and show just how politicised they see Dennis Richardson, if you want to talk politics, putting Dennis Richardson in the heart of a royal commission into security agencies because he is, to quote this motion from the coalition, 'the one person capable of properly investigating intelligence failures'—you are kidding me! This bloke, Dennis Richardson, has so many conflicts of interest. He was the director-general of ASIO for the better part of a decade, he was the secretary of Defence and he's been the go-to person for the coalition and Labor since he's resigned to write reports that just whitewash any failures of the security agencies. He wrote a review into the National Intelligence Community in 2020, and the review reads like it's all fine, all terrific—all of his mates are doing a great job, there's nothing to see here, you don't need to change the law and don't need to review it. You want Richardson to write the report because you know he'll whitewash it just like he did in 2020.

Then, if you want to see the latest example of Richardson being the go-to to write a report to protect the substantial systemic failures of the coalition and Labor, have a look at his 2023 report into offshore detention. He goes and does a report into one of the most corrupt arrangements you could imagine: Home Affairs writing corrupt contract after corrupt contract, literally corrupting the Nauru government. We now know that they've been funding bikie gangs, funding illegal crime, engaging in drug dealing out of Nauru—and what did your mate Richardson say? Your mate Richardson said: 'Oh well—it's a tough environment. You have to work with organised crime. You have to corrupt people. Don't you worry about it. There's nothing to see here, no-one to hold to account.' That's why you want Richardson in this royal commission—you want the same whitewashing of the national security agencies and industries that he delivered in 2020 and 2023. We can see what you're doing here. And to call this guy 'the one person capable'—

That's what Albo said!

If you want to parrot the Prime Minister, go for your life! You can parrot the Prime Minister, but he's the one person grossly conflicted. He's the one person you can guarantee will write the report to whitewash and absolve your lot and their lot from any responsibility for systemic failures. That is why he finally said something that we can all agree on. Dennis Richardson, today, finally made a comment that the chamber could gather around and agree on: he's surplus to requirements.

What has been shown this morning is that the opposition have learnt nothing from the last couple of months. We see the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate come in here with a political attack immediately. Having learnt nothing from the former opposition leader Sussan Ley, she goes on the attack without actually thinking through the consequences. The Australian people are sick of these things being politicised in this manner.

We've been notified that Mr Richardson has resigned as adviser to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The government thanks Mr Richardson for his efforts to date, and the government will continue to support the royal commission to deliver its important work, including the delivery of the interim report by 30 April.

The government established the Commonwealth Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, led by former High Court justice the Hon. Virginia Bell. This will investigate and make recommendations regarding the circumstances leading up to and including the attack in Bondi, as well as the response of government and security agencies. The royal commission will also examine antisemitism in Australia and make recommendations towards combating hatred and strengthening social cohesion. But a royal commission is not the beginning or the end of what Australia must do to eradicate antisemitism and strengthen our social cohesion. This is an ongoing national effort for all of us.

The government has also been taking immediate and practical action to combat antisemitism. Our government will continue to support the work of our Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, and we will also drive the immediate change required in educational institutions, through the work that David Gonski is doing. We will continue to work with the states and territories to implement Australia's Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy, and we have passed legislation combatting hate and extremism and delivering tougher gun laws. Commissioner Bell has said she is confident that the interim report will be delivered in accord with the letters patent, which stipulates that the interim report must be delivered by 30 April, and the government will continue to support the royal commission to deliver its important work—including the delivery of the interim report, which is well advanced.

What we see from the opposition is that they are always quick on the political attack. That's something that this government rejects, and, to be honest, it's something that the Australian people reject. We've seen the result when the opposition goes on these political attacks, as the former opposition leader Sussan Ley did. It didn't work very well for her, and where is she now? I think all senators see the political attacks by the opposition for what they are. By coming in and doing a stunt like this, all they are doing is delaying the passage of important legislation that will help the royal commission do its work. By coming in and doing stunts, they're actually delaying the important business of the Senate—that is, passing legislation that will enable the royal commission to get on and do its work. On that note, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker Wendy Askew Sean Bell Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Pauline Lee Hanson Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price James Paterson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Tim Ayres Alex Antic Don Farrell Andrew Bragg Katy Gallagher Maria Kovacic Jenny McAllister Leah Blyth Deborah O'Neill Sarah Henderson Jess Walsh Matt O'Sullivan Penny Ying Yen Wong Matthew Canavan

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

Wendy Askew Sean Bell Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Pauline Lee Hanson Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price James Paterson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker Alex Antic Tim Ayres Leah Blyth Jenny McAllister Andrew Bragg Don Farrell Matthew Canavan Penny Ying Yen Wong Sarah Henderson Deborah O'Neill Maria Kovacic Katy Gallagher Matt O'Sullivan Jess Walsh

I seek leave to make a short statement of two minutes.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate for granting leave. I wanted to make sure that I could contribute on the appalling situation that sees an esteemed public servant, Dennis Richardson, feel that he can no longer continue with integrity in investigating what occurred behind the curtain with the Bondi terrorist attacks. How is it that Islamists were able to be granted a firearm licence by the New South Wales Police Force? What did our intelligence agencies know, and when did they know it? And did they communicate that effectively to the jurisdictions and the agencies that could have prevented this atrocious attack on Jewish Australians in December last year?

Our Jewish community, who are feeling incredibly fragile in the wake of the attack at Bondi Beach during Hanukkah, will feel gutted and betrayed that the Prime Minister's own hand picked chair has resigned, a man that is esteemed on both sides of the chamber and that Australians broadly trust—Dennis Richardson. He has not just served governments; he has served our nation as head of some of our intelligence organisations and the men and women—we don't know their names—who put themselves in danger to protect our national interests here at home and in theatres around the world. We always supported Dennis Richardson's appointment. (Time expired)

BUSINESS

Consideration of Legislation

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 during the time for private senators' bills today.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to the consideration of a bill during the time for private senators' bills today.

This is very important. It's a matter of urgency that this motion be moved today in the parliament. We actually have a crisis at the moment about fuel. We need to have gas brought into the country. Well, we've got plenty of gas, but we're denied the use of the gas.

My motion is very important. I moved this because One Nation can only twice a year move private senators' bills, and the debate on this has been shut down. The importance of this is seen in the fuel crisis at the moment, and it's more important to discuss the 15 per cent domestic gas reserve. Gas is abundant in this country, and we could actually turn it into petrol. That's how important it is. That's why it's urgent to deal with this.

There's a crisis that's happening at the moment, and we don't know how long the war in Iran is going to go on. We need to urgently look at this bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026, and discuss it today. It doesn't surprise me that Labor aren't interested in discussing this. They are probably going to come out with their own gas bill in the future—who knows? Are you going to pass what I'm trying to do here in this Senate? I'm trying to look after the Australian people by using our gas here. So it is very urgent that One Nation get the time to debate what is urgent to us.

The Australian people are destitute out there. Our farmers, businesses and truckies—everyone—are desperate at the moment, and yet today you want to shut down debate to discuss it. Why? I think the way this chamber treats One Nation is deplorable when it comes to private senators' bills, motions and everything that happens here. You do not consider this at all. That you're not prepared to actually discuss this bill today tells me you don't give a damn about the people out there.

Where is your concern about the fuel security that we have in this nation. You should listen to what is in our private senators' bills because half the time you don't have the answers to run this country. You are poor economic managers. You have never been in the real world, so you don't understand how grassroots Australians are doing it tough out there. It just shows your incompetence that you're not prepared to listen to what needs to be done in the country.

Of course, the Greens are onside with the Labor Party on this because you don't want to use the resources that we have. You don't want to see that Qatar exports more gas we do, or about the same amount, and makes $26 billion a year for the gas it exports; we make next to nothing. You've really done nothing about that. On top of it, you export our gas overseas. Australians don't have the gas that we need. We're selling it cheaper overseas and then we're buying it back. We're importing our own gas! That's how stupid the whole lot is. It's absolute madness. You're not economic managers; you're not business minded and you have no idea how to run the country. It's all about you, and you don't worry about the Australian people out there. That's why we need to discuss this, the urgency of debating this bill, on the floor of parliament today. We will keep pushing for it.

As I said to the people out there, One Nation can only introduce private senators' bills twice a year. This is not the first time you've tried to shut me down, on introducing bills into the parliament. You're totally against it and you head down the path of this climate change BS that's going on. You say it's going to save us and save the planet, but it's destroying economies and people out there. The cost of living is rising constantly. You've got no answers to it whatsoever.

I really think that you understand the gas reservation and that you're going to bring in your own bill on gas. But it won't go anywhere near what One Nation will do for this country: a 15 per cent domestic gas supply on the east coast and the gas that we need, not only onshore but at the North West Shelf. You have failed this nation miserably, and you are failing now in delivering the fuel that this nation needs. You want to shut down debate on it. Don't tell me it's a stunt; it's Labor that pulls the most stunts in this parliament.

The government will be opposing this motion from Senator Hanson. As Senator Hanson, One Nation and the opposition well know, it is not the convention and custom of this place that bills be debated in the same week that they are introduced. There hasn't been an opportunity for us to properly consider this bill. We haven't had an opportunity to take it to our party room. That is why the convention in this place is that bills don't get passed and debated in the same week that they are introduced. We'd be happy to work with Senator Hanson and One Nation on a motion regarding this topic, but we will be following the usual convention and not supporting the passage of this bill today. On that basis, I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator McKenzie, a point of order?

On precedence, previous rulings have made it clear that the leader of the opposition would take precedence over a minister in the case of an equal jump. I'd like you to actually rule on your call earlier.

Minister?

I recognise that you were dealing with matters at the end of my remarks. I actually moved, before Senator McKenzie's point of order, that the question be put.

Senators, as I understood from the clerk—I sought advice just before—the minister that is leading for the government takes precedence over the leader of the opposition. Having said that, I'm happy to refer the matter to the President for review. On that matter, I do have a question before the chair that the question now be put.

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

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

Alex Antic Wendy Askew Sean Bell Leah Blyth Ross Cadell Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jonathon Duniam Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Henderson Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price James Paterson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tammy Tyrrell Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker Andrew Bragg Don Farrell Slade Brockman Deborah O'Neill Matthew Canavan Jenny McAllister Jessica Collins Tim Ayres Maria Kovacic Katy Gallagher James McGrath Penny Ying Yen Wong Matt O'Sullivan Jess Walsh

Rearrangement

I seek leave to move a motion relating to consideration of a motion concerning the domestic gas reserve, as circulated.

Leave granted.

I move:

That:

(a) the consideration of private senators' bills not proceed today; and

(b) instead the question be put on the following motion after 70 minutes of debate.

The motion reads as follows:

That the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) Australian gas should benefit Australians first; and

(ii) the petroleum resource rent tax has fundamentally failed to properly tax gas exports and must be changed to apply to production volume; and

(b) calls on the Government to subject all gas production to a 15% minimum domestic reserve.

I move:

That the motion be put.

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

Senator Henderson, I have put a vote and I can't determine the outcome because of your rude interjections.

Question agreed to.

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

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak to my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026. With this legislation I deliver on my commitment to ensure the Australian people benefit from the national energy and mineral resources they own.

I have been fighting for this for many years. Australia has tremendous reserves of natural energy resources, which are some of the largest in the world, yet we face energy shortages, driving up our energy prices to among the highest in the world. This makes no sense. This natural wealth, which should make every Australian rich, has been squandered by successive Labor and coalition governments over decades, allowing other countries to use our continent as a cheap dirt mine. It is fundamentally wrong any way you look at it. It is a betrayal of the Australian people, it is incredibly damaging to our economy and it makes us an international laughing stock.

I can only imagine what Norwegians think of Australia's approach. They are laughing all the way to the bank. Norway's sovereign wealth fund, built on revenue from the country's oil deposits in the North Sea, is now valued at over $2.17 trillion. That's almost $400,000 per Norwegian. It's easily twice as much as most Australians' superannuation balances, although that's probably an unfair comparison because our super comes from our individual earnings and Norwegians contribute nothing personally. All that wealth comes from their natural resources and governments which have wisely invested in them. When I think about the wealth Australia could have generated from natural resources, which dwarf Norway's, I get very angry.

This criminal waste of our natural wealth is an outrage. It's why I introduced my Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Benefit to Australia) Bill in 2022, hoping to generate more revenue for the nation from the exportation of our resources. The main parties voted against it, faithfully serving their pay masters in the resources sector and continuing the betrayal of the Australian people.

There has been one small step in the right direction recently, and it is something for which I lobbied the past three prime ministers. On my first meeting with the current Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, I pleaded with him with regard to the PRRT in relation to the North West Shelf, and then he proposed changes to the petroleum resource rent tax that are forecast to increase revenue by about $2.4 million. That was delivered in the budget of 2023. Originally all we were getting was about $200 million to $300 million a year, but I lobbied the prime ministers. I even lobbied the Morrison government over this. It is something I have been passionate about. The PRRT was reduced from 100 per cent to 90 per cent. That's why we are starting to get some money on it.

Australia has some of the largest reserves of natural gas on the planet, and we're the world biggest exporter of it. About 93 per cent of these reserves are in Commonwealth waters concentrated in the North West Shelf of Western Australia. The majority of it is exported to Asian markets, so much in fact that Asian countries' customers pay less for our gas than Australians do. How can that be? Here we are exporting our gas, and now we are going to have to import our own gas to supply our needs in Australia. How stupid are we? How ridiculous is it to actually do that in the cost-of-living crisis that we have? A small amount is kept in the west thanks to the policy of the Western Australian government to ensure 15 per cent domestic gas supply is processed in the state and kept in the domestic reserve. This has been done for decades. They were smart enough to do it. But what annoys me is that that gas is in Commonwealth waters. That gas should be 15 per cent domestic gas supplied to all Australians, with not just those in Western Australia getting the cheaper gas.

That's why I have proposed a bill for a pipeline from Western Australia to the east coast so we can bring the gas across so all Australians can use it. My bill also proposes that the 15 per cent domestic gas supply should be on the east coast as well. Wherever we actually utilise our gas, even by foreign investors, it must give us a 15 per cent domestic gas supply here in Australia.

My bill will amend section 95 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and include references to a condition that petroleum and gas producers must enter into a domestic reserve agreement with the Commonwealth. The substantial amendment is to introduce a new section, 162A. This new section provides that licences will have 12 months to enter into a domestic reserve agreement. If the licence was generated before then, that licensee will still have 12 months to enter an agreement from the day the licence is granted if this happens after 1 January next year. For each year the agreement or licence operates, the licensee must reserve an amount of petroleum or gas equivalent to 15 per cent of the amount exported by the licensee the previous year. Such agreements must operate for a minimum of 10 years. If the first contract expires but the production licence is still enforced, licensees will be required to enter a new agreement.

A lot of you will vote against this. I have no doubt the Greens and Labor will vote against this. I know your attitude. Because One Nation puts up these bills, you won't support them. You don't care about the Australian people. You're not economic managers of this country. You have no idea how to utilise our resources here. You're running this country into a hell of a debt that future generations won't be able to pay down. You're overspending money. You can't control the credit card. You keep handing it over. We're going higher and higher in the debt—more interest that we are paying a year in paying off our debt. And we will not be able to provide these services that future Australians will need with an ageing population, with nursing homes, hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure, bridges—all this that needs to be done. And we won't be able to do it because you're so—what can I say? Your attitude towards this is unbelievable, and you do not care about the Australian people that are struggling out there.

What I am saying here is the Australian people are struggling. Their energy costs are going through the roof. People are losing their homes because they can't pay their mortgages due to rising costs, and this all comes down to energy, like I explained. Norway has a tremendous wealth fund gained from their resources. We have been so stupid in this country. We haven't done it. We've had governments and members of parliament who have never had long-term vision as our politicians did a century ago. They're here just for your term, and all they want to do is make sure that they make the right decisions to win their seats back again. But they're all making the right long-term decisions for this nation, and it is a shame, because it is the Australian people who are missing out.

This is a great opportunity that we have to actually recover from our resources some money that we can put to good use. We're struggling with hospitals in rural and regional areas. Hospitals are closing down—schools and infrastructure. The roads are an absolute mess. There's so much waste of government money, and you're scratching around and you're bringing in a productivity commissioner who's talking about a heritage tax. That's a death duty on tax. That's what you're going to consider, whether this budget or the one after—increase taxes. Forget about getting wealth from our resources that other countries pay us—let's hit the Australian people again with another tax, whether it is capital gains tax, let's look at superannuation, let's tax them more on their superannuation, let's look at an inheritance tax or let's look at a death duties tax. All this government can see is tax, tax, tax, more regulation, more red tape, shutting down the farming sector, shutting down business, industries, manufacturing—we've had over 1,400 industries manufacturing shut down under this government and 40,000 small businesses shut down insolvent under this government. Forty-five per cent of businesses are struggling to pay their power bills because of climate change. That is right. Let's, in fear, along with the Greens, climate change—it is all coming to an end, so we actually have to put in all this generation of power of Snowy 2.0. From $2 billion now to $20 billion once the transmission lines—$40 billion Snowy 2.0 is going to cost us with not one extra kilowatt of power delivered. Then all your transmission lines are going through farming sector, which they don't want, so you are destroying the farming land out there. You've destroyed how many millions of hectares of prime agricultural farming land to put your solar panels on that are destroying the land. Where are they going to go? into the ground. Your wind turbines that you destroy land to put up—all this is coming from China. We're just seeing the dollars flow out of this country, going to China to provide these wind turbines and the solar panels that we put on our prime agricultural land that then have to be buried in the ground, because nothing else happens. How much money is being spent on this? How much is it—$50 billion or $60 billion so far in subsidies to multinational companies that you bring out here to Australia and paying them, making sure they get a good deal out of all this?

I cannot believe—I've been a businesswoman most of my life, and what you have done is absolutely disgraceful to this nation. You really have—and then you brainwash the kids in the educational system that they're in fear that the world is coming to an end, which is an absolute rubbish. It's a load of rubbish. You can't back up anything that you put out there, and you play on the fear of people out there, and that is why they're feeling this way. But this is the way that we can move forward to give security to people and lower the gas costs.

Even now, this government and governments in the states—you want to get rid of the gas appliances in the houses and put in electricity. How ridiculous is that? When the wind doesn't blow and your turbines don't work, especially in South Australia, the only thing you've got left is gas because you got rid of the coal-fired power stations. If you don't have enough gas here, what's going to happen? Blackouts. Oh, that's right—it's already happening. If you get short of electricity—oh, that's right; I spoke to a cotton farmer, and guess what? He said, 'They ring us up and say, "If you turn off your power, we're going to pay you $150,000 so that we can actually deliver power to other Australians without being seen as incompetent because we can't deliver the power that this nation needs."' That's where you run this country into the ground.

Gas is so important to us, but utilise that gas to the best of your ability so that we get a return for Australians, because it's our resource, and you're not using it to the best of your ability. Gas is so important. This bill that I'm putting up here shows that we can use basic business common sense to deliver gas to the Australian people, get money back on our returns and be a wealthy nation to pay down your debt that you made along with the coalition over the years. Both of you are to blame for the state of this nation, which is absolutely disgraceful. You haven't been thinking. You haven't used your brains. Politicians should have this problem solved, and the lot of you have no background or experience in running a business. You wouldn't have a clue.

You're absolutely brain dead when it comes to things like this that can make money for this country. Start listening to the grassroots Australian people. Start caring about the grassroots Australian people. Start making them some money instead of spending it all the time. As far as I'm concerned, it's an absolutely disgraceful waste. Start learning how to make money instead of spending the Australian taxpayers' money. That's what One Nation stands for: putting up good policies that are for the benefit of the Australian people. There's no denying that we need to do something about it. Give us the 15 per cent domestic gas reserve. Australians get cheaper gas.

Have your investments in Australia by all means. I've got Australian companies that want to start working here, but you shut it down. The Labor Party shuts everything down here in Australia, whether it's gas on land or—you're not looking after the North West Shelf at all. You're not using your common sense. That should reduce your PRRT again there. You dropped it 10 per cent, and guess what? We made $2.4 billion by dropping it 10 per cent. This is only giving more benefit to the multinationals setting up and taking our gas. That's a resource that belongs to the Australian people. If you can't do your job properly here, then I think that we need to get rid of the ministers who make these incompetent decisions and cost Australian taxpayers billions of dollars. I think you should lose your jobs and go back to the backbench.

The natural resources of a nation belong to its people. The benefits of these resources must flow to them. One Nation recognises the vital role that industry plays in extracting the bountiful energy reserves of Australia. Without the expertise of world-class industry, these resources would be worth nothing to us. However, it is the job of the government to ensure that the people of Australia see the maximum benefit of our incredible natural wealth while ensuring that the incentives remain strong for their extraction. This balance is vital in the crucial energy sector. All economic activity, no matter what you are engaged in, is downstream of cheap, reliable energy. Without it, our country grinds to a halt.

We have seen over the past couple of weeks just what it looks like when a government puts ideology before energy security. We have seen how quickly a crisis can escalate when we no longer have sovereign energy capabilities. The fact is that our energy systems have been under assault for a very long time, with unreliable, intermittent power sources being forced on us and replacing what was reliable, predictable generation. We've heard this week about the extraordinary steps farmers in the regions have had to consider, because they aren't sure they'll be able to feed their stock or plant or harvest their crops due to fuel shortages. They've had to consider if they need to put down their animals rather than let them starve, because we cannot guarantee they will have the fuel they need to keep going, to feed their animals and in turn feed the nation. This is merely weeks into the Iran war—not months or years, but weeks. We used to refine well over 90 per cent of our fuel domestically. We used to be self-reliant. Now, any blip in global supply and we are sent into turmoil and shortages, when we have an abundance of fuel right here in our own backyard.

There is much competition for our oil and gas in the region, especially natural gas, with our neighbours in South-East Asia recognising the vital importance of this energy source. They incentivise the use of these fuels and pay out long-term contracts to ensure they have a long-term stable supply. If only we had the same foresight in this country. Senator Hanson's bill, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026, would shore up the domestic supply and bring back to our energy markets the certainty that is sorely lacking under this Labor government. Look around at the havoc brought on Australia by Labor's radical energy sabotage. Manufacturing is fleeing the country as power becomes unaffordable. Our energy companies are looking to invest overseas as uncertainty over environmental regulations, taxes and vexatious court cases drives out capital. We need to get our country back to certainty, back to an economy that people can thrive in. Cheap reliable energy is the first step to that.

While energy is the cornerstone of all modern economies, the use of oil and gas extend far beyond into innumerable products and processes. Natural gas is a vital resource; it was previously the darling of the green movement, the saviour to come in and oust evil coal. Now, the suicidal Left has put gas on the same demonised scrap heap, along with any other form of reliable, consistent dispatchable energy. Gas isn't just used to burn for electricity or heat; it is vital for so much more in our economy. The biggest non-energy use for gas is to create ammonia, which is how we get our nitrogen based fertilisers, which is how we feed ourselves. It is estimated that nitrogen based fertilisers feed around four billion people, or half the world's population. It's a modern miracle we can produce food so readily. But without a reliable supply of natural gas, the imports for our farmers, the people who feed our nation, become more expensive and, in turn, our food becomes more expensive.

Securing our domestic supplies of oil and gas is not just an energy issue; it is vital across all levels of the Australian economy. The Labor government won't prioritise Australian supply because it doesn't fit in with their insane green crusade, so One Nation will step in to fight for Australians' rights to their own resources.

Let's not forget about oil. Oil is used to produce some of the most useful material we have today—plastics and polymers, synthetic fibre and more. These are the building blocks for all the goods we take for granted, goods that have raised our standard of living and provided even the worst off in our society with a dignified life. We use oil for bitumen to pave our roads that carry the trucks and transport that are the lifeblood of our economy. It is in paints, lubricants, cosmetics, detergents—you name it—and some component of it probably started its life in a barrel of oil.

As much as Labor and the Greens might hate it, the reality is we would be centuries behind where we are today if it wasn't for oil. A reservation policy is a novel concept. We know it works. Western Australia has a state based reserve policy, and we're seeing the cheapest retail prices in the country. We won't mention the fact that the Labor government in WA is trying to shut down the cheap coal plants, but reservation policies work. They ensure that the domestic price is driven down by the additional supply while still allowing the industry to access foreign markets.

'Australia first' is all we're asking for. Why Labor doesn't understand that is beyond me. These projects are going to produce these vital resources, whether we like it or not. They will be burned in one way or another somewhere in the world. Let's make sure that, when they are, it is Australia that gets the benefit. Refusing to debate energy security at a time when affordability and supply are major concerns in Australia is simply not good enough. Australians deserve to be heard. They deserve a government willing to listen, and they deserve a genuine debate about the future of energy in Australia.

It gives me no joy at all to speak on this motion, because, at the heart of it, the ability for Australia to extract more of its resources is absolutely imperative to the economic and social success of this nation. We are a great mining country. We are a great gas country. They have powered and funded the fact that we are a First World nation. We should be proud of that. We do it to the highest standards in the world, and not only do we do it for Australia's benefit but it has allowed us to become a reliable trading partner and a dependable defence ally. That is what resources have done in this country. They made us one of the First World nations.

Unfortunately, though, we are also a very trusting nation. We are so trusting that we have allowed foreign influenced money to flood in and provide soft influence on our policy debate and setting. I spoke about this yesterday. We have organisations, like the Environmental Defenders Office, whose sole purpose on Earth seems to be shutting down mining activity in this country, including gas projects. But, when they were discovered to be confecting evidence and when they were discovered to be running against the national interest, the courts ordered a significant penalty and fine. Of course, the EDO couldn't pay for that fine themselves, so a huge loan was given to the organisation to pay it, and now we discover that that money has been forgiven. We don't know who is funding it.

I reflect on what happened in the UK. A huge antifracking campaign was run, which meant that the English voters were convinced that they should not allow gas extraction in the UK and offshore to go ahead. It was later discovered that the money for the campaign had come from Russian sources, which is a country that was doing its best to keep the UK poor, both energetically and financially. In this country, whether it's donations to the Environmental Defenders Office or the Australia Institute and the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis—both have refused to provide me with their funding sources at Senate estimates and at committee hearings.

These groups are funding this kind of debate. They're saying we should stop using economics and a business model—which Senator Hanson referred to—to attract more investment into this country, to see more taxes, more onshore and offshore royalties and more incredibly well-paid jobs. You receive about $400,000 a year to be a cook on an offshore rig. You receive huge salaries, and that benefits all of Australia, but it is a competitive space. We are already seeing investment going to Alaska, investment going to the Gulf of Mexico and investment not coming here, because we are making it too hard—whether it be environmental groups or this kind of changing the rules and changing the goalposts, when it comes to investment, after a decision has been made.

There are a couple of reasons why this motion doesn't work, and I want to work through that, but I do want everybody to understand that the offshore foreign money that is funding anti-fossil-fuel projects will leave us poor. It is not Australian. We should be frightened of the influence of these groups that hold themselves out as being energy experts and as being interested in Australia's wellbeing, because they are not.

The reservation that has been proposed this morning, a 15 per cent reservation in Commonwealth waters, is a noble idea, but I'll tell you why it won't work: we are extracting gas in places that have no infrastructure to support it. Western Australia, which has a 15 per cent reservation, has absolutely benefited from that. They are using it to extract a portion of the gas from their onshore developments and from the offshore developments. That is terrific. When we were in government, through the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, we provided funding to the Perdaman project, a terrific project that's going to use some of that gas to develop fertiliser for use here in this country. But what it doesn't allow—when we talk about the big projects that are offshore in the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia—is the sort of pipeline investment that's proposed by One Nation. It's billions and billions of dollars.

But I'll give you some good news: as at right now, we have drills in the ground extracting gas from the Beetaloo in the Northern Territory. In Queensland, the minister there has just approved further exploration leases to extract gas from the Taroom Trough, which will also have some liquids with it from which we should be able to develop more Australian fuel refining. These are close to the places where they're needed, close to the big manufacturing hubs. But I'll tell you where it's not close to: it's not close to Victoria, the state that has crippled itself. It has got manufacturing jobs—forget the businesses; it's the jobs of Victorians—being forced out of that state, either into states like Queensland or, worse, offshore because of this agenda to shut down gas extraction in places like Victoria. Even Western Australia has been suckered into this antifracking campaign, which has meant that they have bans on fracking there too. This is why it doesn't work. Senator Hanson talked about being businesslike and having common sense. Well, this is what we have to focus on: what is practical and what is in Australia's best interests.

Let me turn now to the PRRT. This is another agenda that has been run by anti-fossil-fuel activists. They think that we can change the investment mandates and decisions and that people will continue to invest in this country, no questions asked. That's not businesslike. That's not common sense. They're telling me with their dollars that they are investing somewhere else. So the changes the government made recently to reduce the amount of deductions that can be made to 90 per cent didn't create a huge influx of cash. It brought forward a small amount, but we were always going to receive over $2 billion in PRRT last year. Now we've received $2.4 billion, and that amount will continue to grow because we allow companies to offset their capital costs before they start paying tax. For those people who are watching or listening, it's a supertax. It's 40 per cent, not the 25 per cent that Senator Pocock wants to introduce. We'd actually get less PRRT under his proposal. That's why it has got to be carefully understood and cannot follow the agenda of these anti-Australian anti-fossil-fuel activists who have crept into our civil discussion. They are affecting our policies, they are affecting Australians' beliefs, and it is beholden on those of us who care about Australia and love Australia to speak up and to stop being sucked in by people who want to see us poor and in the dark. Queensland's and Western Australia's reservations are working very well in those states. As a senator, coming here, I believe in states' rights. I don't want the Commonwealth to run all over the top of us, the way they do with vegetation management and environmental overlays—things that slow down and stop projects that affect Australians.

I take the interjection from over there. It doesn't kill the planet because we operate to the highest standards in the world. Under the Greens, we shut down most of our forestry industry but we're okay to import it from countries that have absolutely no environmental standards at all. That's what happens when environmentalists get out of control.

Our domestic reservations in states work—unlike in Victoria, where it is a complete disaster. We are seeing such a negative impact on our future viability. Gas is the pointy end—remember when it was coal? Remember when coal was the pointy end for all these activists? I think we even had senators chaining themselves to trains. But coal is the cheapest form of electricity in Australia. It provided the ability for states to open up, to attract manufacturing, and then gas came along to further support that development. But let's be clear. You're fighting against gas today, but tomorrow it will be the next agenda. It'll be broad-scale agriculture. It'll be food production from cattle. It'll be broad-scale wheat and other crops. Be afraid of what this agenda is because it is dangerous for Australia.

We are absolutely having a cost-of-living crisis in this country. We are absolutely having a fuel crisis in this country. But, please, this dangerous soft policy influence that is being funded by foreign actors who will not disclose their donations and who are, in many cases, getting tax deductibility status from the government—the Environmental Defenders Office receives tax deductibility status, but, at the same time, is paying millions of dollars in penalties for falsely confecting evidence. When we talk about a gas reservation in this land, be clear. It's got to be practical. It's got to be in the places where we need it, and it has to be on a scale that we can use.

Do you know what 15 per cent of gas from offshore would do to the Australian market? Well, you couldn't get it here. That's why we'll never know that. The infrastructure doesn't exist. Thanks to the unions, thanks to the Maritime Union, we have cabotage in this country. You can't even put it on a ship from Western Australia and sail it around to the gas-poor state of Victoria. You can't do it. Legislation doesn't allow it. That's the sort of stuff that we should focus on fixing, not this absolute rubbish of sending messages to the people who invest in this country, who paid $21 billion in corporate taxes, state royalties, PRRT—and that doesn't include the PAYG on hundreds of thousands of Australians that receive a salary at least double the average. We are threatening all those people. We are threatening communities like Roma and Chinchilla who now have farmers able to stay on their properties. They can send their kids to boarding school. This gives them choices.

That's what this sort of discussion does. It is dangerous. I'm putting it on the record now: if we keep attacking investment in this country, we will be poor. We will be dark, and guess where the activists will move next? They won't really care, will they? They will have done their job here. For people who scoff and laugh at this, we have plenty of countries where this has worked. This worked in Argentina. In the 1970s and 1980s they moved to a different model, and they had to subsidise gas companies to come back and assist them. They also shut down their beef industry because they decided beef was too expensive. They stopped exporting it, and beef got very difficult to invest in.

The final point I'll leave you on, for people who think that Qatar and Norway are some sort of textbook example, is that the reason why they receive more in gas taxes is that they pay for the investment. They pay. Is Australia prepared to pay the $30 billion or $40 billion that it would take to get up one of those offshore projects? You would have to take it out of Medicare, the PBS, roads, schools and hospitals. If that's the debate you want to have, let's have that, but stop with this rubbish. (Time expired)

I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

Omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) calls on the Government to subject all gas production to a minimum 25% gas export tax.

A tax on Australia's gas exports is an absolute no-brainer and long overdue. The Australian public supports it. Polling shows that it's supported across the political spectrum, and, as far as I can tell, the crossbench supports it too. Yet, year after year, successive governments of the two major parties—the two old parties—refuse to act and rein in our gas exporters. Instead they come in here and read out the talking points of the gas industry. What a farce that everyday people—teachers, nurses and retail workers—are paying more tax on their wages than multinational gas corporations pay on gas extracted from Australia and shipped overseas! Australians pay more each year in HECS and HELP repayments than gas companies pay through the so-called petroleum resource rent tax. Students paying back their education contribute more to Commonwealth revenue than corporations exporting tens of billions of dollars worth of our gas.

Since large-scale LNG exports began on the east coast, energy prices have surged. Domestic gas prices have been pulled into volatile global markets, and when international prices spike Australians feel it in their power bills and in their heating costs. In other words, we are exporting our gas, importing global price volatility and collecting almost none of the revenue. What better time to confront this reality than right now, in this moment, when this government is dragging us into another international conflict that is once again driving global gas prices higher? Global exporters stand poised to make billions in additional war profits, but Australians, who actually own the resource in the first place, will have barely a cent returned.

That is why the proposal for a minimum 25 per cent levy on gas exports makes so much sense and why Australians are demanding it. Replacing the broken PRRT with a flat 25 per cent tax could raise $17 billion every single year for the Australian public—$17 billion that could compensate households for soaring energy bills; $17 billion that could accelerate the transition to renewable energy, finally move Australia off polluting fossil fuels, create new jobs in industries and protect us from volatile global energy markets; $17 billion that could help repair the catastrophic climate damage that these corporations are behind, of which my home state of Victoria has experienced far too much; $17 billion that could fund an entire wish list of things we desperately need, such as universal childhood education, expanded paid parental leave and desperately needed public housing. Instead, that wealth flows offshore.

To put the scale of this into perspective, from the moment I began this speech to when I finish it Australia will have missed out on roughly $320,000 in public revenue—$320,000 that could have been taxed from the more than 1,300 tonnes of LNG exported in just 10 minutes. Look at the clock ticking and imagine that flow of LNG off our shores—those millions of dollars of profit, and next to nothing for Australians paying the price. It's not a fair deal. We're being ripped off.

It's not just about the revenue; it's about decoupling our domestic gas supply from the volatile international market and prioritising supply for Australian households and businesses whilst we rapidly and fairly wean ourselves off toxic gas altogether. Importantly, this would be without the incentive of new gas fields.

We don't have a gas supply problem. We have an export problem. The so-called shortages projected on the east coast could have been avoided simply by redirecting uncontracted gas currently shipped offshore, often for little public return, back into the domestic market. Instead, the Labor government is incentivising new gas fields, opening new acreage and letting the gas lobby run wild in this place. They are cartels operating in this country, gas cartels. They're insisting that more gas is the answer rather than using what we already have and finally, finally breaking our dependence on it.

Thousands of acres in the Bass Coast opened up just a few months ago, a gift to the gas industry that brave coastal communities across Victoria are fighting. There's risky, toxic fracking proceeding in the Northern Territory, which the Northern Territory community are rightly fiercely opposing. There's the climate bomb of the North West Shelf extension that we continue to oppose and fight, which was cynically approved by the Labor government straight after the election. Communities in South Australia continue to fight for justice in the wake of the devastating algal bloom, Australia's largest ongoing environmental crisis, driven by Santos and the gas companies just like them who get away with climate and environmental destruction. They're cowboys.

The Greens continue to stand with these grassroots climate activists and community advocates who will not let these multinational corporations continue to pillage our resources, pollute our environments and get away with not paying for the mess they create. They are being left to get away with it by the major parties in this place, who are very quiet. I've noticed the Albanese government side of the chamber are very quiet on this debate.

This week in the chamber we heard some of the usual, familiar talking points—so familiar we've got a question: are we actually in the Parliament of Australia, or are we in a shareholder meeting of Woodside or Santos? Honestly. Members dutifully repeat lines of the gas lobby, defending inflated claims about how much the industry supposedly contributes to our economy. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that flow through to their campaign coffers before an election.

But the truth is simple that no amount of spin can hide the failure of the petroleum resource rent tax. There is not much in this chamber that I agree with One Nation about, but on this point there is rare common ground. Our gas tax system is broken. Decades of loopholes have allowed multinational corporations to extract Australia's resources, report massive profits and still pay little or no tax. Successive governments have failed to fix it. They are too beholden to their mates in the fossil fuel industry and to their generous donations. Instead, they have allowed a system to persist that is clearly rigged in favour of multinational gas corporations and against everyday Aussies, against everyday people—against nurses, against educators, against retail workers.

At the very same time, just today, new analysis shows that billions of dollars in public subsidies are continuing to flow to fossil fuel companies—$30,000 a minute in subsidies by a government that claims not to be giving public money to fossil fuel projects but refused to tell me whether that's still government policy in recent Senate estimates. 'I'll take that question on notice,' they said. These subsidies are flowing to some of the largest and most profitable corporations operating in Australia at the same time that households are being absolutely squeezed and being forced to make decisions about whether they put a roof over their head, whether they pay for medicine that week or whether they buy fresh produce.

Support for fossil fuels continues to grow. It's growing, under this government. In the face of the climate crisis, this government's solution is more public money to the companies causing climate catastrophe. Total subsidies for coal mining, gas production and large diesel users rose by 9.4 per cent, up from $14.9 billion in 2024-25. By comparison, despite constant claims that it is expanding too quickly, spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme increased by only 7.6 per cent over that same period. The largest single fossil fuel subsidy remains the federal government's fuel tax credit scheme, which cost $10.8 billion and overwhelmingly benefits large mining companies, many of them multinational. How much longer are these parties willing to see our money flow offshore? Where's the outrage? Where's the listening to the community outrage on these issues?

According to the government's own budget forecasts, the cost of this scheme is expected to grow faster than federal spending on a range of essential services, including disability support, childcare assistance, aged care and services for veterans. Australians are effectively paying twice—once through their energy bills and again through taxpayer support for the very industries driving these costs up. Enough is enough. The Australian public is ready for change and is demanding change, and this parliament is ready for change. The arguments could not be clearer.

Australia should not be giving away its natural resources for free while households struggle with the cost of living and surging energy prices. We should be accelerating the fast and fair transition to renewables—which, by the way, aren't beholden to international markets. The sun and wind remain, regardless of international wars. A gas export tax of at least 25 per cent is the first step towards restoring fairness in this country, restoring justice and driving Australia towards the clean future that Australians want and deserve.

I rise in support of this motion and put on the record that it's disappointing and quite worrying for the Senate that we are seeing bills not allowed to be debated in the time for private senators' bills. We saw Labor and the Greens stop One Nation from debating a bill. At the same time, we know drafting resources are very scarce when it comes to the crossbench; it takes a very long time to get things drafted. The argument we heard from the government, from Minister Watt, was it's not the convention to introduce and vote on a bill in the same week—yet today we'll be voting on a bill that the government introduced yesterday and slammed through the House. We'll probably vote on it in the Senate with not many, if any, second reading speeches—probably no time for debate. I don't think that argument holds much weight. It is disappointing to see that the government got support from anyone in this place to stop a bill being debated.

To the motion at hand, I seek leave to move an amendment to Senator Hodgins-May's amendment to Senator Hanson's motion.

Leave granted.

I move:

Omit "Omit", substitute "After"; omit "substitute", substitute "add".

We're in this ridiculous situation, as a country, where we are one of the biggest gas exporters in the world, yet we don't get much for our offshore LNG exports. We have a petroleum resource rent tax that is not working; it is not providing a fair return. A 25 per cent export tax would change that. It would say to gas exporters, to multinational companies, 'You can export our gas, you can export it overseas, but you're going to pay us a 25 per cent tax on that.' That would bring in $17 billion a year—and if we look at what happened to gas prices after Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, we could add an extra $12 billion to that. This is a huge amount of revenue that is rightly owed to the Australian people. That gas belongs to all Australians.

Speaking as a senator for the ACT, we have the Canberra Rape Crisis Centre seeing a 60 per cent reduction in its funding. We have DVCS, another frontline service provider, $820,000 short on their budget. At the moment, one in two calls to DVCS go unanswered because they do not have the resources. We're told the budget is tight, yet we're in a situation where we are giving away a natural resource for free—something that belongs to all Australians, young and old. It belongs to future generations. I strongly support efforts to ensure that Australians get a fair return on our resources.

Aussies are looking at the petrol station and seeing petrol over $2 a litre, and they are hearing that premium could be heading up to $3 a litre, yet we have no mechanism in place to ensure that Australians actually benefit from rising energy costs. It's just everyday Aussies that have to bear the brunt of that. We have a perfect example of what happens with big shocks to energy supply at a global level, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Multinational fossil fuel companies make bank. They make tens of billions of dollars of additional profit. Why have we not put a mechanism in place? This is shameful. This shows a total lack of political courage, a total lack of long-term thinking and a total lack of recognition that the natural resources of this incredible continent belong to the Australian people. We need to get a fair return.

Today we'll hopefully be voting on an inquiry to actually look at this, to look at why, as a country, we're happy to give away gas for free; at why the PRRT isn't returning much, if anything, on offshore LNG exports; and at what can be done about it. We should be looking at the 25 per cent export tax that has been put forward by the ACTU, and I assume it has fairly strong support amongst Labor branches and backbenchers, but we haven't heard much from ministers and spokespeople from the Labor government.

One of the things that have become so clear in this debate—and I think this holds for a range of issues in this country and is one of the reasons we're seeing a decline in primary vote for the major parties—is that there are so many issues that aren't actually about left versus right; they are about vested interests versus the interests of the Australian people. They're about vested interests with power holding on to a system that benefits them at the expense of Australians. We see it in this chamber. We have the entire crossbench, from the Greens to One Nation, saying: 'Gas belongs to the Australian people. Let's reserve some for our use, for households, for businesses and for manufacturers, and let's actually get a return on its export.' And you have the vested interests leaning on the major parties and saying: 'Leave it as it is. This is a pretty sweet system. We'll keep donating to you. We'll make sure that there are some jobs after politics.' We've got to do better. We've got to actually put the Australian people first.

We often hear this argument from the major parties: 'This is sovereign risk. We've got long-term contracts.' If you had the guts to even apply this to uncontracted gas and phase it in over time, it would make a huge difference to gas supply in this country and to manufacturers who are currently on the brink because they are paying international prices for Australian gas, and it would actually ensure that we get some revenue. I think this is a test for the major parties. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of multinational gas companies, who give us all the talking points, all the fearmongering, around sovereign risk and them going to invest elsewhere?

That is what they said to the Norwegian government. They said, 'If you tax us, we'll go elsewhere.' Norway stared them down and said: 'Okay. This belongs to Norwegians. You can come, take it and export it, but you're going to pay us for it.' Oil and gas companies, a few days later, said, 'Actually, we think we'll still invest.' Norway now has a $3 trillion sovereign wealth fund. That's $3 trillion set aside for Norwegians present and future. Here in Australia we've got a trillion dollars of national debt—two very different approaches. It's not too late. We are still one of the biggest gas exporters in the world. Let's at least make a start on uncontracted gas.

Finally, I understand if there isn't the long-term thinking and political courage from the Labor government to actually get a fair return for our gas and to have a 25 per cent export tax in line with what the ACTU and others are saying, but they could at least introduce a windfall profits tax. These profits are not something that these companies have done anything to deserve. This is because of skyrocketing energy costs. We could actually use the money—potentially $12 billion, if you look at what happened after Russia's invasion of Ukraine—to provide support to farmers who are struggling at the moment and to provide support to households who aren't sure how they're going to put food on the table and who are going to the petrol station and paying huge amounts of money to fill up their tanks to commute to work or to drop kids off at school and then going to the supermarket duopoly and getting fleeced hundreds of dollars for a trolley of groceries. We've got to do better in this country.

I would urge the major parties to actually listen to the Australian people. I think, on this one, you are so wildly out of touch. When we see poll after poll after poll that says 75 to 80 per cent of Australian people support a 25 per cent tax on gas exports, what gives you the right to say, 'No, we're going to side with the gas companies'? It's going to be interesting to see how the vote turns out on this and very interesting to see how the vote turns out on the inquiry, and I hope Australian people will judge all of us in this place not on our talking points or what we say but how we vote and how we represent them and how we vote on behalf of the states and territories we're meant to be representing in this place.

I just foreshadow that we will be moving an amendment to Senator Hanson's motion.

One Nation circulated the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 last Thursday. The government has prevented us from debating the bill because democracy and the Labor Party are mutually exclusive these days. The issue One Nation's bill raised is simple: should Australia have a domestic gas reservation which requires 15 per cent of our own gas to be used here in Australia—our own gas staying here to help our own people? On this issue the Albanese Labor government are running scared.

After selling off Australia's liquid fuel reserve in 2022 and after failing to increase storage in Australia, they know the electorate is holding them responsible for the fuel shortages we have across Australia right now—fuel shortages that extend to gas or will when the Lytton refinery closes in a few weeks time for 10 weeks maintenance. I hope the government has worked with the owner of Lytton, which is Ampol, to postpone that maintenance until buffer stocks have been put in place. Although, the necessary maintenance at Lytton has already been pushed back for a year because of Australia's pathetic stocks of gas products thanks to a Labor government that hates hydrocarbon fuels and that would rather descend the economy into an energy nightmare than actually work with industry to fix the problem.

One Nation warned the Liberal, National and Labor uni-party governments about this problem in 2016—a decade ago. In 2020, 2021 and 2022, after the Labor Albanese government sold off our fuel reserves—our warnings were ignored. Now look at the state of our country. A domestic gas reservation will provide high-quality low-cost natural gas into the Australian market. This replaces the current supply arrangements for Australian gas users, which does have some local sale of our natural gas, supplemented with imports of our own gas which is sent overseas and then brought back again. Same gas, same ships—Australian gas sails around the world and comes back to us at double or triple the price we would pay out of the well. How incompetent are successive uni-party Labor and coalition governments to allow the stupidity of the current arrangement where we allow foreign corporate rations to export gas at low prices to avoid the petroleum rent resource tax and then we buy it back at double or triple the price—really clever. Not only do Australian taxpayers miss out on billions in taxation, but we pay more for the gas we use. This is insane. It's our bloody gas.

Thanks to the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals' incompetence—the uni-party. One Nation will change the point at which the PRRT is levied. Currently the PRRT is levied on profits, which don't happen because the gas companies using transfer pricing. Remember that when you think about the Greens amendment and David Pocock's amendment. Australia has lost out on more than $100 billion in gas revenue since the PRRT came into place thanks to Bob Hawke. One Nation will levy the tax at the wellhead. The volume will be counted and can't be beaten at the wellhead at a dollar value rate per gigajoule of energy, making transfer prices irrelevant. This will raise at least $10 billion a year in additional revenue. This isn't a new tax. It's the same tax being calculated differently, better and on multinationals. It will be important to ensure the tax is levied on exported gas only so that any tax revenue does not affect domestic gas prices. That's very important.

The second part of this motion, a domestic gas reservation, will allow a guaranteed supply of our own gas to lower the gas price through removing the expensive imported component. This will lower costs for businesses and everyday Australians. Given the current inflation, due to the uni-party's ineptitude, anything getting cheaper—indeed, anything not going up in price—is a win for consumers, the Australian people. Our use of this gas will support gas-to-liquid plants located near capital cities, anywhere that is on the end of a national gas pipeline. Gas-to-liquid plants convert gas to petrol and diesel. As long as the gas is sourced cheaply, the petrol that's produced will cost around the same as petrol before the Iran war, around $1.50 a litre. It's a profitable and commercial proven process. Even better, it makes really clean petrol and diesel, improving engine life and fuel economy with less carbon dioxide, for those who still believe in that rubbish.

In addition, One Nation has already promised to reduce the fuel excise by 26c a litre, halving the fuel excise. That's fully costed. The Labor government has refused to adopt this policy despite it being fully costed. Everyday Australians are struggling with the cost of living. Reducing the fuel excise will make a huge difference to household budgets. Instead, this Labor government is too busy spending taxpayers' money on net zero and social engineering to care about Australians, who are working harder and going backwards. So much for Labor being the party of the worker! One Nation are the party of the worker now.

We need more of our gas here to keep the lights on when Labor's insane weather-dependent power is not coping with demand, which is frequently, and driving unaffordable electricity prices. With the abundance of coal, oil and natural gas under our feet, Australia is an energy superpower. Australia is a top 5 gas exporter, a top 2 coal exporter and the largest energy exporter in the world, and yet we have an energy crisis and can't use the stuff here.

You are not going to believe what the Greens' brilliant solution to the energy crisis is. They want to ban gas. 'It's toxic,' we just heard from them. So your gas stove top and your gas hot water heater are to be forcibly converted to electric. That's not forgetting Senator Pocock, who is right there championing the electrification agenda. That's a word that means no petrol, no diesel and no gas—just a nation blanketed in toxic solar panels and wind turbines so virtue-signalling lefties can sip their champagne in their inner-city high-rises and bask in the glory of their own ignorance. This is the dream team—it's a nightmare! This is the modern Labor Party and the teal party team. Voters in South Australia, Nepean and Farrer: please, make a stand, sweep away the stupidity and give One Nation a chance to fix this country while we still can.

I want to talk about the Greens amendment and Senator Pocock's amendment. One Nation's bill and the motion we just discussed goes to establishing a 15 per cent domestic gas reserve. One Nation also believes that the petroleum rent resource tax, the PRRT, has completely failed to capture the appropriate tax take for the benefit of Australians. This lady next to me has been saying it for a decade. One Nation supports the PRRT being changed to be based on production at the wellhead. Measured gas quantities cannot be affected by transfer pricing deals—no shonky business profits that have been abused.

The Greens are circulating an amendment striking out our gas reserve policy and replacing it with a 25 per cent tax. Twenty-five per cent of zero is still zero. It is still zero. The 'toxic-gas Greens' welcome a tax. The same applies to David Pocock's amendment. Twenty-five per cent of zero is zero. They can calculate the profit back to zero through transfer pricing. One Nation wants a reserve established. We support lower taxation for citizens and better taxation for everyone, but the Greens' figure appears to have been pulled out of thin air. We won't support the Greens amendment, nor David Pocock's amendment. We would be happy to debate all of these issues in the normal way on One Nation's gas reserve bill, which we haven't been able to do this morning because the government does not want scrutiny.

Labor are now saying they want a 15 to 25 per cent reserve of gas production for the domestic market, to modify the Albanese Labor government's domestic gas reservation scheme. Labor has no gas reservation scheme! Fifteen to 25 per cent of zero is still zero. You can't figure this out. What's 25 per cent tax on zero profit? It's zero. What's a 25 per cent reservation on zero? It's zero. Only One Nation has thought this through. We've been at it for a decade. Why? Because security is vital to us. Security is absolutely essential. I want to thank the farmers and fishers in New South Wales and Queensland who have been contacting my office, and the offices of Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator Pauline Hanson and Senator Sean Bell—across three states—saying, 'Please do something about the diesel supply.'

One farmer was in tears: 2,500 cattle may not be fed in his dairy farm this week, because he can't get the fodder crop out of the ground. It becomes an animal welfare issue. But there are three words that are important in this, in addition to animal welfare. The first word is 'security'—oil and gas security. We're exporting gas overseas when it could be made into petrol and diesel here, and we're importing petrol and diesel. Now, because of the Iran conflict, there's no security of supply.

The second word is 'volatility'—price volatility. If we had the proper gas fuel reserves in this country, then there would be reduced volatility. Instead, we now have high price volatility. That means that the people of Australia, the farmers of Australia and the truckies of Australia are paying through the neck.

The third word is 'truth'. We've had lies, misrepresentations, misinformation and disinformation from the ministers on the other side in regard to our security. I raised this first on Monday last week, the first thing after we knew about the Iranian war. Then Senator Tyron Whitten, Senator Bell and Senator Hanson followed it up every day last week—Monday to Thursday in the Senate and Friday outside. Then we started again on Tuesday this week, the first day in the Senate.

This is extremely important because it's a matter of life and death. When fridges shut down because the coal mines don't produce coal for the electricity, the food spoils. This is about food security, it's about farm security, it's about electricity security, it's about lifestyle and it's about life security, and we've got to stop the people having to pay for the government's mistakes and waste.

The time for the debate has expired.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Could the gallery please be quiet. You need to leave the gallery immediately. Could security please remove the person from the gallery.

The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator David Pocock, to the Australian Greens amendment be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Jessica Collins Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Corinne Mulholland James Paterson Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Hodgins-May be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Susan McDonald Corinne Mulholland Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten

I move the amendment that has been foreshadowed and circulated to the chamber:

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

(b) notes the Albanese Labor Government's domestic gas reservation scheme, which will require exporters to reserve between 15 and 25% of gas production for the domestic market.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Penny Allman-Payne Alex Antic Wendy Askew Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Mehreen Faruqi Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Hanson-Young Sarah Henderson Steph Hodgins-May Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald Bridget McKenzie Nick McKim Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Tyron Whitten Don Farrell Maria Kovacic Deborah O'Neill James McGrath Ellie Whiteaker Dean Smith Penny Ying Yen Wong Andrew Bragg

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

Ralph Babet Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Tammy Tyrrell Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Michaelia Cash Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Richard Mansell Colbeck Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Sarah Henderson Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Malarndirri McCarthy Susan McDonald Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Matt O'Sullivan Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker

NOTICES

Withdrawal

Pursuant to notice given on 11 March 2026, on behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for six sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Aged Care Rules 2025 made under the Aged Care Act 2024.

COMMITTEES

Selection of Bills Committee; Report

I present the third report of 2026 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2026

12 March 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator the Hon. Matt Canavan (Nationals Whip)

Senator Susan McDonald (Acting Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 3 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 11 March 2026 at 7.11 pm.

2. The committee made no recommendations to refer bills to committees.

3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to a committee:

4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Consideration of UNDRIP) Bill 2023

5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement.

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair

11 March 2026

I move:

That the report be adopted.

I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add ", and the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 not be referred to a committee".

I move the amendment circulated in Senator McKim's name:

At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, the bill be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 June 2026".

We can see what's happening here. Labor, the coalition—and, no doubt, with their race-baiting friends in One Nation—have—

Senator Shoebridge, withdraw that remark.

I withdraw that. Labor, the coalition and One Nation have all come together to try and shut the door today on 7,200 Iranians who have been granted visas that would entitle them to come to this country and then, when they're onshore, seek the protection of this country from a brutal regime and the bombs falling from Israeli and US planes and the missiles coming from Israeli and US warships and installations.

This is a war that all three of the war parties—Labor, the coalition and One Nation—support. You all support the war. You support your Uncle Donald, the fascist duck over in the United States, who has commenced this war in gross breach of international law—in obscene breach of international law. Now you see the consequences of the war that you support, congratulate and endorse. You see the consequences of this war in real people's lives. People are seeing their country destroyed from the air and attacked by its own regime. People are seeing black rain falling from the sky because of the Israeli and US bombs and missiles that have taken out huge oil reservoirs near Teheran.

You've seen the images of the school that was blown up by a US missile, now admitted to by the US—maybe not by Donald Trump, who's still pretending that the missile was stolen by some Iranian secret agent. But you don't mind the lies. You don't mind Donald Trump's lies, because you're supporting a war based on those lies, and now you see the consequences of it: the dead schoolkids, the grieving mums, the country in despair, the ripple of chaos around the region. With all of that, with that wave of despair passing over the Middle East, you then shut the door on 7,200 Iranians who could have had a chance for some safety.

Labor are trumpeting the fact that they gave a life raft to five or six incredibly brave Iranian women's football team players. It seems to me that Labor's position on helping the Iranian people—refugees that are coming from Iran—is that they will only help refugees if they can excel at sport and Labor can manipulate that for a media moment, or if Donald Trump rings them up at 2 am and tells them to. Unless you get the phone call from Donald Trump or you see it as a media opportunity, you do not care about Iranian people fleeing their regime or fleeing the war that you support—the war that the Albanese Labor government supports and has now made Australia a part of by deploying Australian troops.

Maybe next time, before you three war parties—Labor, the coalition and one Nation—support another illegal US war, you should reflect just for a moment upon the actual lives that you are destroying, the countries whose tearing apart you are supporting and the misery that you support every time you support another US forever war. Think about where it will end—because it turns out that, once your mate Donald starts one of these wars, the other side gets a vote in it too—and the unpredictability, chaos and violence that comes every time a nation starts a war.

So of course we want this to go to an inquiry. Let's be clear: we will do everything we can to stop you three war parties shutting the door on Iranian refugees. That's one of the reasons we want this to go to an inquiry which would report by 27 June. I would have shot this bill to the moon if we could have, to keep the door open so that this country can show some decency. As for those 7,200 Iranians, think about the grief that they're in and about this country shutting the door on them like this, Labor.

Under Labor, Australia is at war with Iran, and, entirely predictably, that means the missiles, the armaments and the acid rain coming down not just on military installations in Iran but on the Iranian people—women, children and men. Innocent people, including schoolchildren, are being slaughtered in their droves, entirely predictably, and, entirely predictably, are being displaced in their tens and hundreds of thousands from their homes. And what is Labor doing to address the consequences—the predictable consequences—of its decision to enter Australia into a war with Iran, supported by the war parties in this place—the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, led by Labor, the unholy alliance of war parties in this place? What is Labor doing to respond to the entirely predictable consequences of going to war with Iran? It is slamming the door closed in the faces of the very Iranians that are being displaced.

Senator McKim, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan.

President, a point of order on relevance: this is a debate about the selection of bills and the Migration Act. We're hearing—

Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. This has been a wide-ranging debate, but, Senator McKim, if you could also talk about why it needs to go to a committee, thank you very much. Please continue.

Thanks very much, President. As I was saying, this bill slams the door closed on Iranian people who are suffering the entirely predictable consequences of a war that Labor has let Australia into, full-throatedly supported by the coalition and by One Nation, and that is why this bill needs to go before a committee for a long and robust inquiry, because this parliament should hear the voices of the people that Labor, with the support of the coalition and one Nation, is slamming the door closed on. Let's be very clear: this is a bill that exposes that Labor is not prepared to face the consequences of its decision to send Australia into a war on Iran, a decision roundly supported by the war parties in this place: the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation.

This bill slams the door closed on innocent people who may well be trying to flee based on a well-founded fear of persecution and may well be intending to seek asylum in Australia. Andto be clear: they potentially need protection not only from matters internal to Iran but also from the bombs that Australia is playing a role in raining down on Iran. Of course the Iranian women's football team should have been offered asylum in Australia. Of course they should. But how cynical is it that the relevant minister, Mr Burke, would fly up and leverage that opportunity for his own media and for the government's media at the same time and on the same day that the government introduced legislation into this place to slam the door closed on many other Iranian women, children and men who were in an identical position except for the media profile?

They were instead taking shelter under their beds or any other place they could find to try to dodge the weapons from the military assault on Iran that Labor has joined Australia to. The hypocrisy from Labor is rank here. They join Australia to a war on Iran, rain the bombs down, rain the firestorm down, rain the acid down on the Iranian people and then slam the door closed on the consequences of a war that Labor was the first government in the world to cheer on and that Labor has subsequently joined Australia to. It's time for Labor to accept the consequences of its actions, and one of the consequences of its actions, entirely predictably, was the displacement of large numbers of Iranian people. Rather than slamming the door closed on them, we should be ensuring that we face up to the consequences, and Labor should be ensuring that it faces up to the consequences of its actions and provides an opportunity for them to claim asylum in this country.

I rise to support the amendment from the Greens to refer the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill for inquiry until 27 June. Migration law sits at the intersection of sovereignty, human rights and the rule of law. Changes in this area carry profound consequences for people's liberty, for families and for Australia's international reputation. That is precisely why legislation of this kind demands careful parliamentary scrutiny. This bill proposes significant changes to the migration framework, yet the parliament is being asked to consider it at speed and with limited opportunity to hear from experts and affected communities and the organisations that work with them every single day across this incredible continent.

A short Senate inquiry is not an obstacle to good policy; it is the mechanism by which good policy is made. It would allow us to actually test the government's assumptions, to understand the real world impacts of the measures before us and to ensure that any powers granted by the parliament are proportionate, lawful and actually workable. Australians expect their parliament to get migration law right, and they expect us to legislate carefully, not hastily, as we're seeing. I've had significant correspondence from Canberrans voicing significant concerns about this policy. I think referring this bill for inquiry until 27 June is a modest, reasonable step that would actually strengthen the legislation and strengthen public confidence in the decisions we make in this place.

For those reasons, I support the motion. I think it is ironic that, on the same day that we see a minor party not allowed to debate a private senator's bill—the reason from the government is: 'It's not the convention that you introduce and vote on a bill in the same week.' How about the same day? What about the same day, by the Labor government? It seems like we're in this Orwellian situation where all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. It seems to me, when you have a cruel bill, that it is a knee-jerk reaction that I think is wildly out of step with what Australians want—clear the decks, ram through this bill, don't worry about what Australians might think. I think it's a really poor way to be governing.

It stands in such stark contrast to what we've seen with the Iranian women's team—brave young women who have sought asylum and have had the backing of the vast majority of Australians. We've seen all sides of politics—we've seen President Trump—say that this was the right thing to do. I think the reason why we've seen the government do it is that they know it's the right thing to do. In their hearts, they know that this is the right thing to do as Australians. We're the land of the fair go. We want to give these people a fair go.

We're seeing media and social media posts. I really applaud the minister's actions. He's clearly put a lot of time and effort into this. I think a lot of Australians look at Minister Burke's work and say: 'We can be proud of that. This is how a country should actually respond when brave young women's lives are at risk.' But it stands in such stark contrast to this bill that is affecting thousands of people, and I dare say we will not be seeing social media posts from Labor members about this bill explaining to the Australian people what this bill does and explaining to the Australian Iranian community what this means for their loved ones—for brothers, sisters and parents—who were due to come and visit them. I really do think it's so sad to see these migration bills get rammed through like this. I really thank the Greens for their work in pushing this Senate to actually (1) inquire into this bill and (2) have a more compassionate approach in times of crisis.

I rise in support of the comments made by my colleagues Senator Shoebridge and Senator McKim and to support much of what was said also by Senator Pocock. So much about this illegal war that's come from this government is the height of hypocrisy, of doublespeak and of 'look over here, but don't look over here'. You said so quickly that you support this war because the people of Iran have been subjected to an oppressive regime—no dispute there; everybody knows that. But then you turn around and say that it's equally okay to have and, in fact, you're willing to support the raining down of bombs on that same population.

We are seeing the impact of that. The very first thing that happened as a consequence of this illegal war is that over 150 young schoolgirls, who were getting on with their lives, were bombed to smithereens, and then their parents and responders who came to help and to see this monstrosity were subjected to a second strike. Telling us that the reason you are sending planes and missiles to the UAE is that you care about the plight of Australians and staying mute and doing nothing about the thousands of Australians in Lebanon—there are reports out of Beirut this morning that bombs are raining down on the thousands of displaced people who are sleeping in the streets. It's immoral. It is a war crime, and this government says nothing.

Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation are cheering on an immoral, illegal war. As my colleagues have said, you are shamelessly associating yourselves, on the part of the government, with brave Iranian soccer players and, as this bill seeks to do, slamming the door on 7,200 other Iranians who are trying to flee that same oppressive regime and who are potentially trying to flee the raining down of US and Israeli missiles and bombs. This is the height of hypocrisy. Clearly, as others have said, you do not want the Australian people to know about this; otherwise, you would send the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 to inquiry. Shame on you.

I don't understand how Labor members who supposedly don't agree with this are staying silent. If the leadership of your party is leading you into an illegal, immoral war, then this is the time to stand up and say something. If you all sit silently while your leadership drags our nation into this, you are complicit. Show a backbone. It means nothing when we see articles in the Guardian saying Labor backbenchers are feeling uncomfortable about this.

Senator Allman-Payne, you are a very long way from the debate. It is about the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Shoebridge.

Could I suggest that those Labor members who are uncomfortable put a submission into the inquiry that this government is trying not to have.

This war is illegal. It is immoral. Denying sanctuary to people who already hold valid visas—blocking them from coming to this country to potentially seek help and assistance as a consequence of that illegal, immoral war—is shameful. This bill should go to inquiry.

The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator McKim and moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker

The question now is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Corinne Mulholland Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Anne Ruston Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

BUSINESS

Leave of Absence

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kovacic for 12 March, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

Rearrangement

by leave—I move:

That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1, for 30 March 2026, proposing a reference to the Education and Employment References Committee, be considered at the time for general business today.

Question agreed to.

Leave of Absence

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie for 11 and 12 March, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee; Reference

At the request of Senators McKenzie, McDonald, Cadell and Canavan, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026:

The security and resilience of Australia's fuel supplies to support transport, logistics, agricultural, fishing, mining, industrial and business uses, including fuel reserves, refining capacity and supply chains, with particular reference to:

(a) the availability and supply of liquid fuels, including petrol, diesel, aviation fuels, marine fuels and Australia's compliance with International Energy Agency obligations;

(b) the resilience of liquid fuel resources to protracted disruptions in the Middle East and to the free movement of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz;

(d) potential economic, social and regional impacts of prolonged disruption of global fuel supply chains;

(e) the development and implementation of a national low carbon liquid fuel policy and facilitation of industry investment;

(f) the provision and distribution of infrastructure required to support the Government's ambitious targets for the uptake of electric vehicles to diversify the Australian light car fleet; and

(g) any related matters.

The question is that business of the Senate No. 1, standing in the name of Senator McKenzie and others, be agreed to.

Alex Antic Wendy Askew Sean Bell Leah Blyth Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Henderson Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan James Paterson Fatima Payman Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Tammy Tyrrell Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Jana Stewart Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Andrew Bragg Don Farrell Matthew Canavan Charlotte Walker Michaelia Cash Penny Ying Yen Wong Maria Kovacic Corinne Mulholland Jacqui Lambie Ellie Whiteaker Bridget McKenzie Deborah O'Neill Dean Smith Glenn Sterle

Environment and Communications References Committee; Reference

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2026:

Australia's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, with particular reference to:

(a) the legal and procedural steps required for Australia to withdraw from the Paris Agreement;

(b) the implications of withdrawal for Australia's ability to scrap net zero emissions targets;

(c) the positive impacts of scrapping net zero policies on electricity prices, energy reliability and the cost of living for everyday Australians;

(d) the positive impact of removing net zero policies on Australian industry, including manufacturing, mining, farming and fuel refining; and

(e) any other related matters.

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

Sean Bell Pauline Lee Hanson Malcolm Roberts Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Nick McKim Matt O'Sullivan Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

BUSINESS

Rearrangement

I move:

That on Thursday, 12 March 2026:

(a) during government business, the time for the consideration of the following bills be:

(i) Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026—45 minutes, and

(ii) Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026—1 hour and 15 minutes;

(b) once the total time allotted for consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) has expired, the questions be put on all remaining stages of the bills and the Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026;

(i) the routine of business after motions to take note of answers be consideration of the bills, and

(ii) the Senate return to its routine of business after consideration of the bills has concluded;

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

(e) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills.

I ask that paragraph (a)(ii) be put separately.

The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Gallagher, government business, paragraph (a)(ii), be agreed to.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Jess Walsh Murray Watt Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

The question is that the remainder of the government business motion as moved by Minister Gallagher be agreed to.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Matt O'Sullivan David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Jess Walsh Murray Watt Penny Allman-Payne Sean Bell Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Tyron Whitten

COMMITTEES

Select Committee on Why Gas Companies Pay Less for Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas than Australians Pay in Beer Excise; Appointment

I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Why Gas Companies Pay Less for Offshore Liquefied Natural Gas than Australians Pay in Beer Excise, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the amount of Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) paid on Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG);

(b) reasons for the low revenue generated by PRRT paid on LNG;

(c) policies other jurisdictions such as Norway and Qatar have in place that has resulted in much higher revenue being generated through the sale of gas and oil in those jurisdictions;

(d) the proposal from the Australian Council of Trade Unions for a 25% tax on gas export revenue;

(e) the impact on Australian businesses and households of the increase in gas prices since 2016;

(f) what could be done with the additional revenue generated by effectively taxing the offshore LNG industry; and

(g) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 11 May 2026.

(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:

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

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

(d) Senator David Pocock.

(4) That:

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

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

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

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

(6) That Senator David Pocock chair the committee, and the committee elect as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 381 standing in the name of Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Sean Bell Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock Malcolm Roberts David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Lidia Thorpe Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Tyron Whitten Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Matt O'Sullivan Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Jess Walsh Murray Watt

NOTICES

Postponement

At the request of Senator Cash, I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 421.

Leave granted.

BILLS

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026

I rise to make a contribution to the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. I will say it at the outset: now that the government, whilst it has been dragged kicking and screaming to set up the royal commission, has finally established the royal commission, it does have a responsibility to ensure that the commission can do its job.

That is why the coalition supports this bill. We support its objectives, and we also support the legal framework it establishes to protect individuals who provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission. These protections are, of course, necessary because, without them, officials within Australia's intelligence and security agencies could themselves face legal risk for disclosing information that is critical to the royal commission's work.

If the royal commission is to uncover the truth—and that is what all Australians want—this royal commission needs to get to the very bottom of the antisemitic behaviour in our great country which got to such a level that 15 people were slaughtered last December on Bondi Beach. If the royal commission is to establish the truth, if it is to properly examine—and this is the key here—the role of Australia's intelligence agencies, then those who come forward must have the legal certainty about the protections available to them. That is what this legislation seeks to provide, so the coalition supports the bill.

In saying that, though, I now need to comment on what Australians woke up to this morning, which is, of course, the bombshell news that Dennis Richardson had quit the royal commission. Prime Minister Albanese had looked the Australian people in the eye and said this man was the best qualified person in the country—and I don't think anybody disputes that—to examine the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Bondi massacre. That's right. Last night, he issued a statement that he felt 'surplus to requirements' and that he was quitting the royal commission. As I said, he didn't leave quietly. He left with words that should stop every single senator in this chamber cold. He said:

… I was surplus to requirements.

The man in Australia most qualified to get to the bottom of whether or not there were failures within our intelligence agencies that contributed to 15 innocent Australians being slaughtered on Bondi Beach is 'surplus to requirements'. This is the Prime Minister's own, hand picked expert. For those of you who don't know, he is the former director-general of ASIO. He is the former head of both the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

This is a man with decades of national security experience at the highest levels of government, and he has issued a statement. He has been on media this morning—and I'll go to that shortly—saying he felt 'surplus to requirements'. I am very sorry, but that is, quite frankly, an indictment on the royal commission. This is what he also said this morning to media:

I felt it had reached a point where I was adding relatively little value and I wasn't getting a lot of satisfaction out of it, quite frankly.

It gets worse. Dennis Richardson also said this today:

… I felt I was the fifth wheel. It's a very legally driven process. The way it's structured, and the way it proceeds is such that there's not much need for someone like myself.

Again, I go to what the Prime Minister said: 'This man, Dennis Richardson, is the best qualified person in our great country to examine the intelligence and security failures surrounding the Bondi massacre.' He has now stated that (a) he's quit but (b) he felt 'surplus to requirements' and like he was a 'fifth wheel'. That is absolutely incomprehensible. This is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. This goes to the fundamental purpose of this royal commission. Did ASIO have this attacker on a watchlist? Was he removed from that list? Were there failures in the intelligence agencies in the sharing of information? Were there any failures in counterterrorism preparedness?

Again, Dennis Richardson—a former director-general of ASIO, which is the lead intelligence agency in our country; a former head of defence; and a former head of foreign affairs—was the best placed person to get to the bottom of what happened. This is not on behalf of anybody in particular; this is on behalf of the Australian people, who deserve to know why 15 innocent people were slaughtered on Bondi Beach because antisemitism in this country got to such a stage that that was the outcome. As I said, that is exactly why the Prime Minister appointed him. Five weeks ago, he was the best placed of any Australian. This morning, this same man—a man who is respected on both sides of the chamber—says that he was 'surplus to requirements'.

Prime Minister, that is not good enough. The Prime Minister should act today. He should be doing everything within his power. If Dennis Richardson is the best person to do this job, he should be doing everything within his power to bring Dennis Richardson back into this process. If the current structure of the royal commission is the problem—and this is not a structure that the coalition had said it agreed with. We had always said that there needed to be more than one royal commissioner. There is only one royal commissioner. There absolutely needs to be more than one royal commissioner so that evidence can be properly tested. I hope the Prime Minister is in urgent talks with Dennis Richardson about how we can restore him and his involvement in examining the intelligence and law enforcement dimensions of this attack.

In relation to the bill itself—I am part of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and we had a hearing into this bill. Can I be very clear, though: I was very disappointed, on behalf of coalition members and senators, that we yet again had to provide additional comments to a report. We've also previously provided a dissenting report. Let us be very clear: that is actually not how the PJCIS has worked for many years. The way this government now treats the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and is wanting to ram legislation through this parliament that has a direct impact on our national security laws with little to no scrutiny is an indictment on how this government treats the PJCIS.

More than that, it is an indictment on the importance that this government puts on national security. The bill we have before us, as I said, is something the coalition supports, but let's be very clear here: it's not a straightforward measure. National security legislation is never really a straightforward measure, but that's how the Attorney-General of Australia sought to characterise the bill we have before us. This bill amends the Royal Commissions Act to create a framework protecting individuals from Commonwealth secrecy offences when providing intelligence or operationally sensitive information to a royal commission because currently they do not have to provide that information because, under the acts under which they work, the secrecy acts, they are able to use those particular acts as a reasonable excuse.

But it also goes a step further and will permanently amend the Criminal Code 1995 to create an additional defence for certain secrecy offences where information is communicated for the purposes of providing it to a royal commission and the person believes that that information is relevant. These changes go directly to the interaction between royal commissions—it's ongoing legislation, so I'm going to say 'royal commissions' because we may well have future royal commissions—and Australia's intelligence community. As I said, it's the effect of secrecy laws that protect some of the most sensitive information held by the Commonwealth. The Attorney-General of Australia said, 'This bill doesn't need a review.' Well, guess what? We on the coalition side said it did, and we said the most appropriate committee to look at it is the committee tasked with doing just that, reviewing any changes to Australia's national security framework.

Lest anybody be in any doubt, the Attorney-General actually said on radio, 'We don't think there is a need for a separate parliamentary inquiry.' Well, guess what? We did. We take very seriously the review of Australia's security laws. There was an inquiry. It's as a result of that inquiry that we have satisfied ourselves in relation to a number of issues in the bill, but we have also made additional recommendations which I hope the government takes on board and actually enacts.

But, sadly, the issue is the contempt that the Prime Minister of Australia, quite frankly, is now showing what has always been considered to be, for the time that I have been in here, the pre-eminent joint committee in this country. It normally works in a bipartisan manner because it is usually treated well by the government of the day, regardless of who is in office. But, unfortunately, the government of the day is currently treating it with contempt. This is a pattern of behaviour by this government.

Sadly, in 2023, in relation to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 2) Bill, coalition members were, in their comments, forced to describe the government's conduct as:

… irregular, rushed and contrary to the good conduct of a national security inquiry of this importance.

Again, that is an indictment on the way the government tried to push that particular piece of legislation through the PJCIS with little to no scrutiny.

It doesn't stop there, sadly. You would have thought the government would have learned its lesson. In 2024, coalition members noted, sadly, in a dissenting report on a cybersecurity legislative package, that the inquiry timeframe had been so compressed that proper scrutiny of complex national security legislation was actually impossible. National security legislation, laws that go directly to the heart of whether a Commonwealth government is able to properly protect its people, were so quickly rushed through the relevant committee that normally, under previous governments, regardless of their persuasion—coalition or Labor—would work in a bipartisan manner. When it comes to national security, this is something you always hope the two parties of government can actually agree on—but not under the Albanese government.

Worse, it doesn't stop there. In January of this year, the inquiry into the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill was so compressed, to less than a week, that it effectively neutralised the PJCIS's ability to test the legislation properly. In fact, partway through that inquiry, the Prime Minister stood up, did a press conference and said, 'I'm pulling the legislation anyway because the people of Australia clearly don't like it.' You've got to be kidding me. Seriously? You try to rush it through the PJCIS, you don't like the evidence that's been received and so you just stand up and pull it? There have been three occasions, and, sadly, in relation to this bill, this is now the fourth occasion where the coalition has had to make comment on the contempt which the Prime Minister of Australia and, in this case, the Attorney-General have shown to what has always been, for years and years, a committee that works in a bipartisan manner. Four separate occasions on which members of this committee have had to warn that parliamentary scrutiny of national security legislation is being curtailed—that is an indictment on the government.

Isn't it extraordinary; the coalition is getting up here and complaining that there wasn't sufficient time for an inquiry into and proper scrutiny of the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This is the same party that resisted, objected to and voted against a proper inquiry into this bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. They say one thing in their contributions, but the reality is they voted to shut down and prevent a proper public inquiry into this bill. I want to be clear: the Greens supported a proper inquiry into this bill—not some sham, rushed job through the PJCIS, where only the so-called current parties of government sit, but a proper inquiry in a public and open space—so that we could see if these protections work.

What does this bill aim to do? It aims to provide protections to some people who provide information to royal commissions on a voluntary and a compulsory basis, where the information is subject to a limited set of the hundreds and hundreds of security provisions under federal law. The bill partially implements a handful of recommendations for reform from the interim report of the veterans royal commission.

What did the veterans royal commission find? The veterans royal commission found, when it was trying to get evidence from serving members and former members of the Australian Defence Force, that there was incredible reticence amongst the veteran community and the serving members of the Defence Force to come and give evidence to the royal commission because they feared they'd be put in jail for breach of secrecy provisions, just like David McBride has been put in jail for breach of Defence Force secrecy provisions.

The chilling effect of the prosecution of David McBride and other whistleblowers by the Commonwealth government, both by the Labor Party and the coalition, was clearly felt throughout the veterans royal commission. Commissioner Kaldas and his fellow commissioners called that out very early on in their interim report. They said they wouldn't be able to get the cooperation they needed and the evidence they needed to complete the royal commission with the degree of certainty that they would like to have unless two things were done. First of all, it needed to be made clear that anyone giving evidence to a royal commission would be protected from prosecution under any one of the raft of hundreds of Commonwealth secrecy provisions. The royal commission said, 'You'd need to workshop that through the security agencies, and you'd need to ensure you had faith that the royal commission would treat security information with appropriate care.' But the core thing was to ensure no witness could go to jail, be prosecuted or lose their job for giving evidence to a royal commission. What did the government do? Absolutely nothing—nothing to help the veterans royal commission and, until they were pressed and pushed, nothing to help the current royal commission.

The second thing the interim report said was that royal commissions can be limited in what use they can give to parliamentary reports, committee reports and parliamentary reports because the way that the parliamentary privilege is interpreted by the Australian Government Solicitor is that those reports are protected by parliamentary privilege, and, even though they would be incredibly useful and relevant to a royal commission if for no other reason than to point out that issues have been put before the executive government repeatedly and nothing done, the royal commission found itself really bound in how it could use multiple parliamentary reports—in the case of veterans, dozens that had identified the problem going back decades. The Australian Government Solicitor, at the direction of the Albanese Labor government, kept saying to the veterans' royal commission, 'You can't use any of these parliamentary reports, because they're protected by parliamentary privilege.' That's not my understanding of what parliamentary privilege is meant to do. Parliamentary privilege is not meant to stop parliamentary reports and committee reports being used by royal commissions to actually inform positive reforms. That's not my understanding, but that's what the Australian Government Solicitor has been pushing time after time after time.

The veterans' royal commission said: 'Fix these two things. Let people come and give frank evidence without fear of being put in jail under Commonwealth secrecy provisions, and let us use the reports and the recommendations of parliamentary committees and parliamentary inquiries.' As I said, the Labor government did none of that—not one bit of it. Now, they've commenced a royal commission into the security agencies and their response to the appalling antisemitic attacks at Bondi Beach, and, now, Commissioner Bell has said, 'Actually, look at the reports from the interim reports from the veterans royal commission.' Obviously, members of ASIO, of Home Affairs, of the Australian Federal Police and, if it's relevant, of the ADF need protection so that they can come and tell the truth about what went wrong inside those security agencies and between those security agencies. They obviously need protection from the hundreds of Commonwealth secrecy provisions that apply.

Only after pressure was put on them from my party and from commentary in the media—only after pressure has been put on them do they bring this half-baked bill in. This half-baked bill goes nowhere near giving the protections that the veterans royal commission said were necessary for royal commissions. First of all, it does nothing about the parliamentary privilege. The Greens will be supporting amendments drafted by Senator Lambie that go to that core issue. We hope that the government, having read the interim report from the veterans royal commission, will support those amendments to say that royal commissions can have access to parliamentary reports and can use parliamentary reports and committee reports to do the work they need to do. We'll support that amendment. It's well drafted, and I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing it to the Senate.

What this bill also fails to do is live up to the spirit and the nature of the recommendation from the veterans' royal commission, because the proposal in this bill is—there's a general defence to, I think, six secrecy provisions of the hundreds and hundreds of secrecy provisions under federal statute. I refer members of the chamber to the INSLM report that pointed out so many secrecy provisions and what a danger that was to the free flow of information about the Commonwealth's operations. It provides a general immunity to six general secrecy provisions—it doesn't touch the hundreds of others—and then it says, in relation to security information and a subset of evidence basically wrapped around security and defence information, 'If the heads of different security agencies voluntarily enter into an arrangement with the royal commission that provides what information can be given, how the information can be given and how the information can be used and that if current or former members of those security agencies provide information that fits within those arrangements, then they won't be prosecuted under a number of security provisions.' What that does is gives a veto to the heads of the security agencies to decide the terms on which information can be given and the use that the royal commission can give to the information.

The security agencies obviously have a dog in this, a stake in this fight. Of course they don't want a royal commission roaming around and having a full and frank view of all of their potentially quite significant failures that led up to the shootings on Bondi Beach. Of course they have an interest to ensure that the information is narrow in scope and that the royal commission has limited basis upon which to use it. They have an interest to, potentially, make it incredibly difficult for current or former members of the security agencies to provide the information. It's almost as though the heads of the security agencies drafted this legislation; it's almost as though that's the case.

I rarely look to what the coalition says for some greater transparency in this space, But even the coalition, in their additional comments to the PJCIS inquiry, pointed out the potential need—I'd say it's the absolute need—for far greater protections for witnesses. Even the coalition can see the potential need for greater protections for witnesses, but the Labor Party seems to be in the pocket of the security agencies and is quite satisfied with giving the security agencies a complete veto over what and how information can be provided. The Labor Party seems to be satisfied not to provide the broad protections suggested by the veterans royal commissioner.

This bill goes a tiny bit—a tiny bit—of the way toward providing the protections that Commissioner Kaldas made clear that royal commissions need. Millions of Australians were horrified about what they saw on Bondi Beach and deeply concerned about potential failures and inadequacies between Home Affairs, the AFP, ASIO and state police. If you want public confidence in the outcomes of this royal commission, you need to make sure that every single current and former member of the security agencies feels absolutely free to come and tell truth to power, to come and tell the royal commission exactly what they knew and exactly what happened or what didn't happen in the lead-up to this. This bill goes nowhere near giving the protections needed.

I'll finish with this. The security agencies need to be under the pump in this royal commission. They need to be absolutely held to account. The coalition has made efforts today to keep Dennis Richardson enmeshed in the royal commission with all of his conflicts of interest as former ASIO head. He's been repeatedly used as the coalition and Labor's go-to man to write reports that remove any kind of criticism of Home Affairs, ASIO or any of those security agencies. The fact that he was appointed in the first place to do a review already creates a trust deficit with much of the public. I know it creates a trust deficit with many people inside the security agencies because it looked like Richardson was going to come in and just perform his usual: protect the government, protect his mates in the security agencies, protect the agencies and move the circus on.

We need to make sure that the royal commission isn't tainted by that, and we need to make sure that Commissioner Bell and the royal commission can see every single piece of evidence that they need. Every current and former member of the security agencies needs to feel confident that they can come and give evidence to the royal commission and not be put in jail, like David McBride, or prosecuted for breaches of security provisions. This bill goes nowhere near giving that level of protection.

I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to this debate. The Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 creates a clear lawful pathway for people to provide intelligence and operationally sensitive information to a royal commission, including to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. Uncertainty about the operations of secrecy laws, particularly in relation to intelligence and law enforcement material, can deter people from sharing information that is essential to a royal commission's work. It is critical that the current royal commission can obtain and assess the information it needs relating to last year's horrific Bondi terrorist attack. The bill ensures that this is possible, not only for this inquiry but for future royal commissions that need to handle sensitive, classified material.

The bill amends the Royal Commissions Act to establish a pathway for people to safely and lawfully provide information to a royal commission, without fear of criminal or civil liability. It also protects people who disclose intelligence or operationally sensitive information while seeking or providing legal advice in connection with a royal commission, and it ensures that secrecy provisions do not prevent people or agencies from complying with the royal commission's requirement to provide evidence. These are targeted measures. The new protections only apply where disclosures of intelligence and operationally sensitive information are made in line with published arrangements agreed between the royal commission and the Commonwealth, which may cover how sensitive material is obtained, stored, used, disclosed and returned. The commission must also act in accordance with those arrangements when using or communicating that information. In addition, the bill amends the Criminal Code to introduce a new defence to the general Commonwealth agency secrecy offences, where a person provides information to a royal commission. This will apply to all current and future royal commissions. Together, these reforms complement existing protections in the Royal Commissions Act and reinforce the message that people who cooperate with a royal commission should not face prosecution for doing so.

The government acknowledges the review conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and I thank the committee for its work and for the report that was tabled today. Given the importance of these matters to the royal commission, the government agrees with the sole recommendation of the committee that the bill be passed as soon as possible.

With respect to additional recommendations made by the coalition senators, the government agrees in principle with the first recommendation, noting the responsibility of agencies to manage their own operations. The Attorney-General's Department will liaise with National Intelligence Community agencies to ensure that they are providing sufficient support staff. The government also notes both the second and the third recommendation by coalition senators. The government has indicated publicly that it is progressing broader reform to secrecy provisions, which will be introduced to the parliament in due course. As part of that process, the government will consider whether further review is necessary to assess the effectiveness of these reforms or whether additional amendments are necessary.

I will now go to the amendment proposed by Senator Jacqui Lambie. I thank Senator Lambie for her long interest in royal commissions, particularly the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It's something that she has discussed on many occasions in this place, and nobody doubts her commitment to prosecuting those matters in here. On parliamentary privilege, though, the government takes a different view than Senator Lambie. The Parliamentary Privileges Act has special significance for the parliament, as the declaration of the powers, privileges and immunities of the parliament and its members. Parliamentary privilege protects the ability of the parliament to carry out its functions and activities. Any changes to parliamentary privilege should be rare and would require careful consideration. The government recognises the important work carried out by royal commissions, including the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, but considers that this can be achieved without infringing parliamentary privilege.

To Senator Shoebridge's point, I know he characterised the use of parliamentary reports. Those are publicly available. This really does deal with information that may have been provided to committees in a confidential way or for the purpose of producing a report, and we know that that evidence is collected using parliamentary privilege. That is of concern to the government. We want to thank Senator Lambie, but we won't be supporting her amendment. I'll just make some other comments. I know this has been discussed this morning. It will be traversed later on, but I do want to address the comments of the shadow Attorney-General in regards to Dennis Richardson.

The government has been notified that Dennis Richardson has resigned as advisor to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. The government thanks Mr Richardson for his efforts to date. This will not stop the work of the royal commission, and they will deliver important work, including an interim report, by 30 April. It has been very disappointing to see the approach of those opposite in regard to this matter, particularly the construing of comments that have been made by the Prime Minister. The most important comments for the opposition to register, to understand and to hopefully repeat in this chamber are these words from Dennis Richardson himself from today. He said that this is 'not anything to do with the government'. He said:

… the government is not responsible in anyway.

He goes on to say:

… the community should have full confidence in the royal commission …

He went on to make further comments today.

The commentary that has been coming from the opposition was put to him, and it is notable that, when Mr Richardson was asked whether the idea that it's a disaster for the royal commission is an overstatement in his view, he replied, 'Absolutely. It's an overstatement.' We have seen these overstatements from the opposition before in regards to this matter. We have seen overegging and overstatements from those opposite. I would have thought they would have learned from what happened in this place when parliament was recalled, but they obviously haven't. I will make this final comment on this matter. I think the opposition is veering dangerously close to undermining the royal commission that they called for and say they support.

We would welcome a bipartisan approach to these matters. As we have said many times, we believe that the response to this horrific attack and this royal commission should be above politics. It's a matter for the opposition to decide what pathway they take, but we know what the public thought about the opposition's approach and their decision to play politics with this incredibly important matter when parliament was recalled. The government will continue to support the royal commission to deliver its important work, and this bill ensures that the royal commission can access the information that they need to perform its vital functions.

It provides certainty for individuals and protects the integrity of sensitive information. As a result, it strengthens the ability of the royal commission to uncover the truth on matters of national importance. These reforms will support the current Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion to properly examine the tragic events at Bondi while also establishing a lasting framework that will benefit future inquiries dealing with intelligence and operationally sensitive matters. As I've said previously, these are urgent matters, and we thank the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026; In Committee

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026

On behalf of Senator Lambie, I move amendment (1) on sheet 3664:

(1) Page 12 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Amendment of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987

Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987

1 After subsection 16(6)

Insert:

(6A) If a Royal Commission's terms of reference require an examination of government then, despite paragraph (3)(c), neither this section nor the Bill of Rights, 1688 shall be taken to prevent or restrict the admission of evidence before a Royal Commission for the purpose of drawing, or inviting the drawing of, inferences or conclusions wholly or partly from anything forming part of proceedings in Parliament.

I spoke to this in my second reading contribution, and I don't wish to repeat that, but this is the amendment that would allow this royal commission, and other royal commissions, to not only access to public reports but then use public reports of this parliament to craft their recommendations and draft their report. Commissioner Kaldas made the argument, I think, incredibly clearly in the interim report. Again, I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing this amendment, and I commend it to the chamber.

Question negatived.

by leave—Could I have our party's vote in support of that amendment recorded?

Noted. Thank you, Senator Shoebridge.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026; Third Reading

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

We had hoped that this could be repaired in committee. If the Lambie amendment had been adopted, we would have supported this bill because it would have done clear good. But for the reasons we made clear, in particular, the veto being given to security agencies—you only get one chance to fix this kind of legislation, and this bill is not doing what's needed, so we won't be supporting the third reading.

The question before the chair is the third reading of the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026.

Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026 Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Jessica Collins Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Pauline Lee Hanson Sarah Henderson Jenny McAllister Malarndirri McCarthy Corinne Mulholland Fatima Payman David Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Malcolm Roberts Dave Sharma Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Tammy Tyrrell Charlotte Walker Murray Watt Ellie Whiteaker Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Sarah Hanson-Young Steph Hodgins-May Nick McKim Barbara Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This is an important piece of legislation. Yes, I accept that there has been not as much time as one would like to examine this legislation, but, as I think many of the contributors to this debate and certainly the public commentary on this legislation will indicate, it was urgent legislation that needed to be dealt with.

In short, this legislation enables the government of the day to put in place measures to deal with potential issues related to current holders of temporary visa classes who are currently offshore but in an area affected by a significant event or circumstance—measures to have those visas held by those individuals temporarily suspended and to be able to establish that that needs to be the case and that a determination to suspend those visas ought be the outcome. A test is applied by the minister which the opposition agrees is a relevant and appropriate test to be applied.

The simplest way to describe it is that, for example, in a region subject to conflict, if an individual from that region applied for some form of temporary visa, like a visitor or a tourist visa or perhaps a student visa, there is a high likelihood that that visa would be cancelled, the reason being—albeit it's a temporary visa these individuals are applying for—that there is a high likelihood that they would stay beyond the expiry of that visa, potentially to seek asylum and perhaps stay on illegally. So there are issues that need to be dealt with. This legislation goes to the very heart of that.

The opposition was satisfied with the way in which the legislation had been constructed. Yes, we had a short Senate inquiry into this to interrogate how the departmental officials arrived at the structure they put in, how they were able to determine which classes of individuals were not subject to any determination to suspend any visa and, then, any situations where people might be able to apply for an exception to that rule, that determination, enabling them to travel by application to the minister.

The government, of course, will speak to the details of this legislation, but the coalition make the observation that this legislation is all about controlling our borders, our national security, in determining who comes here and how they come here. I think that is an important role for government to have when it comes to preserving and protecting our country and its way of life. It is important that we do have controls in place that manage anything that could have an impact on how people come to this country and, indeed, who comes to this country, especially if there is a risk that, although the permission to enter this country was granted on one set of circumstances, if those circumstances change they may give rise to someone taking a different approach—that is, seeking to stay here permanently when all this country has agreed to is for these people to come in and be here temporarily.

There is nothing wrong with this approach being taken, I believe, and we are pleased the government has taken it, although one must question why there have been so many failings in this government's approach to matters immigration, border policy and national security. The point of this legislation—to give the government powers to protect this country from people coming in and seeking to stay permanently when that is not something this country has agreed to—is not something that was in contemplation when we look at this government's handling of the so-called ISIS brides. The government are not preventing these people from coming in. They're saying it's their right to come in. They say they're not doing anything about it and that they, frankly, don't want them here, but they're not doing anything to stop them. I find it odd that the government take this approach with regard to individuals who may find themselves in a circumstance that this bill catches a group up in, but why are they doing it for this group and not others? Again, it's like the ISIS brides. Why is it we are doing it now?

We know that there are other international conflicts—like the one, sadly, we are seeing unfold in the Middle East now. It's a conflict that would, as we heard at the Senate inquiry just a couple of nights ago, probably meet the threshold for activation of the powers under this legislation, the framework that's being established here. There are other conflicts, in the past and perhaps ongoing now, that would meet that threshold. So I do question why the government has waited till now to activate any work in this area to allow the government to have the capacity to create this determination to suspend these visas. We've seen, for example, the 6,957 visa that were granted to Palestinian nationals between November 2023 and 2025. Why was this not something that was activated then? Reports and information available to us suggest that many of those visas were temporary in nature. The same rules should apply, given the nature of the conflict in that region.

We heard—again, at the committee inquiry earlier in the week—that across the Middle East there are 61,000, or thereabouts, holders of visas that could be caught up under the arrangements set out in the framework that this legislation establishes. They're from a range of countries. There are 7,200 from Iran, which I know Senator Shoebridge just talked about before in reference to the laws we're now debating. They are a group of people that were, obviously, in contemplation when this legislation was designed. There are 207 from Syria, 157 from Palestine, 1,150 from Lebanon, 1,096 from Qatar and 6,435 from the United Arab Emirates. There are groups of people from a region in the world that these laws could apply to, but I do wonder why we didn't have these laws being introduced at a time when this government had, effectively, an open-border policy and a turning-a-blind-eye approach to people coming from a war-torn region, possibly and quite probably on visas temporary in nature, and the thereby then seeking to make their arrangements and life here in Australia more permanent. That is a question the government do need to answer and one we'll continue to prosecute.

Of course, this legislation does set up a framework. It doesn't specify who, in a particular region, in a particular set of circumstances, is caught out by name or by location. It sets up a framework for the government to make a determination. This means some of these areas that haven't previously been caught by such laws now can be. It will be our approach to make sure that we do continue to see the application of these laws as they may be applied to, for example, Iranian nationals who are on these temporary visas and who happen to be overseas at the time and other cases as well.

There are a range of questions that the coalition continue to hold. That includes whether, with regard to those visas that were granted for the group of Palestinian nationals we talked about earlier, any risk assessments were conducted on these individuals before they arrived here or before their visas were issued. And why wasn't any advice provided—or, if it was, why was it not acted on—such that these additional powers that are now proposed in this legislation weren't in place, as I've already outlined?

The opposition will support this legislation. We think it is right. We think that there are appropriate safeguards in there. Above all else, of course, the legislation enables a framework for temporary suspensions. This is not permanent prevention of people from coming into this country. They are temporary suspensions. Of course there are exclusions and exceptions on very solid grounds for people who shouldn't be caught up under these determinations and processes for people to seek exception to the application of a determination to not be able to use your visa, should it have been granted to you. To that end, it comes down to the government applying these laws in the way they should—and should have before now—to protect our country in relation to who comes here and the circumstances under which they come.

I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to oppose this legislation, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. Time and time again, it's Labor governments that bring in the nastiest and meanest laws to attack people seeking asylum, and again Labor has done it with this legislation.

This, I think, is a new low, even for Labor. The world is looking in horror at the conflict in Iran. Maybe not everybody is looking in horror at the conflict in Iran. People like Donald Trump, his 'secretary of war' and others seem to be taking glee in the violence they see and celebrating the killing and violence—one of the many reasons why the Greens say we should be distancing ourselves from that rogue regime as quickly as possible. But, across this country, I know that the pulse of the Australian people is to be appalled by what they're seeing happening in Iran and to feel a deep sense of empathy and concern for people across the region. What does their government do on their behalf, or purportedly on their behalf? They bring legislation in here, at the commencement of this awful conflict, to ensure that 7,200 Iranians, who have valid visas, cannot come to this country and seek protection from their regime, from Israeli bombs, from US missiles and from the acid rain and black rain that's falling as a result of Israeli and US bombing. They shut the door and say, 'You can't come here, and you can't seek protection.' It's the same minister, Minister Burke, who rushed to Brisbane to seek to make political capital from helping a handful of brave Iranian women's football players, and then, literally on the same day, he, as the minister, introduced this bill to shut the door on 7,200 other Iranians.

What does the legislation do? It gives the Australian government the power to block temporary visa holders from travelling to Australia, and the bill does it by basically allowing the minister to declare any class or group to be subject to an order if there's some international circumstance or development that's happened. I can see that this bill is going to pass, because the war parties, Labor, the coalition and One Nation clearly all support this legislation. They've never seen a nasty attack on people seeking asylum that they haven't wanted to join. Normally it's the three of them together, because the politics of Labor, the coalition and One Nation are so close. Their politics on the war are so close; their politics on cruelty to people seeking asylum are close. It's basically the three war parties coming together here to do this.

I can't tell you how grateful I am to not be a part of any of your parties but to be a part of my party, the Greens, who will always stand up for decency in this space. That's how I see this party. It's one of the reasons I'm a member of this party. I'm sure there are people of good conscience in the Labor Party and the coalition. I can't imagine how it must crush you as a person every day to come in and vote for this kind of vileness. The answer to that is to leave the party or speak out about it publicly. When you vote for this stuff, you're complicit in it. I can't tell you how grateful I am to not be a part of those dysfunctional, appalling political parties that are voting for this bill.

What's likely to happen is that, once this bill passes, Minister Burke, who went up and got the political cover by helping five brave Iranian women's football players, will immediately pass a provision that says anyone who's holding an Iranian travel document will be subject to this. We know that that's 7,200 people, and that means they can't come to this country, they can't seek asylum and they'll be stuck in the appalling war and conflict that Labor also supports.

There is a tiny exemption if people have a direct family member here, but it's a limited number of family members. If somebody has a visa and their partner is an Australian citizen or permanent resident, they're not subject to the ban. If they are the parent of a dependent child under 18 here, then they're not subject to the ban, or, if they're a dependent child under 18, they're not subject to the ban. But everybody else in that 7,200 is covered.

The government then says, 'Oh, but don't you worry, because these 7,200 Iranians can make an offshore claim.' Well, we know that that's not going to happen, because, if you're in Iran and you make a humanitarian application to Australia, the making of that application makes you a target for the regime, and it just doesn't happen. So all of that is just plain nonsense.

We know what this is about. This is about Labor being frightened about being outflanked on cruelty and racism by One Nation. You're responding to the Islamophobia of One Nation. You're seeing the Iranian people as just utterly expendable in this, and we won't be any part of it. I've made multiple contributions about why this bill should never, ever pass this chamber, and I just say again that when I look at my colleagues and I think about the way in which my colleagues approach this legislation on the basis of principle and decency, and when I look at the way the war parties approach it on the basis of racism, political advantage and Islamophobia, I am so glad I'm not you.

I rise to speak to Labor's new White Australia policy. This Labor government was the first in the world to congratulate Trump and Netanyahu on their illegal bombing of Iran. This illegal war has seen more than 150 innocent schoolgirls murdered, most likely by the US. Thousands of people across the region have been killed, many others injured and scores of thousands more displaced. This government's own travel advice says the region is highly volatile because of the risk of ongoing reprisal attacks and escalation. This Albanese government has now sent ADF personnel and an aircraft to the gulf, making Australia an active participant in this violence. We are now officially at war, thanks to Albanese. And, at the very moment that his government is helping escalate the violence, it is also slamming the door on the people who will inevitably be forced to flee it. It is unconscionably cruel to foresee a refugee crisis, play a role in creating it and then take steps to avoid responsibility for the innocent people caught in the middle.

This bill that Labor is ramming through—the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026—is straight out of the One Nation playbook. It's the latest example of how Labor, the coalition and One Nation are all competing to be the cruellest and most racist because they think this is a path to political success. But it is driving so much damage and division in this country and abroad. This legislation is a racist dog whistle. It's eerily similar to Donald Trump's Muslim bans and will be used to target black and brown people. It seems Labor wants to drag this country back to the days of the White Australia policy. Shame!

If we want to understand why Islamophobia and racism against black and brown communities is rising in this country, we only need to look at this bill. It would give sweeping powers to the minister to block entire groups of visa holders from travelling to Australia on suspicion alone, even when they have legitimate reasons to be here. Powers like this will quickly be weaponised against black and brown people, who are always treated as suspects. We know a double standard will occur, and these powers won't be used to stop people from places like Israel or Ukraine if they seek refuge in this country to escape danger. These powers will be reserved to be used against Muslim and Arab people being displaced by the United States and Israel's illegal attacks in Iran and elsewhere, conflicts the Albanese government continues to back. Shame! What's going on? This government gives a handful of tokenistic humanitarian visas to Iranian soccer players so that it can boast about its generosity. With this government, the only way to protect yourself from this illegal war is to be an elite athlete.

We cannot allow this country to slide further down this dangerous path. Racist migration policies have no place in this country, and the Albanese government has a duty to assist people seeking refuge, regardless of their skin colour or their religion, particularly when they are from places where this government is complicit in violence. This bill must be opposed in the strongest possible terms, and I will later move a second reading amendment. We need to lead by example. We cannot follow the US and Israel in the killing of innocent people. Labor, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourselves.

This Iranian visa ban is a new low from this Labor government, who, on refugee rights, just keep revealing themselves to be morally bankrupt. How cynical is it that, all week, Minister Burke has painted himself as a hero for, rightly, providing asylum to a handful of Iranian young women who've distinguished themselves on the soccer field while at the same time shutting the door on thousands more—on 7,200 other Iranian visa holders—who already have the legal right to use that visa and to come here. This government, with these laws today—that have bipartisan support, that are going to be rushed through—are shutting the door on thousands more. I guess after 15 years I should be a bit more cynical, but this, frankly, is a new low—to be championing yourself as some saviour while you are simultaneously shutting the door on thousands of needy people. Congratulations. You've really rewritten the rules on how cruel a government can be.

In looking at the detail of this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, it's actually not just Iranian visas that you're cancelling. It's actually a wide-ranging power. So I ask you: What country is next? What new low are you going to stoop to next week—or, perhaps, when Donald Trump rings up the Prime Minister in the middle of the night about some other crazy idea, where we send our people into harm's way for an illegal war at the whim of an unstable Donald Trump. What country will be next? Will it be Lebanon? Never mind the fact that you've got 700,000 Lebanese people who've been displaced by attacks ordered by the Israeli government in what's not described as a war—in what Minister Wong yesterday, in response to my question, described as a 'collective self-defence' because she cannot bring herself to say the word 'war'. All the legal commentators and academics are clear: Australia is at war because Donald Trump asked us to be at war. He rang up the Prime Minister and said, 'Can you please send missiles and war planes and personnel to my illegal frolic?' And that's exactly what we have done. That's exactly what this government has signed us up to—of course without asking Australians or this parliament or anyone, really. When Donald Trump asks us to deploy troops, apparently we say, 'Sure, sir, how many would you like, sir?' It's 85 today; what's it going to be next week, and where does it stop?

That's what this bill also does; it gives a blank cheque to the minister to just cancel people's visas that they've already had issued—that they could already, legally, rely on. I mean, what a power grab by this minister, and what a perverse and inhumane power grab at that. You backed this illegal war, and you've supported bombs raining down on civilians, and now you've got the gall to shut the door on those same civilians who will be impacted by those bombs. I do not know how you possibly rationalise that and, frankly, how you can live with yourselves.

This is the sort of low blow that we would have expected from the previously administration, but, interestingly, not even they sunk to this low. This is genuinely a new low. These are the sorts of actions that certainly do not 'turn the temperature down' like the Prime Minister has been asking the Greens do when we have been calling out a genocide in Gaza. Far from turning the temperature down, we're now joining an illegal war—that has seen over 150 schoolchildren bombed—because Donald Trump asked us to and now shutting the door on those very same civilians that would like to be safe and thought they had the legal right to be so. But you're getting ahead of them and saying, 'Soz, we're cancelling your right to be here.' And the Liberal Party are of course saying: 'Sure, we'll sign up to that. Let's rush it through. Let's do it on a Thursday, before we go home to our beds.'

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

STATEMENTS BY SENATORS

Domestic and Family Violence

Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know as well as anyone here that the children of our country are our future. The quality of life our children receive will more often than not directly impact the quality of life they maintain as adults. Studies show that, when a child is raised with positive early experiences, they have a lower risk of mental health problems or of developing any physical health conditions later in life.

I recently had the honour of being appointed the shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence. Child protection does not begin with government intervention; it begins with healthy families. It begins with healthy mums and dads who have the emotional, financial and psychosocial capacity to care for their children. It's not lost on me that, for many parents across this country, this is not their reality. That sobering truth has long informed my working life. From my work prior to entering parliament I've seen both the positive and the negative impacts of family function or dysfunction and of harmony or violence. This is what drives me. The goal is simple: to strengthen families by creating opportunity and resilience. When parents have stability, their children have a strong foundation on which they can build their lives.

The goal is simple, but the work is complex. Not every parent has that resilience or the support system to lean on. For Australians in those circumstances, we must ensure that we have a functional out-of-home care system, one that can act as a safety net until those parents are empowered to get back on their feet, and our policy should focus on doing everything possible to expedite their recovery. The 2023-24 figures from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare said that there were 179,000 children in the child protection system. That number might seem large and abstract, but it's absolutely essential— (Time expired)

Parliament Shop National Showcase

I want to take a moment to highlight an opportunity for Tasmanian producers and makers to showcase their products in our nation's capital. The Parliament Shop here at the Australian Parliament House proudly features products from across Australia. It is a place where visitors from around the country and around the world can discover the creativity, craftsmanship and innovation that make Australia unique. Each year the Parliament Shop runs a national showcase program, which gives businesses from a particular state or territory the chance to have their products featured in the shop.

Tasmania will be once again featured as part of the Parliament Shop's National Showcase. That means Tassie producers, designers and small businesses have the opportunity to have their products showcased right here in Parliament House, where thousands of visitors pass through every year. Tasmania is home to some of the most talented producers in the country, from food and beverage to design, craft, textiles and locally made goods. Our state has a proud reputation for quality and creativity. This showcase is a chance to share that with the rest of Australia. It's also a chance for small businesses to gain national exposure and reach a new audience through the Parliament Shop.

Applications are currently open for the Tasmanian national showcase, and I want to encourage Tasmanian producers and makers to consider putting their products forward. If you're a Tasmanian business with a product you are proud of, I encourage you to submit an application. I look forward to seeing lots of Tassie products represented in the Parliament Shop and I can't wait to go along.

National Anti-Corruption Commission

Today I want to send strength and solidarity to the thousands and thousands of people around this country whose lives were devastated by the robodebt scandal. I want to send strength and solidarity to people like Kath Madgwick, who lost her son, Jarrad, and Jenny Miller, who lost her son, Rhys, and who have been tireless advocates around getting justice for robodebt victims.

I want to recognise that, right around the country, victims of robodebt feel like yesterday's NACC findings were a punch in the guts, because the people at the top, the architects of robodebt, have gotten away scot-free. Many of the senior officials who appear in the sealed section for breaches of their responsibilities are still in the very same departments that are rolling out the punitive Targeted Compliance Framework and mutual obligations system. They are still in a department that has repeatedly been found to be acting unlawfully. They are still in a department that continually has to retrospectively legislate to fix up things that are unlawful. They are still in a department whose head and whose minister cannot reassure us that the entire welfare system, the mutual obligations system in particular—the Targeted Compliance Framework that punches down and punishes vulnerable people—is lawful. We have seen, time and time again, the most vulnerable people in this country bear the brunt of a system that is broken, and, yesterday, those people found out that they are not going to get justice.

Middle East

Persian New Year, or Nowruz, on 21 March, is approaching, but I know it's a particularly difficult time for the Persian community not only abroad in Australia but also in Iran at home. I've just come from meeting a group of the Iranian Canberra based community who are gathered outside parliament who want to make sure that people in parliament hear their message, and their message is that they support Australia's involvement in our support of our allies in the gulf, and they support the diplomatic and military pressure we're putting the Islamic Republic of Iran. They support our actions to grant sanctuary and safe haven to women from the Iranian soccer team who sought it, and they our support to make sure that we continue to put pressure on the government of the Islamic republic. Let us not forget that this is a regime that has treated its own citizens with the most wanton cruelty, that has exported terrorism beyond its shores, that has sown instability in its neighbours and that has conducted or financed and funded and directed at least two terrorist attacks on Australian soil. Their message to us was clear, and I do wish that more people in this chamber would bear in mind the sort of government we are dealing with in Iran.

I did want to register one particular concern they have, and that is their concern that, whilst Iranians students and protesters have been shot in their thousands in the streets in recent months, there are credible reports that children of regime figures, those who have ordered those killings, are being given sanctuary here in Australia. I speak in particular of the daughter of Yahya Sinwar, a sanctioned individual and commander within the IRGC, and the son of the Eshagh Ghalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament. Australia should not be giving a sanctuary or a safe haven to senior regime children.

Iranian Women Organisation South Australia

I rise today to acknowledge Iranian Women Organisation South Australia and the recent event they hosted in recognition of International Women's Day. While International Women's Day is marked each year on 8 March, the conversations it inspires about equality, opportunity and solidarity should continue well beyond a single day. The gathering hosted by the Iranian Women's Organisation South Australia was a powerful reminder of exactly that. It was an opportunity to celebrate the achievements of women and also to reflect on the courage and resilience shown by women across the world in the ongoing pursuit of dignity, equality and freedom.

In recent years, the world has watched Iranian women demonstrate extraordinary bravery in standing up for their rights and their futures. Many have done so despite immense personal risk. Their determination and their refusal to be silenced have inspired people across the world. Resilience is not only found in moments of protest; it is also found in the work of building community and in women supporting one another, preserving culture, sharing experiences and creating spaces where voices can be heard. Through their work, they bring women together, strengthen connections within the community and create opportunities for women to share their stories, leadership and culture. In doing so, they contribute to a stronger, more inclusive South Australia.

This event was a reminder that the progress we celebrate on International Women's Day is built not only through major political moments but through the everyday leadership of women who organise, advocate and lift one another up. I thank the Iranian Women Organisation South Australia for their work and for the important role that they play in empowering women and strengthening our community.

Biosecurity: Buffel Grass

Today I want to acknowledge the many traditional owners who have travelled from across the country to bring the devastating impacts of invasive buffel grass to the attention of parliamentarians. I also want to thank the Invasive Species Council for organising the delegation today. Their presence reminds us about the importance of connection to country and caring for country.

Buffel grass is rapidly transforming Australia's arid landscapes. It spreads aggressively, replacing diverse native vegetation with dense monocultures and threatening the plants and animals that depend on these ecosystems. It also fuels hotter, faster and more frequent fires—fires that our landscapes are not adapted to survive. For First Nations communities, this is not only an ecological crisis but a cultural one, affecting access to country, bush foods, medicines and cultural knowledge. That is why buffel grass should be listed as a weed of national significance, but this issue also speaks to something bigger.

Australia has already lost so much of our incredible biodiversity. We've lost so much nature. On a continent as extraordinary and unique as this one, we simply cannot afford to lose more because we fail to act on invasive species. Protecting our biodiversity requires serious, sustained, national investment in invasive spaces management. As a country, we need to be setting longer term goals. We need to start acting, and we need to fund invasive species management like we plan to be here for a long time—like we want, in 50, 100 or 200 years, for this incredible continent to be thriving with the native species that make it so incredible and unique.

Fuel Security

There is a fuel crisis in Australia. Australians, particularly in the regions, are struggling to access fuel. They can't take their children to school, they can't start their tractors and they can't get on with the job of feeding our nation. For those lucky enough to find fuel, prices are at a record high. Just yesterday, the national average price was nearly $2 a litre. And what's the message from Labor's Canberra politicians? It's blaming the motorists, blaming the farmers and blaming the families for wanting to have fuel. It is victim blaming. Like fuel prices, Labor's arrogance and disdain for the Australian people are reaching record highs.

Fuel security is not an abstract policy debate. It is a daily reality for millions of Australians. For farmers, truck drivers, small businesses and families, fuel is not a luxury; it is an essential to keep the country moving, yet across the country we are seeing concerning reports of the rationing of fuel and of service stations running dry. Farmers are warning they may not be able to access the diesel needed to run essential machinery and to keep their livestock alive. When the fuel runs short in regional Australia, it doesn't just affect motorists; it affects all of us.

So I say to Canberra's Labor politicians: get out of your electric Comcars, get out of Canberra and speak to the people out there on the street. Go down to a petrol station and speak to people about the cost of fuel in Australia and whether they can get fuel. There's a level of arrogance in this government at the moment, who want to blame the victims. Get out of your electric Comcars. Fix the problem. That's your job.

Women's Health

Unrecognised pain, delayed diagnosis, shame in having to ask to leave work a little earlier—these were the themes I heard at a women's health forum I hosted in Goldstein with Assistant Minister Rebecca White. The stories shared were deeply familiar and far too common. Almost every woman knows what it feels like not to be listened to and to have that dismissal stand in the way of care. Even after nearly 30 years in medicine, I am still moved by these experiences. That is why we must keep listening to women, centring them in conversations about health and training the next generation of doctors to do better.

But we are seeing change led by a government that is female dominant, that is 56 per cent women. We have delivered a landmark women's health package totalling nearly $800 million. For the first time in decades, new menopausal therapies and new contraceptive options beyond the pill—I'm talking about IUDs and implants—have been listed on the PBS. We have established 33 endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics nationwide that will expand to include menopause care. Don't tell me representation doesn't matter. When women are heard, change follows.

That is what is missing from those opposite, where women make up just 28 per cent of the Liberals and Nationals. This is a party whose first female leader was torn down in just nine months and whose own former members have said that they have never been less representative of Australians. For the Libs and Nats, change is just a slogan, not a plan. The Albanese Labor government will keep building a health system that works for women. That's what representation in action means. Don't tell me it doesn't matter.

National Disability Insurance Agency

The disability community has had a massive win recently in the Federal Court. The court ruled that the NDIA must fund a motorised scooter for Lee Eastham, a disabled man and NDIS participant with hearing and vision impairments as well as limitations on his mobility. Instead of funding his scooter in 2022, when Mr Eastham requested it, the NDIA spent almost four years fighting this case, wasting huge sums of money in legal and court fees. This is what the government's cost-saving measures look like in practice—disabled people and their advocates being required to fight the NDIA, and its very expensive lawyers, for basic supports they are entitled to.

This is not happening in a vacuum. It was reported on 3 March that business leaders have been calling on the Treasurer to further cut the NDIS in order to fix the budget. One of these business leaders is the CEO of CommBank, an organisation which earned $10 billion in profits in the last financial year. This is what is actually going on when we hear calls for cuts to the NDIS.

The truth is this: one in three big corporations pay zero tax, and the ultra-wealthy would prefer to see the rug pulled from under disabled people and our families than start to pay their fair share. But this Labor government continues to pretend as though disabled people are the problem. We are not the problem. It is time for us to take our wealth back. It is time to make the one per cent pay tax. (Time expired)

Child Care

This morning, many of us had the opportunity to hear from the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia, ELACCA, about the future of early childhood education in this country. Their message was clear: if we want a stronger economy, stronger families and stronger communities, we must build an early learning system that works for all Australians.

But in Western Australia, particularly in our regional communities, that promise is far from reality. Across regional WA we're seeing the rise of what experts call 'childcare deserts'—places where families simply cannot access affordable, reliable and quality care. The consequences are profound. Parents are turning down work opportunities, businesses are struggling to operate and families are being forced into impossible choices.

Take the story of Candy Taylor, from Narrogin. She is a research scientist with the CSIRO. Because she cannot secure a place at a local childcare centre, she now drives to Perth on Mondays and returns on Fridays so her daughter can attend care while she works. Other parents in the region have been told to drive to neighbouring towns, sometimes two hours of travel a day, just to access child care. In Kununurra, dozens of families were left without care for months after the town's main centre closed. We simply cannot ignore these red flags.

When child care becomes inaccessible, communities suffer, workforces shrink, young families leave and local economies weaken, and children miss out on early learning opportunities that help shape their development. We cannot talk about workforce participation, regional growth or gender equality while childcare deserts continue to expand. I thank ELACCA and the many early childhood educators and providers working on the ground to highlight this crisis. (Time expired)

South Australia State Election

This week, in the media in South Australia, there has been an almighty pile-on on one of our candidates, Carston Woodhouse, who is the candidate for Wright. The media in SA are a little bit like the media nationally—wholly owned by the radical left in this nation. They are effectively a mouthpiece for the Australian Labor Party in South Australia. Not a single bad story against the great premier has ever been written in human history in South Australia, but, today, I thought it was an opportune moment to speak about one newsletter in particular that was sent around by an outlet, which is called InDaily—which I don't like to speak to, because by now, with the six people that are watching this, I've doubled their readership in a matter of seconds.

Today they wrote an article called '"Unelectable": Liberal insider says controversial candidates are not alone'. It's very helpful for a 'Liberal insider', by the way, to be speaking to the left-wing media. I wonder who that could be? But this insider said:

'With friends like Antic and Pasin and their operatives throughout the party, Ashton and her team don't need any enemies.'

That's right; it's my fault that my friends in One Nation over there are scoring in the polls! The guy that is trying to make the Liberal Party take a leaf out of their book is somehow responsible for this. But, in any event, it says I didn't give any comments. I did actually. I was asked for a comment via text at 12.38. At 12.46, I responded, saying, 'Reading your text wasted valuable seconds of my life, and now I am wasting even more by responding.' But apparently that's not good enough.

Let me just say this. This is the party in this country which apparently stands for freedom of thought, worship, speech and association. I haven't read what this guy has said, frankly, because I don't care about anything that's written in the media in South Australia. But I'll say this. If this guy is disendorsed or if he feels compelled to leave, we might as well shut the doors on this election with one week to go.

Climate Change

One Nation is the only party that will scrap net zero. We have heard a lot of talk from the coalition and the Nationals about walking away from net zero, but, today, when this chamber was given a chance to take the first real steps towards the exit, they squibbed it. The Nationals, under the new leadership of Senator Matt Canavan, when given an opportunity today to start getting out of the Paris climate agreement, simply vanished, and the Liberals, under Angus Taylor, lined up with Labor and the Greens and voted against it entirely. Their actions exposed the truth. They have changed a slogan, not a policy.

One Nation stands alone in being serious about scrapping net zero, and the rest of the chamber has just proved it. Scrapping net zero is not a slogan; it is essential. Net zero has driven up power prices, it has destroyed reliable base-load generation, it has slammed everyday Australians with higher bills and a weaker economy, and it has killed jobs. It has used international climate targets to punish our manufacturers, miners, farmers and fuel refiners while countries like China and India keep expanding coal and lifting their emissions. Net zero is economic destruction, and the Paris Agreement is the anchor that keeps net zero locked into Australian law and policy. As long as we stay in the Paris Agreement, Labor, the coalition and the Greens will simply say we are bound by our international obligations.

Leaving Paris is the only way to cut that link and give Australia back the freedom to set its own energy and industrial policy based on what works for all Australians. This is about putting cheaper, more reliable power back in the hands of households and back in the hands of businesses so they can invest, grow and keep jobs here instead of being pushed offshore by these arbitrary emission constraints. This is about restoring commonsense to our energy policy and putting Australia's national interest first. Yet one of the parties that now pretends to have seen the light were especially noticeable in their absence, because it seems, no matter who leads the Nationals, they still have little to be proud of.

South Australia State Election

The election in South Australia is just nine days away, on 21 March. Housing has been a very significant issue in the election to date, and it's no wonder. House prices in Adelaide are up 40 per cent in the last four years. Rents are up 33 per cent. There are record low rates of vacant housing available for renters, and homelessness is up 10 per cent across the country, including in South Australia. This election campaign has seen no end of photo opportunities for the Premier and others for announcements around housing. It's so important that we actually get a plan and some action that will work.

Let's just have look at the record of Labor in the last four years on housing. We've got some new research on this that was recently published by some of Australia's best housing experts, Hal Paulson and Chris Martin. Their study reveals that over the last four years, while Labor's been in power in our state, there has been a net loss in public and community housing—a fall of one per cent on the level of public housing in 2020. Shame on Labor. That is appalling, especially in a period when public housing of this kind has increased by 11 per cent in Victoria, by 15 per cent in Tasmania and by nine per cent in Queensland. It can be done, but it's down by one per cent in South Australia at a time when we've got nearly 14,000 people on our public housing waitlists.

On top of that, the South Australian government has let Shelter SA collapse after 49 years due to a funding shortfall. It's outrageous that, in this period of a housing crisis, our homelessness peak organisation has gone to the wall. We need real action on housing in our state. We need a massive investment in public and social housing. We need to cap our rents, and we need a public housing builder that builds 20,000 new public homes to meet the demand that is there in a massive housing crisis.

Bill of Rights

It's crazy to think this country doesn't have a human rights act. We need to legislate an Australian human rights act to ensure our rights are properly protected by law at the national level. Right now, we have a piecemeal approach to human rights in Australia. Only some rights are protected under national law, and some rights are protected in some states, and others are not. Then we have different legislation for states and territories which protect human rights in some states and territories but not in others. Australians' human rights protections shouldn't differ because of which state they live or work in.

We also have an Australian human rights commission, but they don't have a national human rights framework to use. The president of the commission has described our protections as 'patchy' and said that 'our human rights safety net has holes in it'. This is so messy for something so important. We need to take a national approach to protecting our human rights. A human rights act would ensure the values we all share, like fairness, respect, dignity and compassion, are always at the heart of all government decisions, laws and policies. It would mean every person in Australia knows their rights and understands what we value and prioritise as a community.

This approach is not just backed by experts; it has been effectively adopted by other countries around the world. We already have a draft for it thanks to the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework. Experts think this is a great draft to work from and that it would work well to protect our human rights and bring all our patchwork existing laws together. Yes, an Australian human rights act will take some time to get right, but we need to get on with it now.

Mauritius

Today, 12 March, is Mauritian Independence Day, marking the day in 1968 when Mauritius began its journey as a sovereign nation. It is a moment to recognise the remarkable story of a small island state in the Indian Ocean that has built a vibrant democratic and multicultural society.

Mauritius is often described as a meeting place of the world, shaped by African, Indian, European and Chinese heritage. Its national motto—and forgive me for not attempting it in French—is 'the star and key of the Indian Ocean'. It reflects a long history as the crossroads of culture, trade and ideas. Since its independence, Mauritius has charted an impressive path, transforming its economy, strengthening its democratic institutions and building a society that values pluralism and coexistence. Today, it stands as one of Africa's most stable democracies and as a powerful example of how diversity can be a source of strength.

For Australia, Mauritius is an important partner in the Indian Ocean region. Our nations share a commitment to democratic governance, the rule of law and cooperation in addressing common challenges from economic development and maritime security to the growing impacts of climate change on island nations. Today is an opportunity to also acknowledge the Mauritian diaspora, including those here in Australia, who enrich our multicultural communities while maintaining strong connections to their heritage. Mauritians have been part of Australian society for many, many decades. Today, Mauritian Australians continue to contribute across business, education and community life, while they also strengthen Australia's economic and diplomatic links across the Indian Ocean region. On this independence day, we celebrate the people of Mauritius, their resilience, their diversity and their enduring commitment to democracy and progress.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

Fuel Security

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, the minister assured the Senate that Australia has:

… 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.

This will no doubt come as great comfort to the fishermen who can't fill their boats, the farmers who can't run their machinery and the service stations across regional Australia that have been forced to ration fuel or shut off bowsers. Minister, since the fuel is apparently here—all 2.97 billion litres of it—where exactly is it, and why is it not reaching the Australians who need it to work and feed this country?

I suppose it's trite to point out that it's not in Texas—

Opposition senators interjecting—

which is where Mr Taylor put it. The Australian response—

If you were faintly interested, Senator McGrath, in what is happening in regional Queensland, you would just give us an opportunity to not be shouted over. The approach that the government has taken is, firstly, to do that long-term hard work of making sure that the minimum stockholding obligation is being not only adhered to but exceeded. There will be figures later in the week that will outline what the up-to-date figures are in relation to that. But what I can say is that they have not changed substantially.

The minister is making announcements about ensuring that Australian fuel gets to where it needs to go—that is, ensuring that our supply, our stockholding obligation, is getting to the places that it needs to get to. The minister is announcing that he is temporarily amending fuel standards regarding higher sulphur levels for the next 60 days. This will enable Ampol, who currently make this fuel here in Australia for export markets, to release that additional petrol into the domestic market— (Time expired)

Senator Collins, first supplementary?

It's clear the government doesn't know exactly where it is. Minister, the government's position appears to be this: 'There is no hoarding. There is no bottleneck. There is no supply being withheld. There is simply high demand for a product that is sitting somewhere in Australia in quantities sufficient to last 32 days.' So what is stopping 2.97 billion litres of diesel from reaching the Australians who are trying to buy it?

This is about practical action, not debating society talking points.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order!

In relation to that additional fuel that you claim to be so interested in—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. I have called for order about five or six times. During the first question there were constant interjections and, the minute I called the minister, they started again. Please be silent.

In relation to that, the government has been unequivocal with the producers that additional supply must go to farmers, fishers and regional communities that need it. Ampol has made the undertaking that this additional supply will be directed to regional areas, including via the spot market, where we are seeing the pressure on smaller and independent fuel wholesalers. This morning, we also activated the national coordination mechanism to respond to emerging fuel supply chain issues. I'm sure I'll get an opportunity in a moment to finish that point.

Senator Collins, second supplementary?

Minister, after a roundtable to which the fishing industry was not invited, the government's solution is to publish fuel supply data once a week. No doubt a fisherman whose boat cannot leave port today will find great comfort in next Friday's spreadsheet! But perhaps the minister could explain what he is actually supposed to do in the meantime, because his fuel security exists on paper, not at the bowser.

Perhaps I'll save the rest of the outline of the government's announcements today for a question that is directed towards what we are actually doing rather than debating points and social media clicks. Information in this environment is important. The conduct of political leaders and so-called political leaders is important.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. Once again, those on my left are out of order. There are so many of you, it's impossible to name you. I've asked for silence. Please be respectful to me and to this chamber.

President, you know I don't like shouting. Australians form judgements about the way that we conduct ourselves, and they have formed a judgement about those opposite time and time again and over and over again.

I raise a point of order, Madam President. I was asking about what the minister is going to do, not about the conduct in the chamber.

I will draw the minister to your question.

I'll get an opportunity to outline that in some detail over the course of the next hour, I imagine. But information matters, and misinformation hurts. It hurts ordinary Australians. (Time expired)

Middle East

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The conflict in the Middle East continues to escalate, involving more countries, endangering civilians and creating economic volatility and security threats across the region and beyond. Iran's reprisal attacks are occurring at a scale and depth we have not seen before. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to support Australians affected by the conflict?

I thank Senator Whiteaker for that question. It gives me the opportunity to again say in this chamber that the Australian government remains gravely concerned at the escalation and loss of life across the region. I've spoken this week to counterparts from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar to express our solidarity and welcome the assistance they have been providing to support Australians in the region.

The Albanese government's No. 1 priority is and always will be to keep Australians safe at home and abroad. I am pleased to report to the Senate that three more flights have returned to Australia today, including one from Qatar, where the air space has been closed due to strikes for some time. More than 3,600 Australians have now returned on 26 commercial flights. Further services are scheduled for the coming days. I want to stress that this could change at short notice.

We are concerned that this conflict could intensify and continue for some time. The security situation is deteriorating and it is likely get worse before it gets better. We urge Australians across the region to follow advice on Smartraveller, including where we recommend not attending Australian missions or surrounding areas. Some missions have had to physically close because of the security situation. For Australians in the region, the government continues to urge you to leave if you can and if it is safe to do so. We know there are over 10,000 Australians in Lebanon and that the situation there is deteriorating. Commercial flights remain the best way to depart the region. We strongly suggest Australians in the Middle East take a seat on a commercial flight if one is available. It may be the last chance for some time. Please do not wait until it is too late. Our advice to other Australians remains: do not travel to most of the Middle East.

Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

There are more than 100,000 Australians in the Middle East. Officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been working around the clock to provide support to Australians in the region. What work have those staff in the region been doing to help Australians?

I want to take this opportunity to recognise the work of DFAT staff and the crisis response teams who have been supporting Australians throughout the Middle East. Officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade are working around the clock in challenging and often volatile circumstances. Nine of our posts have experienced missile and drone attacks. Some debris has fallen within a few hundred metres of our missions. Many of our staff are sleeping or attempting to sleep in bomb shelters or basements with dozens of others. Ambassadors are working many hours and very lengthy days to arrange travel for Australians—particularly when airspace was closed. One of our ambassadors speaks of telling her young children that the sound of air defence interceptors being deployed is a good sound because it means they are being kept safe. We have many weary but proud Australian representatives are supporting each other to do the best they can for Australians, and I thank them.

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I think we all thank them for that really important work. The conflict in the Middle East is also causing economic disruption around the world, particularly with regard to oil prices and fuel supply. What is the Albanese Labor government doing to ensure Australians have access to the fuel that they need?

The International Energy Agency has said that the challenge facing the world oil market is unprecedented. We know the impact on fuel prices, supply chains and inflation will continue. I spoke to the Saudi Foreign minister today—including about what Saudi Arabia is doing to increase its contribution to global oil supply. Minister Bowen has today directed more fuels into the Australian market, meaning that more of the fuel made in Australia will stay in Australia. The National Coordination Mechanism is bringing industry, states, territories and partners together so that fuel can reach those who need it.

The government has also been clear with industry that this is an international crisis, not a commercial opportunity. It is also not a political opportunity for those opposite. The coalition might have realised after the last few months that not everything is a political opportunity for them to seek to exploit. I would say to the coalition that it is time to learn something about putting the national interest above your own political interest. We for our part will keep working in the national interest. (Time expired)

Economy

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In a recent interview, the Deputy Governor of the Reserve Bank, Andrew Hauser, said that inflation was well above target even before the conflict in the Middle East. Given that economists widely accept that fuel prices push up transport costs and business input costs across the economy, why didn't the Treasurer act sooner to get inflation under control when it was already above target before rising petrol prices risked pushing inflation even higher?

I thank Senator Hume for the question. I think both the Treasurer and myself have said a number of times, including before the Middle East conflict broke out, that inflation has remained higher than we would like for longer than we would like. But I would also point out, Senator Hume, that it is much lower than what we inherited when you left government. I think, in the May quarter 2022, it was 2.1 per cent, and it peaked that year at about 7.8 per cent in the December quarter, so it was higher and rising when we came to government. It has come down considerably since then, which is a good thing and something that those opposite should have welcomed at the time. I don't believe they did. We have seen a recent uptick in some of the latest economic data. Inflation, productivity and reform are all issues that the Treasurer and myself have spoken about for months, and we will continue to focus on that.

Our approach has been to repair the budget and repair the mess we inherited—the trillion dollars of debt and the massive deficits, which were increasing. It has been to pay down debt and pay down interest on that debt; to find savings; to repair the budget; and to invest in cost-of=living help, much of which you opposed for the entire term of the previous parliament. It has been to make sure that as inflation was higher, though coming down, we could provide that cost-of-living help, which we did. That is the approach that we will continue to take in the lead-up to the budget. It has been well recognised by this government that inflation has ticked up and is higher than we would have liked.

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Deputy Governor Hauser warned that inflation may only return to the midpoint of the Reserve Bank's target range in the middle of 2028. This forecast was made before the conflict in the Middle East. Minister, why has your government refused to heed the advice of economists, contain government expenditure and act on bringing inflation down, leaving Australians to pay more for everything?

I would also remind Senator Hume that the economic plan, if you could call it that, that they took to the last election stood for higher taxes, lower wages, bigger deficits and more debt. That is what was produced on the eve of the election, when their costings, which they were ashamed of, were tipped out at the last minute. So to stand here and criticise our plan, which was about repairing the budget, paying down debt—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hume?

On a point of order, which is relevance, with 30 seconds to go I'd like to understand what the government is going to do, not what the coalition did.

Thank you. The minister has been talking about the government. Minister, please continue.

I would just remind those opposite, as we look for sensible savings in the budget, as we have done—we have found $114 billion—that the cuts the opposition took to the last election were to oppose age pension increases, to oppose cheaper child care, to oppose cheaper medicines, to oppose the record investment in public hospitals, to attack programs like free TAFE and prac payments and to reimpose the activity test. That was the plan from the— (Time expired)

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser also warned that, if inflation expectations are not kept under control, it can lead to toxic high inflation that is 'bad for everyone'. This week, inflation expectations have surged to a three-year high of 6.1 per cent. Minister, because your government failed to act earlier to get inflation under control, are Australians now facing the toxic inflation that the deputy governor warned about?

The pressure that has come on inflation in recent times has been directly linked to the conflict in the Middle East. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn't looking at what's happening in the Middle East or reading the data that is coming out of that, including an oil price that's moved from about $60 a barrel to over $120. I think it's currently trading at about $100 a barrel. To omit that from your question really says something about the seriousness of the question you pose to me.

In relation to the work before government—and this is work that we are doing every single day—we are looking at how we get the budget in better shape, at how we find sensible savings without attacking the services and systems that people in this country rely upon, and at how we're managing inflation and addressing some of the productivity challenges in the economy. That will be our focus. (Time expired)

Middle East

My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. Minister, your government has been complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza. Now not only have you backed the illegal Israel/US led war but you have taken us to war. Trump and Netanyahu are bombing civilian infrastructure—apartment blocks, hospitals and schools—and killing children, women and men in Iran and Lebanon. At the same time, Israel intensifies its war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel is killing civilians in Palestine, Lebanon and Iran at the same time. The Prime Minister said last year:

The position of the Australian Government is clear: every innocent life matters.

Yet you continue to support Israel and cheerlead Trump's bombing campaign, which has killed close to 2,000 civilians just in the last two weeks. Was the Prime Minister's statement just hollow words?

Yet again, the Greens political party engages in misinformation in that question. What I would say is that we do call on all parties to observe international humanitarian law. We do recognise the awful images we are seeing. We do understand, and have consistently called for, the importance of the observance of international law, including the observance of the Geneva convention. The approach of the Greens political party is one that relies on misinformation, assertions which are incorrect, because they see benefit in raising the heat. They see benefit in raising the heat and in promoting anger.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Waters, I am waiting for order, particularly from those behind you. Senator Waters.

Point of order: I'd like the minister to withdraw that. It is false and it is a distraction from the actual question which was asked.

That is a debating point. Minister Watt?

Point of order: anyone who listened to Senator Faruqi's question will have heard that it was fully laden with imputations. The Greens—

That is also not a point of order. I've indicated to Senator Waters that was not a point of order. Minister Wong.

I invite any reasonable observer to look at the way in which the Greens political party have approached this conflict or others. With the information that they put forward, which is misinformation, and the falsehoods that are asserted, including in that question, I think most reasonable Australians would say that the Greens political party's agenda is about raising the heat.

We on this side do not believe that seeking to make people angry is good for our country. We do not believe that trying to exploit the concerns of compassionate Australians is the decent thing to do.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

As Israel has expanded its attacks in the region, it has intensified the blockade of Gaza, closing crossings, severely throttling the flow of aid and halting the desperately needed evacuation of patients and wounded people, and this follows the deregistration of almost 37 aid organisations. Minister, what actions have you taken to get aid back into Gaza, or are you just too busy warmongering?

Senator Faruqi, withdraw the last comment.

I withdraw.

Minister Wong.

What I described in an answer to the first question was demonstrated by that question. I will go now to the peace plan. One of the discussions—

What peace plan?

You see, this is the difficulty. Senator Faruqi on the one hand asks us what we are doing to promote the peace plan but then—

I'm sorry, Minister Wong; please resume your seat. Senator Whish-Wilson, come to order!

Senator McKim, you are being disrespectful to me. I've asked for order. Minister Wong, please continue.

Senator Faruqi is asking about the implementation of the peace plan in Gaza, at the same time as she is criticising it. That's a matter for her. In fact, one of the discussions I had today with the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia was in part focused on the fact that there was insufficient progress on the peace plan in relation to Gaza. For the reasons we understand, the region is very focused on a conflict that has now brought in almost a dozen nations, and the importance of ensuring aid flows— (Time expired)

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Given your government's failure to pressure Israel to end the blockade, brave Australians are risking their lives again by joining the Global Sumud Flotilla to deliver aid to Gaza. Previously, Australians on the flotilla were kidnapped in international waters and then abused, tortured, punched, spat on and denied medication and access to a lawyer. Will you this time around commit to full diplomatic and consular support for courageous Australians joining the flotilla mission?

Again, we will provide consular support to Australians wherever we can, and our position is that humanitarian aid should flow at scale into Gaza.

Fuel Security

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Global energy markets remain disrupted due to the war in the Middle East. In response the Albanese Labor government has today announced measures to enable more fuel into the Australian market. Could the minister please explain this change in policy and outline how it will ease the pressure on the Australian fuel market?

In addition to having the highest level of domestic supply in 15 years, the government is taking additional measures today, and they are as follows. The minister and the government are temporarily amending Australia's fuel quality standards to allow higher sulphur levels for the next 60 days. This will allow around 100 million litres a month of new supply that would otherwise have been exported to instead be blended into Australian domestic supply. In return, Ampol Australia has committed to ensure that this redirected supply will be prioritised for regions of shortage and for the wholesale spot market that supports independent distributors and harvesters. While Australian fuel consumption has not changed, this will help relieve pressure on distribution chains disrupted by elevated demand. That additional supply must help the people who need it, particularly farmers, fishers and regional communities.

I can also confirm that the national coordination mechanism will continue to convene to respond to emerging fuel supply chain issues. By bringing together all levels of government, the mechanism will work together on supply chain issues and bottlenecks and help facilitate action across Australia. This builds on a suite of measures and engagements with industry that have been occurring over the course of the conflict to secure supply and put downward pressure on fuel prices.

This is the way the government engages, a sensible, mature and Australian way, not a hyperpartisan way where you swing at every ball. We work our way through these issues with industry in a way that actually delivers for regional Australians. (Time expired)

Senator Ghosh, first supplementary?

Australian petrol prices have been rising in response to the disruption in international energy markets. How is the Albanese Labor government engaging with fuel importers, retailers and users, and what is the government doing to stop price gouging?

Thanks, Senator Ghosh. President, as I indicated earlier in the week, the government is supporting fuel wholesalers and retailers to get ACCC approval to coordinate supply and unlock bottlenecks. That measure is not allowed under the normal competitive arrangements, whereby companies are prohibited from that kind of engagement, but it ensures they can work together to supply places all over Australia, from Brisbane to the Bellarine, and ensures that our mechanism of working with industry to identify parts of Australia where there are problems will be effective.

We've doubled penalties for false or misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, and we've given the ACCC more tools, like extending petrol price monitoring powers.

Senator Ghosh—when you've quite finished, Senator Henderson!

I'm very upset with these misleading comments.

Come to order, Senator Henderson! You can either sit in silence or leave the chamber. Your ongoing comments when I have called for order are incredibly disrespectful to me and this chamber. Senator Ghosh, second supplementary?

Australians are looking to their political leaders to protect the national interest and provide clear and calm guidance. Why is it important to provide this leadership and guidance?

In an international challenge, or a challenge that faces Australia, it's important to act in the Australian national interest. We are not going to let this be a commercial opportunity, and I don't think Australians will let it be a political opportunity for the most hyperpartisan, bitter, divided and divisive opposition in Australian history. What will not help in this situation is continued spikes in demand. The Australian Institute of Petroleum has described that as 'unprecedented', outstripping the surge seen at the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022.

We will do what it takes to protect Australia, and Australians will form judgements about this nasty, divided rabble over here who swing at every ball in the same way and then are surprised at the result, as Australians walk away from them, have another look at them again and walk away from them again. (Time expired)

Indigenous Australians: Cultural Heritage

My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Last week, the Territory Labor candidate for the Nightcliff by-election said, 'Territory Labor is proud to now oppose the federal Labor government's plan to destroy Larrakia country at Binybara/Lee Point.' Your Labor colleagues in the Territory have backflipped against you and now want this project to be cancelled. Will you as Minister for Indigenous Australians ensure your government listens to your NT colleagues and scraps this ecocidal project, or do you still want the destruction of Larrakia country to go ahead?

Minister Wong?

Can I indicate that, as I understand it, that project to which the senator refers—

Is this a point of order?

I apologise. You're correct—a point of order on the person to whom the question is directed, President. As I understand it, this project is a project that is managed by Defence Housing Australia, so the responsible minister would be, I think, Senator McAllister. I invite the senator—

She asked it of the Minister for Indigenous Australians.

Again, I'd remind the Senate that the Westminster system gives ministers accountability to the parliament for those areas and portfolios for which they are responsible, and so the appropriate question should go to the minister representing the responsible minister.

Senator Thorpe, did you wish to redirect that question to Minister McAllister?

No, I don't. This is very relevant to the Minister for Indigenous Australians.

What I will say to you is that the minister will answer it in the way that she sees fit, because the leader of the government has indicated it's a question more appropriately directed to Minister McAllister, but you've indicated you want Minister McCarthy, so I'll direct her to answer the question.

Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for the question. I have to say huge congratulations to Ed Smelt, the new member for Nightcliff, in the Northern Territory. I think it was really important that he was able to walk around the electorate of Nightcliff—

A point of order, President, on relevance—I've learnt that much, and that's not relevant.

Senator Thorpe, as I indicated to you, the person responsible for the portfolio to which your question is directed is Minister McAllister. You acknowledged that, but nevertheless the question was to go to Minister—

Senator Thorpe, I'm answering your point of order—McCarthy. You invited her to answer your question, and Minister McCarthy answers it in whatever way she sees fit, because she's not the responsible minister.

Thank you, President, and I do thank Senator Thorpe for the question, and I am very conscious that the Nightcliff election took place on the land of the Larrakia. I acknowledge that Ed Smelt as the Labor candidate fought very hard and diligently for that seat. I acknowledge him and his family and all of those who supported him. Yes, it's certainly a point that Ed took to the election, and I would say, President, that the development activity at the site of Lee Point is currently paused, pending the outcome of proceedings before the Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal, and there is no active development currently underway. To be clear, as has been pointed out, Defence Housing Australia has ceased construction activity at the site, other than essential site maintenance agreed with the tribunal, and will not recommence works until all legal, heritage and environmental requirements are met, which is what we would expect.

Senator Thorpe, first supplementary?

Did federal Labor give the okay to Territory Labor to take this position against the federal Labor party in order to beat the Greens in that election, or did you just get a nasty surprise to see Territory Labor break ranks, side with the Greens and come out against you?

On a point of order, there is no relevance whatsoever between that question and this minister's responsibilities. I don't know whether you have the capacity to rule it out of order.

As I've pointed out to Senator Thorpe on the advice of Minister Wong, the responsible minister is Minister McAllister. Senator Thorpe has indicated that she wants Minister McCarthy to answer those questions.

I have an additional point of order. That doesn't relate to matters of government. That is a question that is entirely about an assertion as to political—

We got asked about—

Order!

It wasn't a discussion of colour coded spreadsheets either, Senator McKenzie. I submit that the question should be ruled out of order. There is no aspect of that which touches upon government administration.

I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I am advised that Minister Wong is correct. Your first supplementary, Senator Thorpe, does not go to any portfolio matter. It was a political question. If Minister McCarthy wishes to respond to the political question, I invite her to do so. Minister McCarthy?

That's alright.

Senator Thorpe, second supplementary?

Have Territory Labor met with your government or sought a meeting on this, or was this just a gammon fake promise they made to beat the Greens in the election?

Minister Watt?

I ask that you rule that question out of order.

The first part of the question is in order. I remind Senator Thorpe, once again, that Minister McCarthy is not the responsible minister, but I'll invite Minister McCarthy to respond to the question.

I'm certainly very proud of the new candidate for Nightcliff. I certainly wish him well and I certainly wish Northern Territory Labor well, in terms of their role as opposition in the Northern Territory assembly.

Agriculture Industry

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister McCarthy. The Australian government's premier advising body on farming, ABARES, recently found your energy policies are set to take 18 million hectares out of farming production to create carbon credits. ABARES found that over one-half of this farming land will be in our rich high-rainfall and wheat-sheep areas and that over 40 per cent of farmers will leave farming altogether after selling their carbon credits. Minister, during a time of unprecedented instability, why is the government sacrificing farming jobs and agricultural land, making it harder for our farmers to feed our nation?

Thank you, Senator, for the question. Our government is very proud to support our farmers right across Australia. In fact, it is the Albanese Labor government that's committed to a very robust, sustainable agricultural industry that continues to thrive in Australia. Since coming to government we've been delivering for Australian farmers and producers—strengthening biosecurity, boosting the ag workforce, opening up new trade opportunities and improving farm sustainability. Throughout the Albanese government's time, we've been acting on climate change and seizing the economic opportunity before our nation including keeping the trade door open.

We're not feeling it.

Now, Senator McKenzie, just because we care about the farmers across Australia doesn't mean we need to hear the interjections from the senator opposite.. Our government is working with farmers, not against them, to build a stronger, cleaner and more profitable future for Australian agriculture. Industry finally has a government willing to match its own climate ambitions, and our government is delivering on that work, investing over $2 billion to support agriculture, decarbonisation, resilience and innovation. Table 1 includes $60.8 million to support emissions reduction efforts in agriculture and land, $87 million to establish the Zero Net Emissions Agriculture Cooperative Research Centre—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

They don't want to hear what we're doing in terms of assisting our farmers across Australia, President. They're just not interested. They're just a rabble.

Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Minister, a consortium of Australian universities found that another 12 million hectares of land is needed to host wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines under your renewables-only energy plan. Has the government requested any advice?

Senator Cadell, I'm sorry. Please resume your seat. Senator Ayres, I need to hear the question, and your interjections are disrespectful and disorderly.

Has the government requested any advice on how its energy plans will impact Australia's energy and food security, given that now 30 million hectares are being taken?

Minister McCarthy?

Thank you, President. I'm so eager to answer I stood up before you. Thank you to the senator for the question. We can see that the new leader of the Nationals is really having an influence on that side. Farmers are choosing to make money by keeping and planting trees to generate carbon credits and by hosting renewables. So why don't the Nats support the farmers choosing how they want to earn money?

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Please resume your seat.

Order! Senator Canavan and Senator Ayres, which part of 'order' did either of you fail to understand? Seriously! The minute the minister got to her feet, suddenly interjections started across the chamber. That is disrespectful. Senator Cadell, second supplementary?

Minister, the government has also scrapped a 1,500-gigalitre cap on water buybacks in the Murray-Darling and removed associated economic neutrality tests. How much farming land will be lost from the government's decision to strip more water away from communities, given the town of Bourke has lost 40 per cent of its water and 60 per cent of its population? Will the government's uncapped water buybacks put at risk the viability of many farming towns?

Angus Taylor likes buybacks!

Minister McCarthy?

Do you want to talk about water buybacks?

I just called the minister. Senator McKenzie, as I said yesterday, you always think it's your right to have the last word. It is not. I'm serious. You either sit there in silence or leave the chamber. I've had enough of your interjections.

In the excitement of listening to everyone being an expert on farmers, I just want to reiterate—

Because there are real farmers on this side!

I'll take the interjection by Senator McGrath that there are real farmers on that side. I wonder why they have to keep asking the questions, then. Maybe it's because we know that the new leader of the Nationals once said that farmers are not the Nationals' core constituency. The new leader of the Nationals once said that. So I pick up the interjection by the member opposite.

Can you name one farmer?

See? They're not interested at all. You say you're here for the real farmers, but you don't want to hear the answers.

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cadell?

On direct relevance—

I'm sorry, Senator Cadell; I cannot hear you. I'll wait until the chamber is respectful.

Thank you for your protection, President. On direct relevance, this isn't an episode of Farmer Wants a Wife. It's 'farmer wants an answer'.

Senator McCarthy. You've finished? Okay.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Come to order across the chamber. Senator Ayres, I've called for order. I have Senator Hanson on my list, but I can't see Senator Hanson in the chamber. Is that you, Senator Whitten? If you change, it's helpful to let me know.

Sorry.

Equality Australia

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. After Equality Australia was rejected by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, rejected by the AAT and rejected by the full Federal Court for deductible gift recipient status on the basis that it was considered a lobbyist group, why did the Labor government overrule the judiciary and legislate that they should be granted deductible gift recipient status?

Just a moment, Minister. Senator Whitten, this matter, as you may know, is currently before a Committee of the Whole, so that level of specifics in relation to the subject matter shouldn't be being asked as a question. You may wish to ask in more general terms.

I might save my question for another day.

Okay. But does One Nation—I do have Senator Hanson down. With the indulgence of the Senate, I'm assuming that we can move to a first supplementary. I'll just seek advice. Senator Whitten, the minister is quite agreeable to answering your question. You are new to the Senate. I think you deserve some leniency in that regard, so I will invite the minister to answer your question.

I thank Senator Whitten for the question, and I can speak in general terms so as not to interfere with a bill that is currently before the Senate in the committee stage. There are two avenues, essentially, for deductible gift recipient status. One goes through the process that Senator Whitten outlined in fitting under the criteria that are used for administrative approval, and then there is the capacity for government to bring legislation before the parliament which seeks to include other organisations that the government believes are suitable for DGR status through legislative processes where they get debated on the floor of the Senate, which is currently what is happening in relation to the organisation that Senator Whitten outlined in his question.

Within legislative approaches, there are often a wide—sometimes it's only a couple of organisation; sometimes it can be 10 or more. They are often across a broad spectrum of civil society, from community organisations to faith based organisations and fundraising organisations for particular causes. The government considers this through our normal processes and brings that legislation here for debate, and it requires a vote of the Senate in order to pass that.

Senator Whitten, if you have a first supplementary in general terms?

As general as I can make it, President. We know that Equality Australia is influential in political circles. Who pushed for Equality Australia to get this special legislative treatment when the organisation was rejected by the full Federal Court as a lobbyist group?

The consideration the government gives is through its own decision-making processes about DGR status. In relation to the organisation Senator Whitten has outlined, the government believes this organisation does very important work for the LGBTIQ+ community in terms of advocacy, support, counselling and education. Across a whole range of functions, that organisation makes a significant community contribution to our country. Senator Whitten, I understand you don't agree with that listing but the government and those on this side of the chamber acknowledge the very valuable and significant role that organisation plays in supporting the LGBTIQ+ community and their families. We strongly support the listing of that organisation, and no doubt the Senate will have more to consider in relation to that.

Senator Whitten, second supplementary?

I will continue to be as general as I can! Deductible gift recipients are provided a special privilege because they are judged to be a public good. Australians forego their hard-earned tax dollars to allow many wonderful charities to raise money to do their vital work. DGR status is not to be handed out as a political favour. Equality Australia is an entity that peddles radical gender ideology to the children of Australia. Why won't the government allow parents to have a choice with this outrageous display of nepotism?

I and those on this side of the chamber would disassociate ourselves from those comments, imputations and assertions just made by Senator Whitten about that organisation. It is deeply disappointing that we continue to see culture wars and divisive attacks on incredibly important organisations in this country. I accept, Senator Whitten, that you don't agree, but I think that—

Senator Whish-Wilson, that commentary is unnecessary.

to demean that organisation and characterise it that way is incredibly disappointing. That organisation has saved lives. It supports communities and educates people. This country should be more about what organisations like that do right across the spectrum than about the kind of language and division you seek to peddle in this chamber. The country would be much better off, and it's organisations like Equality— (Time expired)

Early Childhood Education and Care

My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Senator Walsh. The Albanese Labor government is focused on delivering for Australian families, including the many families who rely on quality early learning. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the government is delivering on its commitments in early education and care, and how is this providing practical support to Australian parents and helping our kids get a great start to life?

This has been a pretty tough week for Australia and the world. There's a lot of tough news out there, so I'm pleased to stand up and update the Senate on some good news for Australian families and Australian children.

Yes, the Albanese Labor government is delivering practical solutions that families need to thrive. We know quality early learning gives children a great start in life and helps parents, especially mums, return to work when they're ready. We're backing Australian families. We're backing them with more access to quality early learning with our billion-dollar Building Early Education Fund, delivering more centres in the outer suburbs and regions where families need them most. We've announced four agreements with the states and territories to deliver almost 2,000 new early learning places for families, and 80 per cent of those places will be co-located with schools. That's the practical support parents need, helping them to avoid the double drop-off and replace it with a one-stop drop.

I saw the benefits of our fund when I visited the remote town of Derby, in the Kimberley, a fortnight ago. We are building a new early learning centre with the Western Australian government and Minderoo to be run by the local Ngunga women's group. One mum, Casey, told me her children, Lawrence and Freya, have thrived at the local play group. They like the reading time and learning through play. With another baby on the way, Casey is excited about being able to send her next child to a quality local early learning centre. This is a great example of the difference that access to quality early learning can make for parents, children and a community, and we are proud to be delivering it.

Senator Mulholland, first supplementary?

We know that access to subsidised early learning gives children a great start in life, and it helps parents return to work when it works for them. Minister, what other measures has the Albanese Labor government introduced to help families access quality early education?

Every child deserves access to quality early learning no matter their postcode or what their parents do. That's why Labor's three-day guarantee started this year on 5 January. Just like every child has the right to go to school, every child now has the right to a three-day childcare subsidy and every parent has the subsidy support they need to get back to work when they're ready.

In their 10 long wasted years in government, the coalition had a different approach. They reduced flexibility for mums with their punishing work activity test. They cut off childcare subsidies for mums who wanted to work fewer than three days a week. They cut off childcare subsidies for mums who wanted to return to work just one or two days a week, as so many mums do. They locked families out, and we are backing families in.

Senator Mulholland, second supplementary?

As a mum, it is great to hear how the Albanese Labor government is opening up access to quality early education and care for Australian families and how this access is supporting parents and families. Are there any barriers that stand in the way of delivering this practical support to Australian women and their families, not just the ones here in the chamber?

Yes, Senator Mulholland, and it is those opposite. In their 10 wasted years in government, the only thing they ever did was cut access to early learning. Since we came to government, they've had four coalition party leaders and zero policies on early education. We know that they have a problem with women, and they know that they have a problem with women too. So it makes perfect sense that they're looking to the future with Senator Matt 'Hills hoist' Canavan to lead them.

Minister Walsh, withdraw. You need to withdraw.

I withdraw. What a record Senator Canavan has on supporting women! He voted against the three-day guarantee. He voted against Paid Parental Leave, which we are extending to 26 weeks. He voted against practical support for mums and their children. On this side, we are building the practical support Australian families deserve. (Time expired)

Fuel Security

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The government keeps telling Australians there is no fuel supply problem and that stocks remain strong. Yet, today, a service station in York in Western Australia, just 90 minutes from Perth, is counting down the hours until it runs completely out of fuel, has imposed a 50-litre limit and is now turning away farmers because there simply isn't enough diesel to go around. Minister, if Australia's fuel supplies are supposedly so strong, why are farmers in Western Australia being turned away from the bowser?

In addition to the measures that I've outlined earlier in question time today that sit on top of the measures that the government has been taking over the course of the last 10 days of the crisis in the Middle East, and on top of the fuel security measures that we've taken since we were elected, we have, of course, been talking to farmers groups around the country—all of us who've been engaged in this. The minister has engaged since the beginning of the crisis with the farming, fuel and fertiliser communities. I spent some time talking to rice growers in the Riverina today. That's why we have taken measures this week to direct the ACCC to remove the obstacles to fuel companies working together to direct supply to places like the community that you outlined, which have, of course, suffered in the wake of a series of spikes in the demand that have differential effects across the country. It is more acute in some parts of the country than it is in others. Particularly where retailers are accessing supply on the spot market, that does create difficulties where there are spikes in demand.

The job of all of us in this place—the government's job is to govern and to be accountable for that. I would submit that the job that your colleagues have is to work in the national interest and not set your hair on fire and try and create a sense of panic and crisis which drives some of that behaviour—not all but some of that behaviour. It's about taking responsibility and acting in the national interest.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

The employee at the York service station has told the West Australian newspaper:

Monday was our last delivery and we're not sure when the next delivery will be.

Minister, if the government truly has a firm grip on the country's fuel supply, could you tell the Senate when that next delivery will arrive, or are regional Australians expected to simply wait and hope?

Of course, as Senator Smith knows, nobody in this place is in a position to give a specific outline in relation to a specific petrol station. That's not something that anybody could sensibly do. However, what I can say to that employee—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! I'm sorry, Minister Ayres. Please resume your seat. I cannot hear the minister's response, and that's because those on my left are way too loud and disorderly.

What I can say to that employee, his or her manager and community that they serve is that the measures that were announced today will make a significant difference—100 million litres a month of new petrol supply as a result of changing the fuel standards. The National Coordination Mechanism is continuing to operate to respond to situations like the one that you have outlined or the many situations that I've been engaged directly in with the farming community over the course of the last few weeks.

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

Minister, can the Albanese Labor government guarantee that Australia will not run out of fuel?

Well, it's interesting. There was an article that made that assertion in the Australian Financial Review earlier this week—precisely the one that you asserted.

Senator Cash!

It had to be withdrawn.

Senator Cash, I've called you to order.

What we have outlined and the minister has outlined is that the amount of fuel on hand—1.56 billion litres of petrol and 2.97 billion litres of diesel—has not materially changed since the war began some 10 days or so ago. Ship movements, arrivals here in our ports—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I couldn't be more relevant.

Do we have to get into the trucks and drive them ourselves?

Perhaps you should drive a truck during question time, Senator McKenzie, and then at least you wouldn't be interjecting. Senator Cash.

A point of order in relation to relevance—programmatic specificity is not what the Australian people require. They actually require an answer to the question. Are we, or aren't we?

I do allow leaders some leniency, but that went beyond where my leniency ends. The minister is being relevant.

I didn't understand what you just said, but the reserves are the strongest that they have been in 15 years. The amounts of fuel on hand have not changed substantially. Ship movements are the same at the moment, but we are not complacent. We are watching it very closely indeed. (Time expired)

Workplace Relations

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. It's been nearly 18 months since the Albanese Labor government's landmark same-jobs same-pay laws came into effect. How are the government's changes to these laws and other reforms helping thousands of Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures?

Thanks, Senator Sheldon. It is good to get a question about industrial relations. We're waiting to get a question from the new shadow minister for industrial relations, but we'll keep asking about it in the meantime, because thousands of workers across the country have benefited from pay increases under the Albanese Labor government's landmark same-job same-pay laws, because someone shouldn't be paid less than their co-worker simply because they're employed as labour hire. It's estimated that more than 8,000 workers across mining, aviation, railway, meat processing, automotive, water treatment and many other industries have benefited so far from this Labor initiative. That includes hundreds of Qantas flight attendants who have secured pay rises of up to $20,000 a year to bring them into line with employees directly employed by the business, and, at three of BHP's Bowen Basin mines in Central Queensland, 1,800 mine workers will receive average pay rises of up to $30,000 per year due to Labor's same-job same-pay laws.

Of course, there's one Central Queenslander who isn't so keen on these workers getting a fair deal. Who could that be? I'll give you a hint: it's a man who feels happy dressing up like a coalminer but is even happier when he comes to Canberra and cuts the pay of coalminers. The new Nationals leader, Senator Canavan, has voted consistently against Labor's laws that would mean a better deal for workers, including in Central Queensland coalmines. He's for dressing up in high-vis, but he's against higher wages for coalminers, flight attendants, meat workers and more. Senator Canavan's record shows he's a massive risk to the pay and living standards of those he claims to represent, and I can tell you regional Queenslanders don't need a Canberra Zoolander who pats a bit of dirt on his face and struts around coalmines. They want secure jobs and better pay, and that's what they're getting under the Albanese Labor government.

Senator Sheldon, first supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is focused on ensuring Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. How has criminalising wage theft ensured everyday Aussie workers aren't being ripped off by their bad bosses?

Thanks again, Senator Sheldon. The Albanese Labor government stood up for Australian workers by delivering on our promise to criminalise wage theft across the nation. Until recently, if an employer stole from workers—

Senator Hume, if you've got a question about IR, you're welcome to ask one, but it seems that you miss out. I guess you're not on the tactics committee, so you don't get much of a go.

Minister Watt, direct your answers through the chair.

Until recently, if an employer stole from a worker's pay packet, it wasn't illegal, and that's why the Albanese government made it a criminal offence to deliberately underpay workers—something, of course, that Senator Canavan and the Nationals voted against, just like the Liberals and just like One Nation. On a personal level, I congratulate Senator Canavan on his election to the Nats leadership. Personally, I could not be happier than to see him become the leader. This is the man who dragged the Liberals to drop net zero and who will now drag them even further to the right as he chases One Nation.

I rarely agree with Mr Joyce, Barnaby Joyce, but he was spot on when he said:

… there'll be a lot of similarities between Matt, myself and Pauline …

And that's because the Nats are with One Nation and so are the Liberals.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Sheldon, second supplementary?

Whether it's 'same job, same pay' or criminalising wage theft, the Albanese Labor government is helping Australians keep more of their pay in their pocket. The government's reforms to paid parental leave are also delivering financial security to about 180,000 families a year. At one of the most important times in their lives, how are these changes helping young families deal with cost-of-living challenges?

Senator McKenzie, that was out of order. I'm going to ask for silence after I've called the minister and he begins to respond.

Last year, the Albanese Labor government's historic reforms to paid parental leave began. These changes were designed to help working mums and dads be better supported through the early years of their child's development. Not only did these reforms increase the leave period by two weeks but they also increased the entitlement by $775 and importantly, for the first time, included paying superannuation during the leave period.

What did Senator Canavan and the Nationals do when they had their chance to support working mums and dads? They voted against our paid parental leave changes. Senator Canavan has a long record of not backing women in the workforce. Who could forget him saying that the gender pay gap is not real? Tell that to Australian women. Australians are about to get to know Senator Canavan much, much better, and the people most worried about that are those sitting in Liberal Party marginal seats.

They really are very worried, aren't they, President? On that basis, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

MOTIONS

Fuel Security

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the government's failure on fuel security, as circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the government's failure on fuel security.

For those following along at home and for those who may be sitting in the tractor, this suspension motion is all about allowing the Senate to debate the government's failure to manage our fuel security, which has resulted in fuel shortages and price increases right around the country. You will have heard senators on the coalition benches today asking question after question after question and all week raising specific issues of shortages and price hikes for the Australian people. Whether we are talking about croppers in WA, which is the leader's home state, who are trying to fill tractors and harvesters right now and are unable to get the fuel they need to get the crop in and the crop off—this is an issue of fuel security.

As Senator McDonald will go to in her contribution to this suspension motion, the horticulture industry in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania is struggling to get diesel into the tractors that are needed to actually get the harvest off. What have we seen from this government on this issue? We've seen deflection after deflection after deflection. What did they do last week? Here's the big news story! Jim Chalmers wrote a letter to the ACCC whilst there were cars lined up at suburban servos. They were trying to fill the tank before it became unaffordable. This is not like deciding to buy camembert at the supermarket. Fuel means that families can get their kids to school and get themselves to and from work. It is not an elastic good in the weekly shopping budget, yet this government thought it was okay.

What made that so galling last week was the fuel price hikes at servos were for fuel that was already onshore. It was here already in Australia prior to the war in the Middle East starting. That's what made it so galling. You should have been prosecuting servos from day one, Jim Chalmers, instead of just writing letters to the ACCC. This week, when the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Minister King, my counterpart in the other place, was questioned about this, what was Minister King's answer as to why we are seeing fuel shortages and price hikes on diesel and petrol? She told the journos it was the Queensland floods. The Queensland floods were why you couldn't rock up to your local servo and get the tank filled. It was just incredible.

Shadow Minister Tehan and I have written to Minister Bowen because minister after minister—to specific question after question seeking to raise the concerns of everyday Australians, the fishing industry and the agriculture and mining industries here on the floor of the Senate—has said: 'We have enough supply, Australia. You are naughty, naughty consumers rushing to the bowser to get petrol and diesel that you can afford. How dare you get concerned that you won't have access to fuel when and where you might need it! How dare you ring in to 2GB, 3AW, 6PR or your local radio station and say, "Petrol has gone to $2.20," or "Petrol has gone to $2.50," or "Fuel has gone to three bucks."'

New South Wales farmers have raised their concerns. There are petrol stations in regional communities rationing, and it didn't start today. It's been happening all week, and we've got a government once again in denial on what's happening outside of this place. It is our job, as Liberal and National Party senators, to bring the concerns of our communities to this place and to ask ministers, who have the responsibility and the great privilege to be ministers, 'What are you doing about it?' That you say you can't do anything about it shows how absolutely pathetic you are.

You refuse to take responsibility. We know you actually have the ability under the legislation available to get granular data. Chris Bowen has the ability to get granular data on his desk so he can know where the fuel supplies are running out and he can distribute them to where they're needed so that Australians aren't paying more for fuel than they need to—on top of the cost-of-living crisis you created—and so our farmers and our fishers can get on with producing food. (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong on closure be agreed to.

Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong Wendy Askew Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Tim Ayres James Paterson Sarah Hanson-Young Alex Antic Malarndirri McCarthy Maria Kovacic Deborah O'Neill Sarah Henderson Murray Watt Andrew Bragg

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

Wendy Askew Ralph Babet Sean Bell Leah Blyth Slade Brockman Ross Cadell Matthew Canavan Michaelia Cash Claire Chandler Richard Mansell Colbeck Jessica Collins Jonathon Duniam Jane Hume Kerrynne Liddle Susan McDonald James McGrath Bridget McKenzie Andrew McLachlan Jacinta Nampijinpa Price Matt O'Sullivan Fatima Payman David Pocock Malcolm Roberts Anne Ruston Paul Scarr Dave Sharma Dean Smith Tyron Whitten Penny Allman-Payne Michelle Ananda-Rajah Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Don Farrell Mehreen Faruqi Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Steph Hodgins-May Sue Lines Jenny McAllister Nick McKim Corinne Mulholland Barbara Pocock Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon David Shoebridge Marielle Smith Jordon Steele-John Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Larissa Waters Murray Watt Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Ellie Whiteaker Penny Ying Yen Wong Alex Antic Katy Gallagher Andrew Bragg Malarndirri McCarthy Sarah Henderson Sarah Hanson-Young Maria Kovacic Tim Ayres James Paterson Deborah O'Neill

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS

Answers to Questions

I move:

That the Senate take note of all answers to coalition questions.

Today, we spoke about a number of things. Obviously, front of mind is fuel. I note the change in tone, over the last week, of the government on fuel. It started out with 'nothing to see here; we are all raising the roof'. 'Hair burners' was used today, I believe. Out there, farmers who are raising concerns are 'hair burners'. We're talking about the cost of it. We're talking about the access to it. 'There's no supply issue'—if there's no supply issue, why are we seeing prices we are in regional Australia? Why are we hearing about service stations that will not be able to deliver fuel in hours, days, weeks or whatever it will be? Why are we seeing Xavier Martin, the NSW Farmers president, standing beside a sign in the New England region where $3.59 is the price for diesel?

A supply problem isn't a supply problem at the docks. A supply problem isn't a supply problem in the capital cities. You have a supply problem if you can't get the fuel where it's needed. There is no good in having fuel in tanks on the waterfronts if you haven't got fuel in the tanks of the tractors, of the trucks and of all the equipment that drives Australia, makes it great and feeds the people. That's what we're not looking at being sorted. We are looking at a crisis across Australia because this government has said, 'If there's enough fuel in Australia, we don't have a problem,' whether it is able to be accessed and used or not. That's why we have these problems going on and we talk about them. We hear about things from the National Farmers' Federation. I'd like to selectively quote the National Farmers' Federation from what they said at a roundtable. What did the National Farmers' Federation say in its media release? It said:

…reports from its members across Australia show farmers and fishers in regional communities are increasingly struggling to secure fuel, putting food security and animal welfare at risk.

That is what they are saying to the world—not in a private room. They are happy for this to go out under their notice:

NFF President Hamish McIntyre said that increases in demand had put pressure on fuel retailers in regional areas.

"While overall national liquid fuel supplies may remain sound, impacts are being acutely felt in regional communities right now, especially among independent retailers, who rely on the 'spot market' for supplies."

That is the quote. That is what National Farmers say in full—not 'nothing to see here' but 'these are real problems'. That is why we bring them here. To hear representatives of the government standing up and saying that we are stoking fear—I bring up 'hair burners' again. These are real problems. All we are asking for is a way to address these issues, a way to look at things being better.

If you go beyond what's said there, we can go to the New South Wales question, where NSW Farmers have called on Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen to 'immediately act and resolve the bush fuel shortage'. It says:

Across the country, many farmers and the bulk fuel suppliers they rely on are running dry, despite claims from the government that there is no supply problem.

NSW Farmers President Xavier Martin said this was an urgent issue that needed to be addressed today.

"What we need the Australian Government to do today is ease the immediate problem of our domestic fuel supply, getting fuel from the terminal to country bulk suppliers, and then on to the farms and towns that depend on it," Mr Martin said.

"There may be fuel coming into Australia, but the government needs to wake up and realise that does not automatically mean it's getting to where it's needed. Fuel sitting in terminals does not fill tanks in rural and regional areas let alone on farms.

That is the reality, and I get phone calls from personal friends that own feedlots and they tell me they only have enough fuel to get the food to those lots for three days—three days if they let them out and if they let them feed on the long paddock and around. Otherwise, they have to either sell or, horribly, get the rifle out and start putting down animals because it is against animal cruelty regulations to allow animals to be there and not eat. That is the reality of what we're talking about.

These are real calls from real people in real situations, not stoking fear but living in their own personal hell. These people who care for their animals, these people who care for their land, cannot see a way out of this. Imagine being that farmer, having a choice of doing whatever you can to find fuel or putting the gun in the back of the truck to go round and put your animals down. That's what we're facing here.

Oh my goodness.

This is what we get—the dismissive nature. They say it's not true. You call Jonno. Through you, Deputy President, I ask the other side to call Jonno and talk to him about that fear. Because they don't believe it, it's not true. This is what we get to. If it's not in the cities, they don't want to know about it. I ask that all we do is find some real things to put in place so that the people in the regions are not suffering from that, they can feed Australia and they can have a healthy, great life.

There hasn't been a crisis that those opposite haven't been willing to exploit. They do this each and every time. It is part of their brand to basically whip up fear—extremist fearmongering. Here we are in the midst of an international oil shock, worse than we had a few years ago when Russia invaded Ukraine, and those opposite should be uniting. Instead, they are stoking fear, and that is leading to panic buying, which in turn is resulting in localised shortages of fuel. And the communities who are hardest hit are those in the regions, particularly our farmers and our fishers and regional industries and businesses, the very people that those opposite, particularly Senator Cadell from the Nationals, claim to represent but are actually hurting.

Now, we as a government are taking this seriously and we are doing a power of work in the background to ensure that Australia remains fuel secure. And we are fuel secure. There have been no problems with industry fulfilling its contractual obligations. But what we need right now are cool heads. Andrew McKellar from ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said:

I think the message from businesses, obviously there is a concern about the risks, but I think for the moment, cool heads have got to prevail. Certainly there's no cause for panic.

There's no cause for panic. That's from ACCI—a true leader, not like those opposite.

From our perspective, we have no problems with consistency of supply. Australia has fuel onshore, held in Brisbane and Geelong. This is in contrast to the time the coalition were in government, when our fuel reserves were held in Texas and Louisiana. We also have two functioning refineries. Under those opposite, four of those six refineries closed down, but these two refineries are going full bore, and today the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, asked one of those refineries to release more fuel into the Australian domestic market—to the tune of around 100 million litres. This fuel will be less refined than usual, but, given the state of the shortages, we feel this is an important step to take. The additional fuel supply will be directed to those parts of Australia that are hurting the most, particularly our regional communities. Some of it will also flow into the spot market to support independent retailers, often in thin markets.

In addition to this, our Foreign minister has spoken with the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia to ensure that we continue to support Saudi Arabia and maintain our fuel supply chains. We have tasked the ACCC with additional powers to ensure that Australian motorists are not price-gouged at the bowser, with stiff penalties—in the order of $100 million—if people misbehave. We have increased our minimum stock obligation, which is basically a backstop, and we've also activated our national coordination mechanism, to ensure that we have all the smart brains in this country around the table to keep our economy going.

We have a power of work going on in the background to diversify our energy grid. Australia is predominantly a fossil fuel nation. Like the rest of the world, we are reliant on fossil fuels to run our economy, but a shift is occurring. Through our Future Made in Australia agenda, we have poured $1.1 billion into stimulating low-carbon fuels. Low-carbon fuels are things like biodiesel and e-fuels, and they'll play a really important role, going into the future, as sustainable aviation fuels. They are derived from products that our farmers grow—sorghum, sugar cane and canola—and waste products, like tallow.

In addition to that, we are electrifying our transport grid. We are seeing the uptake of electric vehicles. In the last week there's been a surge in the number of people searching for electric vehicles, particularly on the second-hand market. That has happened thanks to the incentives we put in place to make these cars more affordable for Australians. (Time expired)

It's always very interesting during question time to listen to this government talk constantly about the coalition and what has been done in the past but not about what they plan to do in the future. I think it's fair to say that, thanks to this government's indulgence in the path to net zero, we now have fuel supply in this country at risk. We've got farmers going to the bowser to fill up their tractors, and there is no fuel for them there. I question this when I think about us going to war. As we heard from Senator Cadell, we certainly have some questions about the carbon neutral scheme, where we've got agricultural land and farmland being bought up so that people can have carbon credits and then we've got farmers going to the bowser and there being no fuel there for them. I wonder why this government isn't doing more for those in our regions who are responsible for food security. I live in a city, and I know that the food certainly doesn't get to the supermarket magically. There are hardworking men and women in our regions who are ploughing and harvesting those fields and getting that food into the cities for us to eat, but they can't do that unless there is fuel.

For three days now, I've sat here with the government telling us that there is no issue at all with fuel supply in this country—that we have 2.97 billion litres of fuel in Australia. But I think it's fair to say that Australians are asking where that fuel actually is because it certainly isn't at the petrol stations. They had a roundtable that—whoops!—they forgot to ask the fishing industry to attend. We've got fishers, certainly in my home state of South Australia, who aren't able to fill up their boats with diesel to be able to go out fishing, because there is no diesel for them to get hold of, so I certainly wonder where this 2.97 billion litres of fuel that Australia has is.

There clearly is a supply issue. When pushed on this, this government will say, 'Well, there's higher demand. We're blaming the consumer.' This is a government that never takes responsibility for anything. This is a government who will point the finger all day long at anyone but themselves. In this case, they're pointing their finger at the Australian people for going out there and trying to fill up their tractors and trying to fill up their cars. It's their fault that the petrol stations have run out of fuel. It's got nothing to do with them. I would say that it is time for this government to start governing. It is hard to govern. It is very easy to point the finger and blame others. It's very easy to stand there and talk about what the coalition did or didn't do.

They have been in government for four years now. There is a crisis in the Middle East, and that crisis in the Middle East was building over a long period of time. It is up to the government to ensure that we have the ability to be able to defend ourselves, and fuel security is one of those really important things that a government should be ensuring that we have. It turns out this government has dropped the ball on that very fundamental need that we have. We only have 34 to 35 days of fuel, diesel and aviation fuel in Australia. We should have 90. That is the international standard. We have about a third of what is recommended for a nation like Australia in reserve. Our whole nation stops.

This is a government that has set IR rules that make it impossible for industry to be able to thrive in Australia. They have set net zero targets that are strangling farmers. It is strangling any kind of industry and business, and then they wonder why, in a resource-rich country like Australia, where we have all the fuel we could possibly need right on our doorstep, we can't refine the volume that we need to. It's because there are only two refineries here in Australia. I say to this government: it is tough to govern, but you need to do better because our national security depends on it. (Time expired)

We have, as the government, been outlining all week—particularly today, in answers to questions—what we have been doing in terms of fuel supply and fuel security. Australians know that, when supply chains are under pressure overseas, the effects can eventually be felt here too—at the bowser, in freight costs, on farm, in the cost of running a small business and in the cost of getting goods from one end of the country to the other. The concern people are feeling is understandable. What matters in moments like this is calm, competent management, and that is exactly what the Albanese government has been focused on. This government is doing the work. The government has been working through the implications of this conflict across the board, planning for the impacts and taking practical steps to protect Australians from the worst of this global disruption.

We saw that in the answers the minister gave that stepped through some of the work that's being undertaken by the minister and the government. Relevant ministers, as we've heard, have met with fuel suppliers, fertiliser suppliers and agricultural peak bodies to work through the pressures that are now emerging in the system. There is daily engagement with fuel companies, including smaller suppliers. The National Oil Supplies Emergency Committee has been meeting regularly so that states and territories are prepared to respond if conditions deteriorate. The government is also working closely with the ACCC, both to watch for market misconduct and to help ensure supply is coordinated into the regions. That matters because what we're dealing with is not just a story about global markets; it's about what happens on the ground in Australia when fear overtakes facts.

At present, Australia is not facing a national fuel shortage. What we are seeing in some areas is localised disruptions caused by sudden spikes in demand. Industry has reported that in some places about a month's worth of fuel has been sold in just a couple of days. That is not normal purchasing behaviour, and when that happens the pressure shows up first in the places that can least afford it. It shows up in regional communities. It shows up for farmers trying to keep equipment running. It shows up for freight operators keeping goods moving, and it shows up for people whose work and daily lives depend on reliable access to fuel. That is why the message from government, industry and peak bodies is consistent: buy fuel as you normally would.

The Deputy Premier of the Tasmanian Liberal government put out a media release today entitled 'Tasmania's fuel supplies secure'. I want to take quotes from his media release, and it's very important because what we have here is an opposition who is, I believe, using the situation for political pointscoring. Now we'll hear from the Deputy Premier of the Tasmanian Liberal government, who said: 'The Tasmanian government has convened an industry and business roundtable regarding fuel supply, and, despite the situation in the Middle East, Tasmania's fuel supply is secure. This was reiterated at the roundtable.' Deputy Premier Guy Barnett went on to talk about how the rising cost of fuel impacts on Tasmanian families, businesses and the agricultural sector. He emphasised: 'Tasmania's liquid fuel supply is in a secure state with sufficient supply on island'—this is in Tasmania, my home state—'and more currently on the way. There is no need to stockpile fuel. People should continue to buy fuel in the same way they always have when they need it. We will continue to engage with the federal government. This is a trying time for many, but together we can sensibly work through the challenges in front of us.'

Well, I think he needs to pick up the phone and talk to the Tasmanian federal Liberal senators because their actions so far could be described as anything other than sensible. (Time expired)

I relish the chance to make a contribution to the motion moved by Senator Cadell on this issue. Senator Brown might be right about the situation in Tasmania. In fact, I'm pleased that supplies are pretty good down there, but that's not the way it is across the country, and that response is not the way this government has treated regional Australians in particular over the last couple of weeks as they have struggled their way through what is very much a regionally focused shortage of supply.

It's been interesting to listen to Labor Party senators, who largely are still talking from the talking points from last week and earlier this week. They're still blaming consumers. It's the consumers' fault for buying fuel; that's why we've got a problem! There's plenty of fuel here, but the only problem is nobody knows where it is; nobody can tell us where that fuel is. In particular, independent supply chains in regional Australia are where most of the problem is manifesting, and it's in some industries. I mentioned the fishing industry earlier in the week, and certain fishing operators have come back from sea, and the only diesel they have got is what's left in their boats. They can't go back out again.

What do we get? We get bluster, we get word salad and we get blamed, but we are reflecting very much the concerns that are being put to us by our constituents around the country—concerns about supply and concerns about price. The attitude of the government in blaming the consumers of fuel is outrageous. It just shows the lack of respect that they have for regional Australia.

It was shown again with the question asked by Senator Cadell about the amount of land that is being taken up for carbon sequestration. There's an example of that in my home state of Tasmania right now, where this government is subsidising a foreign business to purchase 22,000 hectares of irrigated dairy and cattle country to grow trees. That's what this government's doing. What's happening in that market? They're completely distorting the market, so this foreign tree company can bid $20 million more than the local businesses to buy this farm and put it out of the business of agriculture. No wonder the farming community around the country, including in my home state of Tasmania, isn't confident of what's going on. How is it that a foreign business can outbid local businesses by $20 million—25 per cent of the value of the property—to take it out of agricultural production? This is irrigated dairy and beef country, and they're subsidising a company from overseas to come in and bid against others in the local market, driving the price of the land up and distorting the market, to take it out of agricultural production.

Then we saw yesterday, when Infrastructure Australia released its priority projects, that the third tranche of irrigation schemes in Tasmania has dropped off the priority list. We understand how this government thinks about regional Australia, including regional Tasmania. Irrigation schemes funded by both Labor and Liberal governments over the last 15 years have transformed agriculture in my home state of Tasmania, yet this government, through Infrastructure Australia, takes the next tranche of that irrigation development off the national priority list for infrastructure in Tasmania. It's outrageous that they do that. But then, of course, they're prepared to convert an irrigated dairy and beef farm to trees. This is the absurdity of what's going on in my home state. It's absolutely absurd.

They treat regional Australia with this same disrespect across the board. It doesn't matter whether it's farming, fishing or aquaculture. The ministers say there's plenty of fuel, but they don't say when it's coming. That's all the Australian people in our communities want to understand: when will the fuel be there, and what's the plan to get it there? They are the simple questions that we're asking on behalf of our— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Middle East

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the Middle East.

The Albanese government, complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza, has now joined the Israel/US illegal war on Iran, and no amount of attacks on the Greens or empty words from Senator Wong or criticising me while agreeing with me in the same breath can hide that fact. We are at war. While the world's attention is consumed by yet another forever war, Israel's genocide in Gaza continues and intensifies. The bombs have not stopped. The starvation has not stopped. The suffering of Palestinians has not stopped. In fact, this new war has provided the perfect cover for Israel to intensify its assault and tighten its stranglehold on Gaza. Israel has closed Gaza's crossings. Food, medicine and aid trucks were blocked at the gates. The Rafah crossing remains shut. Families across Gaza once again are wondering whether food will run out today, tomorrow or the day after. Israel has deregistered 37 aid organisations. Israel is now killing civilians in Palestine, Iran and Lebanon at the same time. Yet the Albanese government is the genocidal state's biggest fan. They will support anything Israel and the United States choose to do. If they bomb another city, Australia will defend them. If they starve another population, Australia will excuse them. If they launch another reckless illegal war in the region, Australia will line up right behind them. Australia is the loyal lapdog of Trump and Netanyahu—wagging its tail, licking its master's boots and waiting for the next command.

Meanwhile, ordinary people are doing what governments refuse to do. Australians are once again joining the Global Sumud Flotilla, risking their lives to deliver food and medicine to Gaza. They are brave humanitarians who must be applauded. We have already seen what happens to those who attempt these missions. Activists are kidnapped in international waters, detained, abused and denied basic rights. Yet this government still refuses to pressure Israel to lift its blockade and refuses to stand up even for Australians risking their lives to deliver humanitarian aid; this is how much it cares about humanitarian law. Instead of defending international law, this government defends those who violate it openly and blatantly. The world can see it, the people can see it and history will remember it.

What happens when you don't stand up to bullies? That's right; they keep bullying people. Let me assure the Senate that that same rule applies to war criminals, just as it does to bullies. We've seen in Gaza, over the last two-plus years, war crimes perpetrated by Israel and supported by the United States and Australia. Because countries like Australia didn't stand up to the war crimes being perpetrated on the people of Gaza, or the genocide being perpetrated on the people of Gaza, that's emboldened war criminals like Netanyahu, and now we see Israel, the United States and Australia at war with Iran in an illegal war. Who pays the price? The same people that always pay the price: the people of Gaza, the people of Palestine, the people of Iran and other people throughout that region, who are enduring and suffering as war criminals perpetrate war on them.

This is why international law exists—to protect people. That is why it is so egregious when people like Netanyahu, Trump and the Australian Labor Party perpetrate illegal wars. Make no mistake: Australia is at war with Iran, and that is an illegal war. We should be advocating for peace, not war. We should be advocating for an end to the slaughter in Gaza, the genocide in Gaza and the suffering of the Iranian people. Peace, not war. History will remember the war criminals. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Pursuant to order, we will now return to government business.

BILLS

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Decisions on when people are able and not able to enter Australia are some of the most important decisions we make as a country. They affect liberty, families, livelihoods and safety. For that reason alone, any proposal to expand or reshape these powers deserves the most careful scrutiny from this parliament. As a number of experts, advocates and community organisations have pointed out, this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, contains complex and far-reaching provisions that would significantly alter our migration framework. Yet this bill has been brought forward with limited opportunity for proper examination.

Members of the crossbench were given the bill at 11 am on Tuesday, and here we are in a guillotine sometime this afternoon, being forced to vote on significant changes just two days later. I fear that this is not what Australians sent us here to do. In the short time available, a number of very significant concerns have been raised.

First, there are concerns about the breadth of the powers that would be created. Migration legislation already grants extraordinary powers to the executive compared with most other areas of Australian law. When new powers are proposed, the parliament has a responsibility to ask whether they are necessary, whether they are proportionate and whether they are subject to appropriate safeguards.

Second, there are concerns about transparency and accountability. Several provisions in the bill appear to concentrate huge amounts of discretion in the hands of the minister without sufficient oversight or review mechanisms. That raises real questions about how these powers might operate in practice and what protections will exist for those that are affected. I think, if we zoom out, this is a really important thing to look at. Look around the world. We're seeing what leaders and their executives are doing in their countries to their people. As a Senate and as a parliament, we need to take giving the executive of the day any more power very seriously. Rather than handing more extraordinary powers in perpetuity to the executive, those powers need to be justified and well thought through.

Third, there are concerns about the potential human consequences of these changes. Migration decisions shape the lives of those affected—students, workers, families and people seeking protection, many of whom have or seek to build lives in our communities. These concerns have been raised by migration experts and civil society groups who work directly with the people most affected by these laws. Their warnings deserve to be heard and taken seriously by this place.

It is also important that the parliament listens to the people we represent. Many Canberrans have contacted my office about this bill. Canberra is a community that values transparency. It values parliamentary scrutiny and the rule of law. People here understand that Australia needs a well-managed migration system, but they also expect that system to be humane, accountable and consistent with our values. The concerns raised are reasonable and reflect the broader expectations that Australians have, that their parliament will be cautious when legislating in areas that affect fundamental rights and freedoms.

Given that we are increasingly unlikely to have any time in committee, I foreshadow that I'll be moving amendments to this bill. These amendments build on the work of my colleagues in the other place, the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall; the member for Curtin, Kate Chaney; and the member for Kooyong, Dr Monique Ryan. They would strengthen the preconditions before the Home Affairs minister could make an arrival control determination to stop a group, such as a group of Iranians fleeing conflict, from entering Australia. They would provide natural justice for those prevented from entering the country so that they could challenge that decision. They would make the decision to prevent groups of people entering the country disallowable by the parliament. Surely this is the base level of oversight on what are extraordinary powers. Again, let's look at what is happening with some of our closest allies, at what is happening in the US with the executive and the harm that that is inflicting on people over there. We cannot go down that path of giving the executive unfettered powers.

The amendments would clarify the circumstances in which cohorts of people would be prevented from entering the country. One of my concerns with the migration changes that have been rushed through by the Labor government, backed in by the coalition and rammed through the parliament in the space of days over the past few years is just how loose some of the definitions are and how much discretion is built into these laws. You sometimes hear governments say, 'We need to futureproof this so it can't be abused by a future minister.' There seems no foresight on that possibility when it comes to migration changes.

The amendments would also ensure that parents, grandparents, siblings and partners of Australian citizens are not prevented from entering the country, even if they are a member of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering. We are dealing with the loved ones of Australian citizens, and this is a very blunt instrument. Surely, the least we can do is say, 'If you are an Australian citizen, we will at least be looking out for you and your family'? That would ensure that people in transit and on their way to the country are not prevented from entering because a decision was made while they were in transit. Surely that is also just common decency? They would ensure that the Minister for Home Affairs considers whether to allow individuals to enter the country even where they are members of a cohort otherwise prevented from entering and they would ensure that, where people are prevented from entering the country, their visas do not expire because of the prevention and they may be compensated for travel, visa processing and related costs. We have some of the highest visa application fees in the world. As a wealthy country, surely the least we could do is provide people a refund for taking this extraordinary action?

These are comprehensive amendments, and their breadth speaks to the huge issues with this bill. I understand the intent of the bill is to preserve the integrity of the humanitarian intake program. However, after considering the provisions of the bill in the short time available and listening to experts in my community, listening to Canberrans who I represent and vote on behalf of in this place, it's clear that this bill has significant shortcomings and that it should not be supported. This bill should not become law today, and I will be opposing it.

Australia's migration system must be effective, but it must also be fair and accountable. That is the standard the public expects us to deliver. It is the standard this parliament should actually seek to uphold. This bill does not meet that standard, and it certainly does not have my support.

I'm very concerned about the lack of consistency in the government's approach to dealing with laws and humanitarian crises around the world. There was absolutely no talk of this sort of legislation after Russia invaded Ukraine. We saw a far more generous approach, and I've met a number of Ukrainians who now live in Canberra and are contributing and who are grateful for the opportunity that we've given them. So it is very concerning that we now have a government that, under the cover of giving humanitarian visas to brave football players from Iran, is bringing this to the parliament. As I said earlier, I commend Minister Burke for his work with the Iranian women's team. I think it shows what Australia can and should be doing. It shows a minister who deeply cares, a minister who is in touch with what Australians want, a minister who is willing to go out of his way, to drop everything else, to actually rise to the occasion and deliver for people who need our support and for Australians. I fear that, at the same time that is rightly being shared on social media and rightly being covered in the media, we have this heinous bill being brought through here.

We should maybe do a tally. Maybe we can talk about this in the next sitting of the Senate. How many Labor MPs and senators post about this bill? How many of them front up to the community that they are meant to be representing and say: 'We saw what's happening in Iran, so we're giving ourselves the powers to cancel every single visa that we've issued. Yes, we already have extraordinary powers to cancel visas on security grounds and on character grounds—on a whole range of grounds—but that's not enough. Forever, going forward, we want the power, for some undefined events, to say, "No visas from that country—sorry if you paid money for the visa; sorry if you're on your way here; sorry if you're in transit; sorry if you're coming for the birth of a granddaughter or for your sister's wedding; we don't give a stuff because we do not want to give a visa to anyone from the country you come from."'

We can surely do better than this. It feels so ridiculous that this is what the Senate is debating—and, again, under the cover of a government that knows that Australians care. You know that Aussies care, that we have big hearts, that we see the suffering and we say, 'We're not the biggest country; we're a middle power; we can't stop the war, but we can play our part.' Increasingly, I don't think we're seeing those values being lived out. We talk about the land of a fair go, but this doesn't seem like it. This really does not seem like it.

I urge the government to think again when it comes to this. Let's actually come up with a consistent framework when it comes to conflicts. That's surely something we could be doing. Increasingly, I'm getting Canberrans ask me about that and say, 'Why was there such a discrepancy between the war in Ukraine—Gaza, Iran—and our response?' These are Australian citizens' families and loved ones. Honestly, we've got to do better than this.

I oppose this bill. I'll be moving amendments to try and make it a little bit better. I thank my colleagues in the other place who have, in a very short space of time, consulted, spoken to experts and had amendments drafted to try and make this terrible bill better, fairer and clearer and, importantly, to put some more checks on the executive. Yes, Labor have a whopping majority in the other house, but to the coalition I say: this is the place where we should not give up power to the executive, not just in this instance but in perpetuity. That is a very serious thing to grant to government, and it's my view that whenever we do that it should be very well thought out, consulted on and scrutinised. Then, in circumstances that warrant it, we should hand over that power. It doesn't seem like this is that situation. This is rushed. It's a knee jerk. Again, I see some of the arguments, but I just don't think they've been well enough made, so I'll be opposing this bill.

Well, it's another week and another cruel, anti-migrant, anti-refugee, anti-Muslim bill from the Albanese Labor government. After spending all week patting themselves on the back for providing protection visas to Iranian women's soccer team members, the Albanese Labor government are now doing everything they can to prevent any more refugees from this war in Iran reaching our shores.

Labor jumped up and signed us on to Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran but aren't willing to face any of the consequences. They'll send aircraft and missiles to aid in the US-Israel led bombing campaign but will not lift a finger to help those being killed or displaced or those whose lives are being ruined by this shameless and shameful war. Even worse, Labor will go out of their way to ensure that these people can never seek safety on our shores, and the Liberals are right with them to pass whatever cruel, racist legislation they dream up.

It is impossible to tell the difference between Labor, the Liberals and One Nation. Well done! You all must be so proud of yourselves! This bill might be dressed up in the major party lingo of border integrity and ministerial discretion, but let's be honest about what it really is and who it will be used against—Muslims. The first people targeted will be Iranians, the same Iranians that Labor apparently wants to protect. What utter and blatant hypocrisy. But, before long, we can expect it to also apply to Lebanese people, to Afghanis, to Palestinians, to the Sudanese and who knows who else. This is nothing more than a Trump-style Muslim ban dressed up in Labor doublespeak.

Years ago, we might have expected to see this kind of bill from the Liberals or One Nation, but the Labor Party of today is doing their dirty work. This is a Labor Party that is complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza and is jumping at the first chance to get behind Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war on Iran. The Labor Party of today engages in the same politics of fear and division and the same tired and dangerous scapegoating of migrants, refugees and Muslims. We all know this so-called ministerial discretion will be anything but neutral. It will not be applied equally. It will be used to target people who are already demonised, already treated with suspicion and already forced to prove their worthiness over and over again.

The bill hands enormous powers to the minister to decide on a whim who is worthy of safety and who is not. It entrenches a cruel double standard where some are welcomed and protected while others are shut out and punished. It sends a chilling message to Muslim communities that their suffering and fear will be met not with compassion but with suspicion and with shut doors. The sad thing is that none of this is new. This country already has one of the most brutal, inhumane and cruel refugee regimes in the world, one that Trump wants to replicate. It is built on offshore prisons, endless detention and policies that punish people for simply seeking safety, often from wars that this country has been embroiled in.

This country is also one in which we are witnessing a massive rise in anti-Muslim hate. As we saw this week, the Labor government can't even bring themselves to support a Greens motion recognising this rise and calling for action to combat Islamophobia. Policies like these have real consequences for communities who see the so-called leaders of this country say that it is okay to discriminate and that it is okay to scapegoat. It reinforces that migrants are the problem, when it is really this government's policies, bills and warmongering that are the problem. That is just disgraceful. Indeed, it is hard to even find the words for the lows that this Labor government has now sunk to.

We should be a country that offers peace and that offers relief from violence. We should be a country that responds to war with calls for justice and peace and offers refuge from violence rather than perpetrating it. The minister says that this bill is about safety, but what it is really about is telling some people that their safety is not important and that their lives are not worth saving. This legislation enshrines racism, cruelty and fearmongering into law. The Albanese Labor government should really hang its head in shame for even bringing this bill to this chamber. The Greens are proud to stand against this bill, and we are proud to stand against this war. I now move our second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to immediately raise the number of places in Australia's humanitarian intake to at least 27,000 places per year as set out in the Australian Labor Party's 2023 National Platform".

Here we have Labor's latest edition in 'don't mention the war'. Don't mention the catastrophic impacts of us entering an illegal war that is killing civilians, including women and children—over 160 schoolgirls. Don't mention Labor's cruelty towards refugees time and time again. I've got to say it's wearing pretty thin hearing them get up and speak about what a proud multicultural nation we are while simultaneously slamming the door shut on people who need our protection more than ever, and it's getting pretty tiring hearing them completely disregarding international law and our international humanitarian obligations.

Time and time again, it's Labor governments that treat refugees with the most cruelty of anyone. Don't be fooled. This is a cynical call and cry-out to One Nation. That's who they're talking to: One Nation. They don't want the public to know what they're doing on this bill, the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. That's why they don't want it to go to a proper inquiry, and that's why they are not getting up and speaking about it—because they know it's the wrong thing to do. They know it's cruel, they know it's inhumane, and they know that Australians will not and do not support it. It's absolutely pathetic.

Today, they have hit an all-new low. Just when you think they couldn't stoop any lower, they come out and support Uncle Donald Trump in this illegal war. They have their slow and steady creep of changing talking points day to day. They take the public for mugs; they really do. But people are clueing on, and they see you for what you are: a group of people who say one thing and do another thing, a group of people who aren't willing to stand up for principles that you say your party is founded on, and a group of people who just want to hide in the shadows and, frankly, are spineless when it comes to issues of standing up and showing leadership on the global state, showing compassion and showing respect for our international legal institutions and for people who are fleeing war zones that we are playing a role in creating.

Parliament is being run by the war parties of Labor, Liberal and One Nation. They are rushing us into a new US forever war, cheering on the bombing and shutting the door to people seeking safety from that same appalling war. This bill will allow Labor to prevent someone's grandmother who has a valid visa from coming to Australia because their country might be too dangerous to return to. Can you put yourself in the shoes of someone who is having their neighbourhood bombed and is afraid to return home, knowing that they have no option because cruel countries like ours are slamming the doors shut? Can you put yourself in that position? Of course you can't, because the privilege just puts you in a whole other realm.

People are coming here for weddings, for funerals, for work and to enjoy our community, and they've had this snatched away by Labor in a race to the bottom with One Nation and the Liberals. Stop being afraid of them, and show some leadership. That's what Australians are crying out for. Don't follow the US. Don't follow Trump. Don't follow One Nation and the race-to-the-bottom LNP. Show us some leadership. Make yourselves proud. To those backbenchers backgrounding journalists: it's not good enough. How do you sleep at night? I just don't comprehend how these people sleep at night.

If you ever thought this war was about protecting the people of Iran, here is the clearest example of why it is a massive lie. With this bill, Labor is actively working to prevent people from Iran from being safe, all because the war parties of this parliament are in a race to the bottom. Once again, it is everyday people who pay the price—people so far removed from the decisions being made in the war rooms in the US, in Tel Aviv and here in the parliament in Canberra. The government gives with one hand while taking away with the other. It welcomes the praise in the morning and quietly shuts the door later in the day. This is duplicity, plain and simple.

Protection should never depend on someone's public profile or the amount of attention their case receives. I do want to acknowledge those incredibly brave Iranian women, some of whom will rightly be granted asylum in this country. But the government is saying: 'Don't look over here. This is awkward. This is a bit messy and cruel. Don't look over here; look over there. Look at the headlines.' It's not good enough. Protection should never depend on someone's public profile. Anyone who genuinely fears persecution has the right to seek safety in this country. That includes people already living in our communities who are still stuck in limbo, without certainty or a clear pathway to protection.

This is all in the name of appeasing the US and warmongers who profit off conflict. To quote the CEO of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, who has been a fierce advocate and champion for people rightly seeking our protection:

Australia and the United States are sending military forces to the Middle East in the name of liberating the people of Iran, while at the same time legislating so that they can shut the door on those very same people when they seek safety here—even when they already have a visa.

The Albanese government's actions today send a disturbing message about who is worthy of protection and who is not. I don't know if you can stoop any lower, Labor, but it's really hard to imagine it. I want to thank my colleague Senator Shoebridge for mounting as much of a challenge as possible to these draconian laws. I hope you give yourselves a slow clap and sleep well tonight.

Firstly, I table a letter from the Minister for Home Affairs to the chair of the scrutiny of bills committee, responding to concerns raised by the committee.

I thank all senators who've risen to speak on the Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The amendments in the bill demonstrate the government's commitment to protecting the integrity and sustainability of Australia's migration system. The bill establishes a new legislative framework to enable the Minister for Home Affairs to more effectively regulate travel into Australia in periods of international conflict to avoid any unsustainable strain on the functioning of our migration system. The bill does this by empowering the minister to make an arrival control determination that would suspend temporary visas of certain classes of noncitizens in specified circumstances. This is a personal power of the minister, and the minister must first obtain written agreement from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

The arrival control determination legislation is an important addition to the government's ability to regulate travel to Australia. Currently, this may only be achieved through individually assessing each visa to determine where there are grounds to cancel a visa, which takes time and is not appropriate in circumstances where an urgent response at scale is required. The bill allows the minister to make an arrival control determination if the minister is reasonably satisfied that an event or circumstance has occurred or is occurring outside Australia and the noncitizens to whom the determination is to apply may, if they enter Australia on a temporary visa, remain in Australia after the visa ceases to be in effect, or if the visa would not have been granted had the event or circumstance occurred or been occurring at the time it was granted.

A determination can be in effect for a maximum period of six months. It cannot be varied or extended. However, it can be revoked by the minister by legislative instrument. The bill does not operate in relation to permanent visas of any kind. It only applies in relation to temporary visas and only for noncitizens in a class specified in the determination.

The bill also expressly provides that an arrival control determination does not apply to noncitizens who hold a temporary protection or other temporary humanitarian visa in Australia; a refugee or protection visa holder or applicant; or an immediate family member of an Australian citizen or permanent resident. The bill also enables the minister to exempt individuals from an arrival control determination on a case-by-case basis via a permitted travel certificate, enabling travel for those individuals.

The current situation in the Middle East demonstrates how quickly circumstances that may be relevant to holders of valid temporary visas who may seek to travel to Australia can change. In these circumstances it is vital that government can respond accordingly. This bill provides government with a framework to better and more rapidly regulate travel to Australia in periods of international conflict or global shocks. This new framework will ensure government has the means to quickly take the necessary steps to manage risk before it manifests in Australia. I commend the bill to the chamber.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet 3695 be agreed to.

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister Susan McDonald James McGrath Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent black, brown, Muslim and Arab people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".

Question negatived.

I wish to note my support for that amendment.

by leave—I also note the Greens' support for that amendment.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate condemns and rejects legislation that grants extraordinary decision-making power to the Minister for Home Affairs that is intended to prevent people fleeing conflict zones from entering Australia and terminates even the most basic parliamentary safeguards such as a sunset clause and scrutiny powers".

The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3701 moved by Senator Tyrrell be agreed to.

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

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

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Michelle Ananda-Rajah Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; In Committee

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

The contributions made during this debate highlight a shared recognition that Australia's migration system must be equipped to respond sensibly and decisively when circumstances overseas change in ways that may directly affect the integrity and sustainability of our system. This bill demonstrates the government's commitment to protecting that integrity and ensuring Australia can manage temporary visa travel in periods of international conflict or sudden global disruption.

As I understand it, the amendments in this bill will establish a new legislative framework that provides the minister administering the Migration Act with powers to more effectively regulate travel into Australia by specified classes of noncitizens who hold a temporary visa in circumstances where this is necessary to protect the integrity and sustainability—

Senator Shoebridge, do you have a point of order?

I can't hear a word. I don't think the mic's on. Maybe it doesn't want to be heard, but I can't hear it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Shoebridge, please withdraw the last part of your remarks.

I withdraw.

I'll try again. As I understand it, the amendments in this bill will establish a new legislative framework that provides the minister administering the Migration Act with powers to more effectively regulate travel into Australia by specified classes of noncitizens who hold a temporary visa in circumstances where this is necessary to protect the integrity and sustainability of Australia's migration system, including during periods of international conflict or in response to other events or circumstances outside Australia.

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026

Pursuant to the order agreed earlier today, the time allotted for debate has expired. I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3696 and 3699 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments

SHEET 3696

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedule 1", substitute "Schedules 1 and 2".

(2) Page 11, after line 5, at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Enabling Resolution of Status visa applications by transitory persons

Migration Act 1958

1 After subsection 46B(1)

Insert:

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application for a visa classified by the regulations as a Resolution of Status (Class CD) visa if the application is made by a transitory person who is in Australia.

_____

SHEET 3699

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Glenn Sterle Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senators David Pocock and Tyrrell. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3694 be agreed to.

Senators David Pocock and Tyrell's circulated amendment s

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 23), omit "one or".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 25), omit "may", substitute "would".

(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 31), omit "may", substitute "would".

(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 26 and 27), omit subsection 84B(8).

(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 32) to page 6 (line 2), omit subsection 84B(10), substitute:

(10) The Minister may exercise the power in subsection (1) only once in relation to:

(a) a particular event or circumstance; or

(b) a particular class of non-citizens.

(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (lines 8 to 13), omit subsection 84B(13).

(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), at the end of section 84B, add:

(14) In this section:

event or circumstance means a conflict, natural disaster or significant emergency which increases or is likely to increase the risk that certain classes of temporary visa holders will not depart Australia when their visas cease to be in effect.

(8) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 6), after "de facto partner", insert ", parent, grandparent, sibling or step equivalent".

(9) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (after line 20), after subsection 84C(4), insert:

(4A) An arrival control determination does not apply in relation to a non-citizen at a particular time if, at that time, the non-citizen is currently in transit travelling to Australia under a temporary or visitor visa.

(10) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 21), omit "(3) and (4)", substitute "(3), (4) and (4A)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 16 and 17), omit subsection 84D(7).

(12) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 84D(8).

(13) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (after line 28), after subsection 84E(2), insert:

(2A) If a temporary visa held by a non-citizen comes into effect again because of subsection (2):

(a) the visa is extended by a period equal to the period for which it was not in effect because of the relevant arrival control determination; and

(b) the Minister must seek advice as to what compensation should be paid to the non-citizen.

(14) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (before line 29), before subsection 84E(3), insert:

(2B) If an arrival control determination applies to a non-citizen, the Commonwealth must compensate the non-citizen in full for any travel, visa processing and other reasonable related costs incurred by the non-citizen because of the determination.

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Nita Green Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker

The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill now be passed.

Migration Amendment (2026 Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 Michelle Ananda-Rajah Wendy Askew Tim Ayres Sean Bell Carol Louise Brown Anthony Chisholm Raff Ciccone Dorinda Cox Lisa Darmanin Josh Dolega Richard Dowling Jonathon Duniam Katy Gallagher Varun Ghosh Karen Grogan Jenny McAllister James McGrath Corinne Mulholland Helen Beatrice Polley Dave Sharma Tony Sheldon Marielle Smith Jana Stewart Charlotte Walker Jess Walsh Ellie Whiteaker Penny Allman-Payne Mehreen Faruqi Steph Hodgins-May Fatima Payman Barbara Pocock David Pocock David Shoebridge Jordon Steele-John Tammy Tyrrell Larissa Waters Peter Stuart Whish-Wilson

Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026; Limitation of Debate

Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026

I will now deal with the Parliamentary Frameworks Legislation Amendment (Reviews) Bill 2026. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The questionis that the bill be read a third time and the bill now be passed.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

COMMITTEES

Intelligence and Security Joint Committee; Report

I present the reports of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security on the review of the listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a state sponsor of terrorism under the Criminal Code, and on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. I move:

That the Senate take note of the reports.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee; Report

I present the 515th report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, as well as the independent post-election review of the Parliamentary Budget Office 2025-26.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Joint Committee; Report

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, I present annual report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Today I rise to speak on the tabling of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's annual report No. 1 of the 48th Parliament. The National Disability Insurance Scheme currently supports more than 760,000 Australians with disability, including over 65,000 participants in my home state of South Australia. It is a large and complex system that delivers a wide range of care and support services to people with disability and their families. Given the scale of the scheme and the public investment involved, it is essential that parliament continues to carefully scrutinise its performance to ensure it is operating effectively, remains sustainable and delivers safe, effective and appropriate services for participants.

The committee's report highlights areas of progress and where the system is clearly falling short, with recommendations aimed at strengthening oversight, improving participant safety and ensuring the scheme delivers the outcomes it was designed to achieve.

The National Disability Insurance Agency and the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission are required to provide an annual report on progress made on recommendations from previous parliaments. That's a sensible step to ensure that this parliamentary committee does not simply produce reports that gather dust on the shelf. The Albanese government, though, doesn't seem to have got that memo. This government is known to have already failed to respond to 50 parliamentary reports within the required six-month deadline even though, under parliamentary rules, the government must respond to House and joint committee reports within six months of the report's tabling. There are 80 additional Senate committee reports that are outstanding. That is woeful performance, by any measure, from the Labour government. Let's hope that this is responded to in the timeline that's required.

The report examines the development of the Instrument for the Classification and Assessment of Support Needs, otherwise referred to as I-CAN, which will form a key part of the new assessment framework for people aged 16 years and over. Two recommendations call for thorough testing of the tool across a broad range of disability types and intersectional groups, including Indigenous Australians and those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and for greater transparency about how that tool operates. There are significant concerns across the disability sector that the tool may be implemented before it has been properly tested or understood within the NDIS.

Many participants and peak bodies have warned that, if assessments are not undertaken by appropriately qualified health professionals, there is a risk of inaccurate planning decisions, inadequate supports and, ultimately, poorer health outcomes. In some cases, that may lead to more people having increased hospital representations or avoidable deterioration in a participant's condition. I focus now on recommendations that deal with the intersection of the NDIS and family and domestic violence. Recommendation 7 calls on the NDIA to develop a specific, safe and confidential process that allows victim-survivors of family and domestic violence to remove a perpetrator as their nominee without that individual having to be notified.

It's a recommendation that is both practical and sensible. The committee heard evidence that perpetrators may use their nominee status to control finances, restrict access to services or manipulate information within the system. This recommendation ensures that participants must have a safe and confidential pathway to remove a nominee without triggering retaliation or further harm. Recommendation 8 complements this by recommending that the Australian government include the NDIS in its broader audit of government systems that may be weaponised by perpetrators of family and domestic violence. It's an important safeguard. Systems designed to assist vulnerable Australians must never become tools of exploitation or abuse.

The report also raises broader concerns about the performance of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission, which is responsible for regulating providers and protecting participants. The findings are concerning. The Australian National Audit Office found the commission was only partly effective in exercising its regulatory responsibilities. It did not have full visibility of the provider market it regulates and had only partly effective intelligence-gathering and information-sharing arrangements. That is of real concern. It lacked a risk based regulatory strategy and had not effectively implemented proportionate monitoring and enforcement activities.

These shortcomings have real consequences for the participants on the NDIS. Under the Labor government, the commission is struggling to meet its own targets. Of the seven performance measures outlined in its 2024-25 corporate plan, only four were achieved. One was partially achieved, and two were not achieved at all. The performance measure that assesses whether people with disability know their rights and trust the commission to support them when reporting abuse or neglect was not achieved. Trust among people with disability and their representatives fell from 64 per cent to 56 per cent in a single year. That decline should concern us all.

Issues of workforce and organisational culture were also raised. Another major concern was fraud and misuse within the scheme. The establishment of the Fraud Fusion Taskforce—involving 23 agencies, including the NDIA—is a welcome step and highlights the scale of the challenge that must be addressed. At a time when Australians are facing significant cost-of-living pressures, the government must ensure that public funding is being used responsibly across all areas of expenditure. Waste and misuse within the NDIS, including fraudulent activity, must be identified and addressed to ensure that resources are directed to the participants who genuinely rely on these supports. The structure of the provider market contributes to these risks. Currently, only around six per cent of providers delivering support to NDIS participants are registered providers. Stronger safeguards and smarter regulation will be required to ensure the scheme remains sustainable and participants remain protected.

The report also highlights performance challenges within the participant service guarantee. One key performance indicator, plan variations, is currently being met only 42 per cent of the time, with other KPIs sitting between 26 and 55 per cent. Those delays and inconsistencies can leave participants waiting for essential supports and create uncertainty for families.

The report also identifies systemic issues affecting service availability across the country. Nearly half of providers reported financial losses in the 2024-25 financial year, while 81 per cent indicated they cannot continue to deliver services at current pricing levels. It's a situation that's amplified if you're in a regional, rural or remote area. Your uncontrolled spending and inflation is impacting everything and everyone. For regional and remote communities, these challenges, as I mentioned earlier, are particularly acute. Changes to travel funding for providers, introduced from 1 July 2025, have capped travel claims and are already creating barriers to accessing allied health services and specialist support in regional areas. For participants in regional South Australia, including communities in the Mid North, Riverland, Eyre Peninsula and Yorke Peninsula, this can mean fewer services, longer wait times and reduced access to essential services. It's those kinds of things that were raised directly with me just a few weeks ago, in some of those towns.

This committee also considered progress in implementing the recommendations of the disability royal commission. Of the 172 recommendations for which the Commonwealth has responsibility, only eight have been completed so far, while 71 are in progress, 51 require further work, 36 remain under consideration and six are noted.

Finally, the report also highlights an ongoing gender imbalance in the scheme. Women and girls with disability are less likely to be eligible and to have plans approved, a disparity that must be addressed through better data collection and policy responses. Women with a disability make up only 38 per cent of participants accessing this scheme, and this figure has remained static since the NDIS rollout. The committee's recommendations on the NDIS gender strategy and data strategy are, therefore, important steps forward. A scheme of this size and importance must continually evolve, and it must be transparent, accountable and properly regulated. Getting this right is not optional; it is essential. I commend the report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Economics Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee; Government Response to Report

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business and seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report:

Inquiry into Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024

March 2026

Introduction

This Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Bill 2024 includes a package of reforms to modernise Australia's merger review framework. The Bill replaces Australia's current approach to merger control with a faster, stronger, simpler, targeted, more transparent and streamlined system that better addresses anti-competitive mergers and acquisitions.

The Bill:

The Bill passed both Houses on 28 November 2024 and received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024 as the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Act 2024.

The Government thanks the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for its inquiry into the Bill, and thanks the organisations and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry and participated in the public hearing.

The Government's responses to the recommendations made in the Committee's final report are provided below. In line with the guidelines on Government responses, recommendations that a bill or bills be passed, rejected, or amended have not been responded to. This includes the Committee's recommendation in the Main Report that the Senate pass the Bill, recommendation 1 in the Coalition Senators' additional comments and recommendation 1 in the Greens Senators' additional comments.

Response to the recommendations

Coalition Senators' additional comments

Recommendation 2

An expert implementation advisory panel be established, with the Competition Taskforce Advisory Panel and key submitters to this inquiry including the Business Council of Australia and the Technology Council of Australia among those represented.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

During the transition period (1 July-31 December 2025), Treasury worked closely with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), the Business Council of Australia (BCA), the Law Council of Australia (LCA) and other key stakeholders, holding monthly meetings to capture emerging business experiences with the merger reform.

In 2025, the ACCC also renewed and expanded its Performance Consultative Committee to advise on the ACCC's merger review functions as well as the broad range of the ACCC's responsibilities.[1]

The Performance Consultative Committee consists of a range of stakeholders including consumer, business, and legal representatives.[2] The Performance Consultative Committee will provide feedback on ACCC initiatives and a forum for exchange of perspectives on key issues, including those related to the implementation of the new merger system.

Recommendation 3

Treasury and ACCC officials make themselves available to provide a private briefing to the Senate Economics Committee on merger regime implementation progress on a quarterly basis.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

Relevant Treasury and ACCC officials have and will continue to be available to provide updates on merger reform implementation progress as part of regular Parliamentary scrutiny processes (including Senate Estimates).

Recommendation 4

Serious consideration be given to the implementation proposals highlighted by the Business Council of Australia that have not yet been adopted, namely the quarterly publication of key performance indicators on merger timelines and the publication of s155 notices data.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The ACCC published a Statement of Goals for Merger Reform Implementation[3] on 10 October 2024.

The ACCC will include a summary of key performance indicators relating to merger timelines as part of annual reporting on the ACCC's mergers work, and has committed to reporting on the use of extension powers related to its information gathering powers under section 155 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.[4]

The ACCC's acquisition register publishes timelines and its use of timeline extension powers for merger notifications.

Greens Senators' Additional Comments

Recommendation 2

The Government should prioritise reforms that would make markets more competitive and bring down the cost of essential goods and services, including by introducing economy-wide divestiture powers to allow for corporations that have misused their market power to be broken up.

Australian Government response

The Government does not support this recommendation.

The Government has prioritised reforms that will make our economy more competitive and productive, including the biggest reform to the merger control system in 50 years.

Divestiture is only available as a remedy in limited cases in Australia: to unwind mergers, to dispose of assets in a foreign investment context, or as a last resort to deal with aggravated causes of abuse of market power in electricity markets.

As past competition reviews have found, introducing divestiture powers as a remedy for breaches of misuse of market power provisions carries more risks than benefits and would likely result in significant adverse economic and legal consequences. The Hilmer (1993), Dawson (2003) and Harper (2015) reviews did not recommend divestiture as a remedy to address market power concerns.

As part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Mergers and Acquisitions Reform) Act 2024, the Government passed legislation to introduce significant merger reforms to promote competition and deliver better outcomes for consumers, businesses and the economy. These are the biggest reforms to the merger control system in 50 years, making it stronger, faster, simpler, more targeted and more transparent. The ACCC will have stronger powers to identify and scrutinise transactions that pose a risk to competition before they occur.

[1 ] ACCC, Statement of Goals for Merger Reform Implementation, ACCC, Australian Government, 10 October 2024

[ 2 ] ACCC, https://www.accc.gov.au/inquiries-and-consultations/consultative-committees/accc-performance-consultative-committee, ACCC website

[3] ACCC, Statement of Goals for Merger Reform Implementation, ACCC, Australian Government, 10 October 2024

[4] Evidence to Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Parliament of Australia, Canberra, 30 October 2024,

16-17 (Gina Cass-Gottlieb, ACCC Chair).

_____

Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report:

The pursuit of equality: Inquiry into the rights of women and childrenSeptember 2025

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends the Australian Government:

Response:

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government has a number of mutually reinforcing national strategies and plans to guide and report on government action to advance gender equality, including to improve Australia's performance in relation to relevant SDGs.

The Australian Government is committed to genuine outcomes for women and girls in Australia and has an ambitious domestic gender equality agenda to close the gender gaps in our community. The Australian Government's efforts to drive gender equality are underpinned by Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality (Working for Women), which was, released on 7 March 2024. Working for Women's Reporting Framework tracks and reports on measures to achieve gender equality over time.

The Australian Government's implementation of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children (2022-2032) (the National Plan) coordinates action across the Commonwealth and state and territory governments to support victim-survivors and prevent and respond to gender-based violence (GBV). The Australian Government has invested over $4 billion from the 2022-23 (October) Budget to the 2025-26 Budget cycle to support women's safety initiatives.

Australia is committed to implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving the SDGs. The commitment to step up Australia's support for the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs is reflected in Australia's International Development Policy, released in August 2023. Australia's International Development Policy recognises the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs as the agreed norms, standards and values of the international development system, including full respect for international law and human rights. With five years left, Australia recognises the need to advance implementation of the 2030 Agenda to achieve all the SDGs.

Recognising that over 435 million women and girls are living in extreme poverty, the 2030 Agenda and gender equality are at the heart of Australia's International Development Policy, with ambitious targets to improve the lives of women and girls. The Australian Government is committed to doing its part to achieve all of the SDGs, recognising that our societies, economies and environments are interlinked and underpinned by human rights and gender equality.

Australia’s International Gender Equality Strategy, released in February 2025, outlines how the Government is driving gender equality through all tools of foreign policy, including our international development program. The strategy includes a focus on: work to end sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and advance women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights, pursue gender responsive peace and security, deliver gender equitable climate action and humanitarian assistance, promote women’s economic equality and inclusive trade, and support locally led approaches to women’s leadership.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the Australian Government, when developing and implementing the new International Gender Equality Strategy, identify gender-based violence as a key strategic issue, and identify pathways and mechanisms to support its regional neighbours in addressing related issues.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to responding to, addressing and preventing all forms of GBV. Australia's International Development Policy highlights this commitment, for a stronger, more secure and more inclusive Indo-Pacific region. Regional and bilateral Development Partnership Plans will be underpinned by robust gender, disability and social inclusion analyses, including in relation to GBV.

The International Gender Equality Strategy reinforces the commitment to tackling all forms of GBV, including through increased investment in prevention and response services in the Indo-Pacific and in crisis and conflict settings. The strategy commits to increasing support to Pacific crisis centres responding to GBV through a new initiative, Pacific Strong: Amplifying Action to End Violence against Women and Girls (PAVE). PAVE is a five-year, AUD 25 million (2026-2031) multi-country initiative to improve access, quality, and reach of VAWG response services, providing long-term support for the safety and wellbeing of survivors of violence in the Pacific.

The Government works with partners across Asia and the Pacific to support regional and bilateral programs focused on essential services for survivors, including access to justice, violence prevention, assistance to local women's organisations and evidence-building. Australia supports bilateral programs in 17 countries in the Indo-Pacific region.

For example, in the Indo Pacific the Government:

In the Pacific, DFAT supports GBV prevention and survivor services, primarily through Pacific Women Lead and bilateral gender programming. Pacific Women Lead is a five-year (AU$170 million, 2021-26) investment designed to advance the safety of Pacific women and girls, in all their diversity, and their equitable sharing of resources, opportunities and decision-making with men and boys. One of the intended outcomes of Pacific Women Lead is a reduction in violence against women and children, along with improved access to quality, comprehensive support services for survivors of GBV, including in times of disasters. Australia funds GBV services in Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

Through Pacific Women Lead, Australia funds prevention mechanisms. For example, the Fiji Women's Crisis Centre provides education and advocacy on gender equality and prevention of violence, and The Pacific Community coordinates the Regional Working Group on Domestic Violence Legislation that facilitates exchanges on good practices. Additionally, Australia supports education, leadership and economic empowerment of women and girls through programs such as Balance of Power, Pacific Girl and Markets for Change. Empowering women and girls and tackling discriminatory gender norms are effective ways to reduce, and eliminate, GBV.

The Attorney-General's Department works closely with the PNG Department of Justice and Attorney-General (DJAG) to address a range of law and justice priorities, including family and sexual violence, and sorcery accusation-related violence. Through the DFAT funded PNG Institutional Partnership Program, the Attorney-General's Department has assisted in law reform efforts to address family and sexual violence, and delivered, alongside DJAG and other DFAT-funded programs, training to village court officials on the Family Protection Act and the use of Protection Orders in cases of domestic violence. The Attorney-General's Department has also worked closely with DJAG to assist in the development of a sorcery National Action Plan to combat instances of sorcery accusation-related violence.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade investigate and implement strategies to assist in the improvement of legal frameworks and support services in the Indo-Pacific regarding GBV.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to responding to, addressing and preventing GBV in all its forms. Australia's International Development Policy highlights this commitment for a stronger, more secure and more inclusive Indo-Pacific. The International Gender Equality Strategy reinforce this commitment.

The Government works with partners across Asia and the Pacific to support regional and bilateral programs focused on essential services for survivors, including access to justice, violence prevention, assistance to local women's organisations and evidence-building. DFAT respects Pacific Island governments' rights to determine their own legal frameworks.

Through the Pacific Partnership to End Violence Against Women, Australia is supporting women's machineries in Kiribati, Tonga and the Solomon Islands develop comprehensive national prevention frameworks.

Bilateral investments such as PNG Women Lead (AU$55.2 million, 2021-28) and Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls in the Solomon Islands (AUD5.3 million, 2024-27) strengthen the operation and implementation of existing domestic legal frameworks. PNG Women Lead provides training to police and law enforcement agencies to strengthen knowledge around recognising, responding to and handling GBV matters. Under the Responding to Violence Against Women and Girls programs in the Solomon Islands, the International Women's Development Agency works with crisis centres to strengthen reporting quality in-line with SAFENET, a network of government and non-government organizations to strengthen referral and coordination of SGBV services in the Solomon Islands

As part of Pacific Women Lead, DFAT supports The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to implement the Progressing Gender Equality in the Pacific program (PGEP). PGEP addresses the priorities identified in the 2023 Pacific Leaders' Gender Equality Declaration and the 2017 Pacific Platform for Action for Gender Equality and Women's Human Rights to support Pacific Island governments to adopt policies and legislation that support gender equality and women's and girls' human rights.

Australia, through its development partnership with Indonesia, contributed to the development of legal and policy reforms to address and prevent GBV in Indonesia. Australia continues to support the Indonesian government and civil society organisations to implement the reforms, including work to improve access to justice and essential support services for GBV victim-survivors.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends the Australian Government:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

Protecting Australians from harm is of the utmost importance to the Australian Government. Under Australia's federal system of government, the Commonwealth, states and territories have different areas of responsibility. States and territories are generally responsible for crimes against the person including acid attacks which may already constitute an offence such as serious assaults, grievous bodily harm, torture, attempted murder and homicide offences.

The Commonwealth regularly engages with states and territories on criminal justice issues through fora such as the Standing Council of Attorney's-General and the Police Minister Council.

The Commonwealth will continue working with states and territories to ensure acid attacks are sufficiently encapsulated as a form of criminal offending in legislation.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the Australian Government develop and implement strategies to counteract orphanage trafficking and tourism, including:

Response:

The Government agrees in part to this recommendation.

The Australian Government remains strongly committed to addressing all forms of modern slavery, including by working with multilateral partners to eliminate orphanage trafficking and related practices of orphanage tourism.

At the 52nd Session of the Human Rights Council (8 March 2023), the Government delivered a national statement during the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Sale and Sexual Exploitation of Children to reiterate the Government's commitment to keep all children safe from exploitation.

The Government will continue to engage with the work of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale and Sexual Exploitation of Children; the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery; and the Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children—including through Australia's Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking.

Australia also regularly engages with governments and multilateral partners on issues relating to modern slavery and human trafficking, including through forums such as Alliance 8.7, in which Australia is currently a governing member. Through DFAT, the Government also participates in global forums to share volunteering good practice on issues such as child protection and 'voluntourism'. Through the Australian Volunteers Program, the Government will continue to work with partners to draw on the program's extensive guidance material concerning safe child volunteering practices.

DFAT will also continue to use Smartraveller communications to highlight to travellers the risks associated with volunteering at orphanages and existing messaging that the Government discourages short term unskilled volunteering in orphanages.

The Government does not consider it is necessary to enact a specific offence to criminalise orphanage trafficking. Australia's offences for slavery, slavery-like practices and trafficking in persons in Division 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code (Cth) capture exploitation or intended exploitation in any industry or setting, including institutional settings such as orphanages. The offences apply to a broad range of criminal actors. All offences in Divisions 270 and 271, other than the domestic trafficking offences, apply to the overseas conduct of Australian citizens, residents and bodies corporate.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends the Australian Government develop legislation addressed at the rights of the victims of child sexual abuse material, including:

Response:

The Government agrees in part to this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to preventing and responding to child sexual abuse in all settings and supporting victims and survivors. Every child and young person has the right to be safe from child sexual abuse, and it is our collective responsibility to protect them.

There are existing legislative and administrative pathways that enable a victim and survivor of child abuse material to seek compensation or reparations or restitution. For example, section 21B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) gives a court discretionary power to order an offender to make reparations to any person who suffers loss or expense 'by reason of' the offence as part of the sentencing proceeding.1 Similar reparations or restitution provisions exist under state and territory legislation. State and territory victims of crime compensation schemes may also be available to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse material offences.

Following the Super for Survivors campaign, the Australian Government has committed to closing a loophole which allows child sexual abuse offenders to deny victims and survivors compensation through shielding assets in the superannuation system. The Government will legislate to allow victims and survivors of child sexual abuse offenders to seek a court order to access personal and voluntary superannuation contributions made by convicted offenders to pay court ordered compensation which remains outstanding for 12 months or more.

The Government will also legislate to allow compensation orders for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse to survive an offender's bankruptcy. This will prevent offenders from being able to avoid compensating victims and survivors by becoming bankrupt.

Under measure 10 of the First Commonwealth Action Plan of the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021-2030, the Attorney-General's Department is conducting a scoping study on the availability of civil remedies for victims of Commonwealth child sexual abuse offences. The findings are expected to inform the National Strategy's Second Action Plan.

The Government notes the recommendation for 'victim access to a perpetrator notification system from law enforcement agencies'. Further consideration is required of the international evidence base around such notification systems and how such a scheme could apply in the Australian context. This includes ensuring that any future perpetrator notification system would achieve the objective of supporting victims and survivors of child sexual abuse material.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends the Australian Government continue to use international forums, including bilateral platforms and interparliamentary networks, to emphasise the need to strengthen laws and protections regarding the human rights of women and children in conflict and crisis situations. This should include an emphasis on developing and strengthening responses to issues such as sexual and gender-based violence, children in exploitative environments and industries, and modern slavery.

Response:

The Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Australian Government recognises that conflict and crisis situations heighten the risks of modern slavery, especially for women and children who remain disproportionately affected by these crimes. Australia engages with partners in our region and globally to build awareness and help countries to strengthen their responses to these inhumane crimes and their drivers.

Across its multilateral and bilateral engagement, DFAT, along with other Commonwealth departments, will continue to employ every strategy and diplomatic tool at its disposal to uphold global human rights laws and norms, as they relate to the rights of women and children, consistent with Australia's values and interests. The Government will continue to advocate and negotiate in international fora to uphold and strengthen legal and normative commitments to respect, protect and fulfill the human rights of women and of children in all contexts, including in conflict and crisis situations. This includes addressing issues of SGBV, exploitation and modern slavery. Australia is supporting the establishment of a global Gender Justice Practitioner Hub which will support practitioners involved in securing gender justice for victims and survivors of international crimes.

The Attorney-General's Department leads Australia's support to the Pacific Islands Law Officers' Network (PILON), a regional network of senior Pacific law and justice officials. Combatting SGBV by strengthening justice system responses and ensuring access to justice for women and girls is a strategic priority for PILON. The SGBV Working Group has representation from 17 Pacific Island countries and territories. It has developed best practice, including model provisions and explanatory text, for supporting vulnerable witnesses in cases involving SGBV and on the use of victim impact statements. In November 2023, PILON published Regional Guidelines for Prosecutors and Witnesses Support Officers to support Vulnerable Witnesses through the Prosecution of SGBV Offences. These Guidelines, which are being rolled out in several countries in the Pacific, aim to expedite SGBV prosecutions, reduce re-traumatisation to vulnerable witnesses, ensure courts hear the best evidence and improve public confidence in reporting SGBV offences.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) ensure that all activities concerning humanitarian, crisis or disaster responses involving

DFAT-funded or - supported entities be:

Response:

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to supporting gender-responsive, socially-inclusive and locally led humanitarian action. DFAT’s contracts and grant agreements stipulate that all recipients must comply with DFAT policies on gender equality, child protection and preventing sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment. For DFAT procurements, tenderers must demonstrate how they will deliver on Australian international development priorities, including gender equality, Indigenous participation, disability, social inclusion, and localisation in delivering the services.

Australia is committed to increasing local engagement; and there are existing and sufficient controls in place to not require a new process for a statement on local engagement from partners. Australia’s International Development Performance and Delivery Framework measures outcomes and impact of humanitarian and crisis response efforts, including through a three-tier indicator framework, annual investment performance processes, annual reporting and independent evaluations.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade allocate a specific portion of Official Development Assistance funding to projects relating to data collection on issues affecting women and children.

Response:

The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.

DFAT already provides Official Development Assistance funding to projects relating to data collection, as part of broader programming in response to partner requests.

DFAT works with national governments and other development partners to strengthen the disaggregation of data, including by gender, disability and other social inclusion markers and to strengthen the integration of gender analyses within and across development initiatives, including support for disability-disaggregated data and the disaggregation of disability data by sex and gender, to ensure gender-responsive approaches to disability.

Australia provides various regional and country level initiatives that contribute to data for gender equality and related areas, such as the inclusion of people marginalised by disability and social protection. This includes direct support to the SPC, which manages the Pacific Statistical Support Program and oversees implementation of the Pacific Roadmap for Gender Statistics.

Since 2014, the Government has supported partners with the production and utilisation of data to enable national level policy and program development for gender equality. This includes support for UN Women's flagship gender data program Women Count to close data gaps on priority gender equality issues in the Indo-Pacific region, including on the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender equality and the human rights women and girls. Australia also funds UNFPA kNOwVAWdata initiative which supports countries in Asia and the Pacific to undertake international best-practice violence prevalence surveys, covering intimate partner and non-partner violence. The Equality Insights program, supported by DFAT since 2014 (including its original development as the Independent Deprivation Measure), is a unique tool for assessing poverty at the individual level, across multiple dimensions. Australian Government support has evolved alongside the development and maturation of the tool, with recent work focused on its application in Tonga and the Solomon Islands.

Australia has also provided funding to UNICEF since 2014 for projects aimed at fostering the availability and quality of data on children with disabilities, at a global level. This partnership resulted in the development of tools, including the Child Functioning Module, the Teacher Version of the Child Functioning Module and the Inclusive Education Module. Technical assistance was provided to over 60 countries on implementing the Child Functioning Module increasing the quantity of quality data on children with disabilities. The information gap on children with disabilities was addressed through analysis and reports like UNICEF’s Seen, Counted, Included: Using data to shed light on the well-being of children with disabilities (2021). Quality data are key to eliminating discrimination against women and children on the basis of disability.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government develop an International Children's Development Strategy which outlines:

Response:

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to work in a range of ways to support the needs of young people in partner countries, including upholding the rights of women and children internationally, and building on existing connections through education, religious and cultural institutions, and youth organisations. This is reflected in existing strategies and policies.

Australia's International Development Policy acknowledges that there are significant demographic shifts occurring across the region, bringing unique challenges and opportunities in different countries, particularly for women, youth and children, such as access to quality education and health services, and creating sufficient and decent jobs.

Australia assumes its responsibilities for safeguarding and promoting the rights of children in local and regional settings, including by ensuring robust child protection requirements under the international development program, which also includes reference to international conventions and Australian domestic legislation.

Australia’s International Development Performance and Delivery Framework includes a specific education indicator for children, tracking the proportion of children and young people achieving at least minimum proficiency in reading and mathematics, with Australian support.

Crimes Act 1914

_____

Australian Government response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report:

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

October 2025

Committee Majority Report

Recommendation

1. The committee recommends that the Minister considers community impacts when designating a country as a removal concern country.

The Government agreed with these Recommendations.

At the time of the inquiry, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee did not have the benefit of the Minister's response to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. While already public, relevant information from that correspondence has been further included in this response, for the benefit of the Committee.

In respect to Recommendation 1, the Minister will take into account impacts on the Australian community when designating a country as a removal concern country. In practice, the Bill (now Act) requires the Minister to consult the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs before designating a country. As noted in paragraph 71 in the Bill's explanatory memorandum, this condition on the exercise of the Minister's power under subsection 199F(1) ensures that the Minister's consideration of the national interest is appropriately informed by the national and international implications of the exercise of the power and its effect, including under proposed section 199G (the bar on visa applications by nationals of a removal concern country). The Minister would take into account impacts on the Australian community prior to making such a designation.

Community impacts may also be considered as an element of the national interest, along with the risks associated with the designation. In practice, this would occur under paragraph 199F(6)(b) as inserted by the Bill (now Act), which requires the Minister to outline the reasons for thinking it is in the national interest to designate a country, before each House of the Parliament.

2. The committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill

Dissenting Report by Coalition Senators

1. Proposed subsection 199B(1) be amended to reflect the Government's stated intention that the cohort of 'removal pathway non-citizens' be only those individuals who have neither legal proceedings (relevant to their migration status) on foot, nor any pending ministerial intervention requests. Alternatively, consideration could be given to amending section 199D(2) to expand the circumstances in which a removal pathway direction cannot be given to include circumstances where judicial review proceedings are still on foot or there is an outstanding application for Ministerial intervention.

The Government agreed with Recommendations 2, 3, 8, 11 and 16

In response to recommendations 2, 3 and 16 the proposed changes were dealt with by the Government through the Migration Amendment Bill 2024. That Bill provided a definition of removal pathway non-citizen to be inserted into subsection 5(1) of the Migration Act 1958.

In response to Recommendation 8 the Government moved-amendments in the Senate to theMigration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (now Act) through sheet no SV105 on 28 November 2024.

In response to Recommendation 11 the Government moved amendments in the Senate through sheet no SV105 on 28 November 2024 to provide that unless the Minister revokes a designation earlier, that the designation will sunset after three years.

All other recommendations from the dissenting reports by Coalition Senators, the Australian Greens, and Senator David Pocock were noted and not adopted.

2. Subsection 199B(1)(d) be amended to clarify that the power only applies to additional visas issued for non-citizens to maintain lawful status in the community while making arrangements to depart or be removed from Australia.

3. Subsection 199B(1)(d) should be amended to specifically refer to prescription by regulation under section 504 of the Migration Act 1958 to remove any doubt that the exercise of the power will be by way of delegated legislation subject to disallowance.

4. The Bill be amended to insert a requirement after section 199D(5) that, prior to giving a removal pathway direction in relation to any child, the Minister must conduct an assessment of whether the direction is in the best interests of the child, as one of the factors to be considered by the Minister prior to making a removal pathway direction.

5. Consideration be given to amending the Bill to provide for the additional safeguards proposed by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in relation to the Minister's power to give removal pathway directions; namely: (a) providing a minimum time for compliance which would allow a person to take steps to comply and seek legal advice; and (b) better delimitation of the directions that may be given by the Minister.

6. The imposition of mandatory minimum criminal penalties elevates the need for additional safeguards to be inserted into the Bill through amendment (including through the amendments proposed in recommendations 1 to 5 of this report). Proposed amendments to the Bill should be considered in this context.

7. Within seven days of the end of each month, the Minister should be required to provide a statement to be tabled in Parliament in relation to each removal pathway direction which is given by the Minister during the month with the detail proposed by the Coalition in its amendments to the Bill moved in the House of Representatives.

8. The power to declare a country as a removal concern country be redrafted to require the Minister to consider a set of factors which must be considered prior to making a designation (e.g. those factors required to be included under the analogous UK legislation), including the potential impact on Australian diaspora communities of making such a declaration.

9. The Minister and/or the PJCIS be required to review the decision to declare a country as a removal concern country on a regular basis and be required to table in both House of Parliament the reasons why continued designation of a country as a removal concern country is justified.

10. The reasons for a declaration of a country as a removal concern country not being subject to disallowance should be clearly explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. If a declaration is not subject to disallowance that elevates the need for further details to be provided in the Bill with respect to the circumstances in which a declaration would be made (refer to Recommendation 9).

11. Any declaration of a country as a removal concern country should be subject to sunsetting after three years.

12. That the exemptions under section 199G(2) from the prohibition on applying for visas should be expanded to include: parents of independent children, grandparents, siblings and dependent persons (to take into account non-western kinship systems as suggested by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights).

13. That Government should:

14. The Government should restore the Operation Sovereign Borders framework in full by: (a) reinstating temporary protection visas; (b) reversing the budget cuts to border protection; and (c) restoring maritime patrols and aerial surveillance levels to at least the levels in 2020-21.

15. A statutory review should be undertaken with respect to the exercise of the powers under the Bill after five years of operation. The review should be open to public submissions.

16. It is recommended that a note to drafting be added to proposed section 199B to clarify the Department's intention not to capture other holders of Subclass 050 (Bridging) General Visas.

17. Given the nature of the powers granted to the Minister under the Bill, it is recommended that the Bill be amended as detailed in this report to provide additional safeguards.

Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens

1. This Bill should be rejected in full.

Dissenting Report by Senator David Pocock

1. That the Senate does not pass the Bill

2. That the Government gives access to an expedited re-application process to everyone who has been subjected to the 'Fast Track system', including access to merits review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the proposed future Administrative Review Tribunal.

3. That all future refugee status determinations are conducted in a fast, robust and fair manner with access to both merits and judicial review, and that applicants are not subjected to protracted processing times that contribute to barriers to their removal should they be found not to be owed protection.

4. That the Bill is amended to ensure that, if an applicant has not been eligible for review by the Administrative Review Tribunal or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (for example, if they are a Fast Track applicant or a transitory person), they may not be given a removal pathway direction

5. Should the Senate choose not to follow these primary recommendations, and passes the Bill, I make the following recommendations:

That the Bill is amended to ensure that where a person's matter is subject to judicial review or where they have a pending request for ministerial intervention due to compelling and compassionate circumstances, they may not be given a removal pathway direction

6. That the Bill is amended to ensure that the immediate family of Australian citizens, permanent residents and stateless persons cannot be given a removal pathway direction

7. That the Bill is amended to delete proposed paragraphs 199B(1)(c) and 199B(1)(d), to remove Bridging Visa E holders and the holders of additional classes of visas that may be prescribed in the future from the meaning of removal pathway non-citizen

8. That the Bill is amended to remove the proposed subsection 199E(2) relating to a 12-months mandatory minimum sentence

9. That the Bill is amended to remove the proposed subsection 199E(4), including paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), relating to exceptions to what is considered a 'reasonable excuse'.

10. That the Bill is amended to remove items 3-9 in Schedule 2, relating to the power to revisit protection claims.

11. That the Bill is amended to ensure that proposed section 199G 'Visa applications by certain nationals of a removal concern country' may only be applied to government officials of a removal concern country and their immediate family members

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report:

Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

NOVEMBER 2025

Recommendations made in the Comprehensive Revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

Committee Chair's Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

The Chair recommends that the Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Act 1979 be amended to include an objects clause modelled on Article 17 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights and the privacy principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988.

Response: