If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the need for the Albanese Labor government to provide urgent relief to Australians facing surging fuel prices, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the need for the Albanese Labor government to provide urgent relief to Australians facing surging fuel prices.

Quite frankly, I don't know how much more urgent it can actually get before the Albanese government sits up, takes notice, admits to the Australian people that we are in the middle of a fuel crisis of their own making and, more than that, acknowledges what Australians are now experiencing on a daily basis. They are pulling up at the bowser, and guess what? If they can get fuel, they are now paying exorbitant prices in excess of $3 a litre. Many are pulling up at the bowser, only to find that the servo has actually run out of fuel. You've got small businesses saying, 'We can't open our doors because of the fuel cost.' You've also got the restaurant industry now saying to its own restaurants, 'You need to impose a five per cent levy on your customers so that you can keep your doors open.' You've got the Easter break coming up, and what do we have? Caravan park after caravan park after holiday park saying, 'We have had cancellation after cancellation.' Guess what? Once you lose those bookings, you do not get them back.

What does the Albanese government do? It continues to say: 'We're having a meeting. We know that Australians are feeling pain, yes, but I have to say,' to quote Senator Ayres, 'it's nothing more than right-wing extremist scaremongering.' Say that to the Australian who is literally now having to make the decision and say: 'Do I go to work today? No, I can't. Not because I don't want to, but because I can't afford the fuel.' Say that to the small business who has to say: 'You know we're going to lay off staff today. Do you know why? Because my overheads have now increased.' What about what the waste management industry across Australia said? They made it very, very clear to the Albanese government: 'Guess what! We're actually important. If the bins don't get emptied, do you know what happens within 48 hours across the aged-care industry and our healthcare industry? Disease runs rampant.' They actually said, 'This is potentially catastrophic.' Do you know what we called on the Albanese government to do last week on behalf of the waste management industry? We asked for them to be placed immediately on the fuel priority list. Guess what? Crickets, yet again. But the good news is that the Albanese government is having a meeting!

This is a suspension motion. There is a reason that we have moved this motion this morning. It's because this motion should take precedence over all other government business. Why? Because we are in the middle of a fuel crisis. For five weeks now, the Albanese government has had its head in the sand. They have failed to recognise what Australians see when they go to that bowser. Australians look at the price and wonder, 'Can I even afford to fill up, given that the next place I'm going to is the shop and my groceries are now more expensive?' I don't think that the Albanese government understands. The crisis itself is now threatening fuel security, and do you know what happens when fuel security in Australia is threatened? The consequences spread quickly.

This is a government that hasn't just been on the back foot since day one; it has actively had its head in the sand. It's not just the motorists who feel it. It's not just the freight operators. It's the essential services. Rubbish collection is actually important. In particular, you have the health industry and the aged-care industry saying: 'If our rubbish is not collected, this is catastrophic. It takes about 48 hours for germs, disease et cetera to spread through our industry.' That affects people's health. What about the NDIS operators at the moment? They are saying: 'I don't have the money to fuel my car. Do you know what happens if I don't have the money to fuel my car? I cannot go to work.' And do you know what not going to work means? It means that the NDIS recipient, the patient, is not getting the level of care that they need.

We have said to the Prime Minister, 'We will work with you as the opposition.' Bring in the legislation today. In fact, you can do it as soon as we suspend the standing orders. You can axe the fuel tax and give motorists, mum-and-dad Australia but also businesses the relief they need now at the bowser. But more than that, you keep on telling us, 'The supply is in Australia.' Get the fuel moving to where it needs to be. Axe the tax. Move the fuel.

The government won't be supporting the suspension of standing orders, and I acknowledge the wide-ranging contribution on the topic more broadly.

I completely reject the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate's assertion around the government and the government's response. We have been continuously responding to the situation as it unfolds as a consequence of a conflict in the Middle East and the impact that that's having both here on fuel prices at home and in putting pressure on industries, including farmers and small business. The government has responded and will continue to respond. The criticism of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate around a meeting of National Cabinet—it is appropriate that the National Cabinet meet today. It is an important meeting, bringing together the states and territories and the Prime Minister to discuss fuel supply and distribution, as it impacts every community around Australia.

Since the conflict has started, the government has convened National Cabinet today but also previously. We've passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies for false or misleading conduct and cartel behaviour. We've begun the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves. We've changed petrol standards to get more fuel flowing. We've changed diesel standards so Australia's refineries can supply more diesel. We've appointed a national Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator. We've tasked the ACCC with ramping up fuel price monitoring and issuing on-the-spot fines. We've made it easier for Australia's refineries to access government funding when they run at a loss.

We've engaged with international partners to keep supply flowing. We've engaged with the states and territories on supply and distribution, including holding a special energy ministers meeting; activated the National Coordination Mechanism, which has met twice; and unlocked funding for financial counselling for impacted farmers. We also, as senators would know, will introduce new legislation today to give the government new trading powers to ensure the continued supply of fuel in Australia. And there is legislation on the program today—which we should be at now, had it not been for this suspension—on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. In addition to that, and in consultation with the opposition, there is a bill on increasing the advance to the finance minister.

In short, we have done all of that, responding to the unfolding situation. We understand how hard this is on motorists, on business and on various industries that are directly affected by the outcomes of the conflict in the Middle East, and this government will continue to respond. This is an orderly government that works through what the right response is. We take advice and we make decisions, and we will continue to do that. The list of decisions and outcomes that I just took the Senate through clearly indicate how much work has been done. But that work continues as the situation unfolds, in similar circumstances to what those opposite did when they were in government when the pandemic hit. It was a matter of taking decisions that responded to the circumstances at the time. Those decisions were not all done in a finite period of time.

We have taken a number of decisions to shore up supply and make sure that supply is getting to Australia. That is critical. That is the priority of the government, and it will continue to be. How that gets distributed to make sure it's getting to those places where we've seen disruption in the last few weeks is also a priority. And we understand cost is an issue. I mean, anyone who fills their car up is feeling this, and the government understands that. We need to work with the states and territories on their response to this. The Commonwealth stands ready to work with them. This is having a serious economic impact on individual households and on businesses, and this government stands with them to make sure we are doing everything we can.

Ministers are working in their portfolios to make sure they are responding appropriately—meeting with stakeholders, which they are doing constantly, including over the weekend and at night. This is an unfolding situation—

Well, you can scoff. We are working hard to ensure that our response is appropriate and fits the circumstances of the time. (Time expired)

It gives me great pleasure, as the shadow transport minister and also as the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, to support Senator Cash's call that this chamber be suspended and that the government give fuel relief to Australians right now. We do not need to have legislation. The minister, with the stroke of a pen, could cut the fuel excise right now and make changes to the road user charge so that our trucking industry could get the relief they are desperately seeking. Whilst the government stands up and talks a big empathetic game—the language: so empathetic; you'd think butter wouldn't melt in their mouth—we are heading into the fifth week of this crisis. And only now are we seeing a plan for a meeting today to come up with a plan on how to actually help our nation get through this crisis.

We are at the end of the global supply chain, so at the start of crises you do not feel the impact. But, as the war drags on, it is our communities that are impacted. We are the most heavily reliant country in the world when it comes to diesel. It's not just our agricultural industry, as Senator McDonald knows; it is our miners—the industries that pay the bills, that pay for Medicare, that pay for politicians, that pay for our roads. Mining and agriculture rely on diesel supplies. And this government is wringing its hands. In the first week of the crisis, what did they do? They blamed Australians: 'Stop getting concerned. We've got it under control'—we've got no plan but we've got it under control. In the second week of the crisis: 'It's the states. What are the states doing?'

Every single day, this government has the powers available to it to make sure the limited supply of fuel that we have gets to where it's needed. Yet Minister Bowen is afraid to use the powers this parliament has given him. We see them, time and time again, coming in here, wringing hands, attacking everyone else and refusing to take responsibility for the great privilege of being the government of this great country, which also comes with great responsibility—and you'd better use it when the crisis comes. You're not always going to get it right, but the very worst thing you can do is do nothing. You have to admit that your own policies have meant we're weaker going into this crisis. Businesses have been going offshore. Meanwhile, you've nailed them on industrial relations and you've nailed them on environmental approvals, so—

Energy.

Energy policy—you've kept clinging to net zero like a life raft for your EU trade agreement. Well, how is that going to help us when we have no sovereignty over our own fuel? We need to be looking at the business going offshore and why we haven't been getting new oil and gas projects up and running and ensuring that our country is better prepared.

You heard the minister then talk about the ACCC powers: 'They can hand out higher bills.' The government did not change the ACCC's powers to actually make sure they can examine and investigate price gouging by big international oil companies, who are holding regional Australia and our agricultural industry, particularly, to ransom during this crisis. And, yes, we need families to have relief at the bowser right now, and that's something that should have already happened. And our trucking industry is desperate. This is what they've actually asked for. What are you giving them? You're allowing the TWU into the contractual arrangements for the trucking industry, but that's okay.

My inbox, like everyone's here, has been absolutely flooded with local businesses seeking relief. We've got a transport operator, a third-generation transport business—the viability of their business is threatened with the rapid increase of fuel prices and an immediate cash flow crisis. That's why the transport industry has also been asking the government about GST relief and about actually giving them what we gave them during COVID: six months of relief from lending arrangements with banking and other creditors.

It's a cash flow crisis. Truckies are parking their trucks and not filling them up, because they can't afford to. Declaring this the emergency that it is, instigating disaster-relief packages for our industries—that's exactly what the industry has been calling for. And, once again, this government has done nothing.

():

The hypocrisy in this place reeks—the hypocrisy from that side of politics, that side of the chamber, which has backed this bloody war, this illegal war of Donald Trump's, since day one and is now saying it's actually causing pain to Australians. Well, of course it is! That's what was always going to happen, but you went in blindly, you backed America, you backed your mate Trump, and now Australians are paying the price. Of course, the Labor Party did exactly the same thing. Both sides here, the major-party cartel, backed Donald Trump, and now the pain is really being felt. It doesn't sound like such a good idea now, does it? But, of course, the major cheer squad of Mr Donald Trump is One Nation, and I assume we're about to hear the Leader of One Nation, Pauline Hanson, stand up and wring her hands and give her crocodile tears, meanwhile backing the major supporter of this rubbish, of this pain, of this suffering, of this economic crisis—and that is Donald Trump. There's no bigger cheerleader for Donald Trump in this country than Pauline Hanson and One Nation.

Meanwhile, Australians are copping it really hard, and it's going to get worse, because Donald Trump's war is in no way looking like it's going to end. The government has no plan and the opposition has no plan. They just want to complain. While they're complaining, they want to make it harder for people to actually do the things that are cheaper—get into electric vehicles. The opposition doesn't want anyone buying or driving EVs. The culture war is in overdrive. The hypocrisy is rank.

But let's just take one moment to reflect on what really is happening. There are cracks emerging in the major party cartel. We have Mr Hastie, who's the only person from the coalition who's starting to question whether this war was a good idea at all. He doesn't really like Donald Trump, so he says. So what is it that the opposition actually stands for? On one hand, they're in there, backing the war, backing Donald Trump and backing the pain that Australians are feeling. They're not doing anything about it, just whingeing and whining, while privately clapping their mate Donald Trump back home in America, yet they now have some cracks emerging, because there are some people who are saying that this war should never have been started, this war should never have been backed by Australia and Donald Trump is leading the whole world down a path of ruin.

The question I have to the coalition is: what's your policy? Do you back the war or don't you? For four weeks, you've backed this war that has pushed prices up and is making life hard now for Australians. It's about time you were honest with the Australian people about this. Of course, the only reason we're starting to see cracks emerging within the major party cartel and comments from people like Mr Hastie from the other place is because Australians are saying: 'We don't want anything to do with this war. It's not our war. We don't want anything to do with it. We shouldn't be chasing the US. We shouldn't have our troops over there. We shouldn't be sending our warplanes and we certainly shouldn't be paying the price.' Australians don't want this war. They don't support Donald Trump. And now the major parties have got themselves wedged into some pretty difficult corners.

So what do we do about it? Well, today National Cabinet meets. If the Prime Minister can't deliver free public transport across the country, the meeting's a failure in my opinion. If the government can't deliver proper support for people right now, then it's going to be a failure. We need to be making sure that people can get to work and get to school, and that we free up fuel for the regions. That's what needs to happen, and the Prime Minister needs to at least lead on that.

And, of course, we should be putting a tax on the big gas corporations, who are making massive profits out of this bloody war, pushing up Australians' energy prices. Australians are going to be paying more for power and more for gas because the gas cartel, the big gas companies, are banking big profits while this war continues to erupt. We need to tax them. This week, here in this chamber, we have the power to do it if there's the will.

Actually I do support this motion because we need to bring to bear what is happening to the Australian public with this. What a load of dribble has just come out of the Greens' mouth explaining that we're all for war.

It's your mate, Trump, Pauline!

The fact is that no-one in this chamber has said, 'We're going to go to war. We wanted to go to war'—never have done.

You've backed it since day one. He's your mate.

Senator Hanson, resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, please.

We've been hit with this situation now. I, and no other member of this chamber, want to see any Australian troops on foreign soil, fighting. We've seen enough of wars. But we've been dealt the situation and now we have to deal with it. The biggest problem coming out of this, I see, is how exposed we are and that we cannot provide for ourselves in this nation. This has all come about due to climate change, have no doubt about it. The legislation and laws that have been put into this place—led by the Greens, led by the Labor Party and started under the coalition many years ago—is why we're in this situation.

You're worrying now about what's happening over there. Do you know what? I stand by the Iranian people that have been given their freedom from 47 years under a regime. And you come in here—and you think the Greens are saying they want to fight and stand up for women? What about the women there who are controlled and imprisoned, flogged—

Order! Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young, on a point of order?

A point of order. I'd like Senator Hanson to explain why she wanted all of those Iranian women locked up in immigration detention for years. For years that's all she stood for. She just wants them locked up—

Senator Hanson-Young, resume your seat!

We're not on broadcast.

I don't care about broadcast.

Senator Hanson-Young, please cease interjecting.

Senator Hanson-Young, that is clearly a debating point. You know that.

Thank you. I sat and listened to Senator Hanson-Young's speech and her criticisms without interjecting. Now, I'm pointing out the facts here.

I ran into and was contacted by the Iranian people, by some of their—I won't say departments. They said, 'Thank you for standing up for us.' We don't want this war, but people are under dictatorship, and, if we leave it up to the Greens, we'll be under Marxism. That's what it is. That's what would come into this country. I can assure the people in the gallery that I don't want to see war. I don't want to see our people over there fighting. But we've been dealt this hand and we have to deal with it the best we can.

The situation is this. Over the weekend, I went out to the farming sector, and they are really on their knees. They are providing the food to the rest of the country, and they're saying: 'Pauline, we can't get the fuel. It's so expensive for us.' Not only that—guess what? They can't even get the fertiliser. If we don't have the fuel, we don't have the fertiliser. They don't know whether they're going to put a crop in, whether they'll actually be able to harvest that crop. They don't know the cost to them that's going to be involved. If the farming sector goes down, the whole community goes down—money to that area. This is the situation we're in now.

All these safeguarding mechanisms, environmental protection agencies—we have the fuel; we have the resources in this nation. It has been shut down by this Labor Party, backed totally by the Greens all the time to shut it down. We don't have the resources. We've lost our industries and manufacturing. The government has given $1 billion to Snowy Hydro to pay for the electricity for Tomago to keep them operating. You're backing this all the time. Projects that you've brought in destroyed our industries and manufacturing. Because of your electricity, 47,000 small businesses have gone under.

And I'll tell the people now: you might think that this war that's happening now over in the Middle East with Iran—be prepared for what's going to happen, because China have said they are going to invade Taiwan. They want Taiwan next year. If you think this is the start of it, it's not. It's going to get worse than that, because a lot of our imports come from China. If you're talking about fuel and energy now—start going after our own fuel here in this nation. Be self-sufficient. Start up the industries and manufacturing. If China invades Taiwan, we're going to be in one hell of a mess. We import $300 billion worth of product from there. That is going to be worse. We will be on our knees.

I've been speaking against globalisation since 1996. We don't have vision for this country. You're shutting it down, and that's why the people are living in poverty in this nation. It is absolutely disgusting—what you have done.

And you're to blame for it; the Greens are to blame for it. You have not done what is in the best interests of this nation. (Time expired)

():  Well, the last 15 minutes have demonstrated why the Senate should not entertain this suspension. It has demonstrated the polarisation and the hyperpartisanship of the Liberals and Nationals and One Nation and, indeed, the Greens political party. That's what it demonstrates. And it falls to the Labor Party, as the government of Australia, to—in a careful and sensible and effective way, in an orderly way—set out the policy response to this emerging crisis in the Middle East. What this debate demonstrates is that there are no answers down there, there's less than no answers there and there are no answers from the Liberals and Nationals to this set of issues.

Of course military conflict in the Middle East, the decision of the government of Iran to effectively close the Strait of Hormuz, has impacts on Australian fuel, Australian fertiliser and a series of intermediate goods, including plastics. That is the case. The government has been carefully managing these questions but, of course, it has a series of impacts that will be felt today and over the course of the year in terms of the broader economy. That is the case.

What have we seen from the Liberals and Nationals? Well, we have seen hyperventilating and hyperpartisanship when what we should have seen is the approach of an alternative party of government. They wonder why they keep getting smaller—wringing their hands internally in each of their state branches, worrying their way through these issues when what they should do is act. What they should do, if they want to be a serious party of government, is not do student politics resolutions in here. They should act and move back towards the centre of Australian politics and engage with the real issues for Australians. They have not been able to bring themselves to do that because of their own internal sense of grievance, their own incapacity to deal with the marginal position that they are currently in in Australian politics. And they have not been able to do it because they are utterly disconnected from where ordinary people are in Australia, in the centre of Australian politics.

That's the problem for them—the tactical position that they adopt. I could at least respect a tactical position that had a hope of—even though it was partisan, even if it was not in the national interest. I could at least, as a base political character myself, understand why you would adopt a hyperpartisan position that was not in the national interest. I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't do it myself, but I could understand it. But the—

Senator Duniam, is this a point of order?

I'm seeking a bit of guidance here. The debate that we're currently in at the moment started at 10.01. I understand there are 30 minutes allocated for debate. It's now 10.31. I wondered how much longer—as eloquent and on point as this is—

One moment, please. Senator Duniam, I'm advised that the debate started at 10.02. As you know, I wasn't in the chair at that time. There have been a number of points of order taken; that is reflecting where the clock is at the moment. I can assure you that it looks like there's only one minute and 35 seconds to go. So—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senators! I've just joined the chair. I don't know what the temperature was like before, but I remind you to keep to order.

Well, it was very disruptive until I started making a contribution—

Senator Ayres, get to the debate.

I could at least understand a partisan position that offered some hope of partisan advantage, but what these characters are doing every day of the week is not in the interests of Australians. It should be a position in the national interest. It never is. And every day they advance it. Someone gets smaller, and someone gets bigger. They ought to bring themselves to understand that. But they can't understand it, because their sense of internal grievance, their extremism and their hyperpartisanship don't allow them to see the national interest.

The response of the government will be done in the way it has been done in the Australian interest the Australian way. We will be orderly. We will be effective. We will be systematic. We will continue to advance measures working with industry that mean that we offer real, practical assistance to Australian households, to Australian farmers, to Australian business and to Australian industry because we know what this set of challenges means for our national economic interest and our national industrial interest. What those opposite and One Nation and the Greens have demonstrated over the last 20 minutes is that they don't have a hope of understanding those questions.

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

This morning, according to reports, there are over 870 petrol stations across Australia that have run out of one or more types of petrol. The average price of diesel is now $3.20 per litre. The average price of unleaded is $2.80 per litre. Yet, when the coalition raised this crisis some weeks ago now, Labor ministers told this chamber that there was nothing to see here. In fact, Minister Ayres dismissed it as 'far-right extremist scaremongering'. I would say, on behalf of all Australians, it doesn't feel like scaremongering today. Today the government can't get their legislation passed fast enough.

Industry have been crying out for help for weeks, and they've proposed some very practical and sensible solutions. Is this legislation that the government have presented to us today part of that practical solution? Is it going to cut the taxes on fuel to give immediate relief? No, it's not going to do that. Is the legislation that the government is bringing for us today to reduce the road user charge paid by truckies? No, it's not going to do that. Is it going to give immediate relief to farmers who are paying record prices to run their farms and to deliver groceries to Australian? No, it's not doing that either. Let's be very clear on what this bill does and what this bill doesn't. It is a bill that simply removes the safeguards, all safeguards, on an industrial relations process—which is currently under review, I might add—and that has barely been used by the transport industry. This is urgent legislation!

The priorities of Labor in a crisis are clear for all to see. This is Labor. An industrial relations process that has not been used is urgent, but cutting the fuel excise isn't. Cutting the road user charge is not urgent. Getting the supply to the petrol bowsers is not urgent, but changing an industrial relations law that hasn't yet been used and that is currently under review is urgent. This meagre and this politicised offering for the transport sector is so urgent that it is only one item in a long list of assistance that has been called for, but it's simply not enough. It doesn't cut a tax that pushes up prices, it doesn't shift a single litre of fuel to a bowser that's run dry, it doesn't get fuel to farmers, it doesn't get fuel to manufacturers, it doesn't get fuel to fishers, it doesn't get fuel to manufacturers or to transport, and it doesn't help to keep the price of your groceries down by reducing pressure in the supply chain. It's entirely political, it's entirely pathetic, and it is what all Australians have come to expect from this Labor government.

As meagre as it is, it also speaks to the mindset of Labor, because it has entirely circumvented scrutiny. In bringing this bill on, Labor have trashed parliamentary scrutiny of a very complex industrial relations system, with the likely outcome being unintended consequences—of that there is no doubt. The bill was introduced to the parliament last Thursday. Minutes after the legislation was introduced, the government forced a vote on it in the House of Representatives, before members had even seen the bill. They hadn't even read it and they were forced to vote on it.

Disgraceful!

It is disgraceful. It is entirely disgraceful. It is taking advantage of an industry that is in crisis and is desperate for assistance. It's a shameful and cynical play by a government that has put politics over planning in the middle of a national emergency. This is their priority. Smirks and sneers don't save jobs and they don't keep companies running. At a time of crisis, the Labor government has nothing to offer Australians but low acts, when it should rise to the occasion.

This bill would amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to allow the minister to determine that a road transport contractual chain order application, which we will refer to as an RTCCO, is an emergency application. This means that a process that would normally take a number of months will be fast-tracked so that an application can be put on the top of the pile; it's pretty much that simple. An RTCCO, as currently available under the act, can set minimum standards to which road transport contractors, road transport employee-like workers and other persons would be entitled, and the bill would allow an expedited timeframe in the Fair Work Commission to consider an application.

This is the second measure that the government has come up with in the fuel crisis that will have immediate effect, and it still doesn't alleviate the pain that is being felt and faced by millions of commuters or solve the pain price faced by transport. It doesn't cut a tax. It won't reduce your petrol prices. It won't deliver a litre of fuel. At best, what it will do is shift costs up and down the supply chain, and someone at some point is going to have to pay. The coalition has called on the government to immediately halve the fuel and diesel excise for three months, with a corresponding reduction in the heavy vehicle road user charge. These measures would provide immediate relief. They would actually make a difference. But the trucking industry says that the excise alone is insufficient to mitigate the scale of current costs.

RTCCOs were provisions that were introduced by the government through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. The coalition opposed that bill at the time, but the measure has been in effect since February 2024. Under the current scheme, RTCCOs are made by the Fair Work Commission following an application from somebody within the supply chain, or their representatives. The RTCCOs set minimum standards to which road transport contractors, road transport employee-like workers and other persons would be entitled, and include things like rate reviews, cost recovery, fuel levies—a very important one—payment times and determinations. The Fair Work Commission would ordinarily need to provide a six- or 12-month consultation period—a consultation period that was specifically requested by the industry, I might add, during the closing loopholes bill consultation—before a decision is made on what an RTCCO would like look. Since the introduction of this measure, the Fair Work Commission has heard—wait for it—one application for an RTCCO. A decision hasn't even been made yet on that one application, but somehow this is an urgent issue that needs to be dealt with today, without appropriate scrutiny.

The coalition asks the questions: Why is this measure not temporary? If it is in fact an emergency measure, why has the government brought us legislation that will make permanent changes to the Fair Work Act? Why should the emergency power not be limited to the issue of fuel alone? Why is it expanding out to other things in those minimum standard orders, other than just fuel levies? The transport sector is clearly experiencing temporary but acute pressure as a result of the fuel crisis specifically. The sector has called for several measures, not just this, including powers to deal with fuel levies, excise rates and the road user charge. The coalition has announced and responded to those requests. This bill's measures have some support but hardly the level of other more immediate, tangible options that Labor could equally implement today. But this, an industrial relations measure, is the one that they've decided is the most important. This is the one that they've decided is urgent. This is the one that they've decided deserves no scrutiny by government.

Let's be really clear. We should acknowledge the fragility of the sector. The provisions that have been called on today are being called on by companies that are genuinely in distress. ASIC data has shown that more than 2,050 transport, postal and warehousing sector businesses have entered insolvency since May 2022, and it's currently at a rate of two businesses every single day going insolvent. Average insolvencies have been increasing year on year under the Albanese government. It was 16 per month in 2021-22. It was 29 per month in 2022-23. It was 41 per month in 2023-24. It was 61 per month in 2024-25, and it was 64 per month on average from January 2025 to January 26. Wow. This is how many businesses are going insolvent under Labor.

The bill before us today takes a very broad definition for the minister to determine the circumstances under which the powers can be used. The critical component of the definition relates to an event or a circumstance having: 'A significant national negative impact on the road transport industry'. This is entirely inconsistent with how other acts define emergencies for sectors where ministerial powers can be used. The coalition wants to understand and wants to ask the question of whether the ministerial powers should only be used if other determinations defining a national emergency are in place, and we'll be moving amendments to this effect.

It is also somewhat concerning that these powers do not have a sunset provision—a provision to enable an automatic review. In briefings, the government has outlined that, while this is a temporary crisis, having these provisions as a permanent feature of the act will mean that they do not need to be legislated for again at the next crisis. The coalition would ask why temporary measures are not more appropriate. They would allow the government to review the effectiveness of provisions and return to this parliament again at an appropriate time to fully consider their operations. We'll also be moving amendments to this effect, noting that we will not prevent this measure from providing the relief that it intends.

During industry consultations on the closing loopholes legislation, ensuring adequate processes for the transport sector consultation—including with what has become the Road Transport Advisory Group—was a key safeguard that was negotiated by peak trucking organisations. This bill expedites the consultation on RTCCO applications, which represents a lessening of the effectiveness of those safeguards. The coalition would ask why the government has not included a requirement for even minimal consultation when these powers are used. We will also be moving amendments to ensure that this occurs.

Finally, we are very concerned that the measures are not limited to just fuel. It would mean that the minister could use these powers to allow for commercial arrangements such as payment times, rate reviews, terminations and cost recovery mechanisms to be looked at also. That doesn't sound like an emergency to me. That sounds like a commercial contractual arrangement between two consenting entities, but we know that the government would love to get its hands on that. The minister has failed to identify why this is necessary in a fuel crisis. We'll be seeking to make amendments to restrict the use of these powers to matters related to fuel alone. If this is a response to a fuel crisis, let's not allow the minister to expand their remit to embrace and encompass other issues that would be convenient to a Labor government.

This bill has been introduced and brought on for debate outside the normal course despite there being plenty of time available for proper parliamentary and committee processes. There is no obvious reason why the parliament should be asked to truncate scrutiny on a permanent amendment to the Fair Work Act when ordinary mechanisms remain available and passage is still available this week. If the government believes their case is strong, they should be prepared to test that case through the usual processes and not shortcut it. This is particularly important where the bill expands ministerial powers and accelerates the Fair Work Commission processes.

Rushed debate reduces transparency. The parliament should not be asked to legislate first and ask questions later. The government says this responds to an acute fuel crisis, but there is still time available to allow those processes to occur. The government simply cannot claim both that it is a targeted response to a temporary situation and that the parliament has no time to examine the permanent change properly. It's not a short and temporary fix; this bill would make a permanent change to the Fair Work Act. If the stated problem is temporary, the parliament should ask for a temporary position. A sunset clause and an automatic review is not an unreasonable request. Permanent powers introduced and enforced in haste are rarely good law. The crossbench, we would ask, should not kid themselves. Without the processes we are paid to undertake by the taxpayer, we know there will be likely unintended consequences.

The opposition's amendments go some way to allowing this bill to pass while ensuring we provide ourselves with opportunities to review those measures later. We are conscious of the fact that there is broad support for some of the actions in this bill, and we will make sure this bill passes to ensure that those in the trucking industry do not suffer under positions of this government. However, there is more that needs to be done, more that can be done and more that should be done. I now move our second reading amendment that has just been circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add "and, following passage of the bill, the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 May 2026:

The operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026".

Australians are looking at global conflict and the rising price of fuel, and are rightly asking what it means at home. Our government is taking action to keep essential services running and get fuel to where it's needed most. This is just one of the things our government is doing.

This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026, addresses the impact of fuel price increases on truckies and our road transport industry, because when fuel prices spike those costs hit immediately. But the system that deals with those costs doesn't move at the same pace, so, with that gap, the pressure lands on truck drivers and operators, and it builds very quickly. Fuel is one of the largest operating costs in this sector—if not the largest—and it moves quickly, and we see that flowing into their day-to-day operations.

Fuel prices have increased due to the conflict we are seeing in the Middle East, and everyone in this country is feeling it; we know that. But it is very much felt by those whose jobs and livelihoods depend on fuel every single day—the workers who are moving goods across the country, keeping our shelves stocked and making sure essential supplies reach the communities who need it. Truck drivers and transport operators wear these costs every single day. That industry operates very much through contract chains, with costs that move through those chains—and the ability to manage those costs is not evenly shared. Those at the end have limited capacity to adjust when costs surge, which impacts business viability, affects sustainability and absolutely affects the livelihoods of truckies and their families. We want to make sure that this sector can continue operating while it's under pressure. The current system provides a process to set minimum standards across these chains which includes consultation and timeframes that can extend for many months, which means there's a gap between when the cost increases and when the system can respond. Ultimately, it's a timing issue.

This bill will improve sustainability, fairness and resilience while we see these global fuel challenges. It's about making sure that hardworking truckies and small transport businesses are not pushed to the brink. It amends the Fair Work Act to enable the commission to respond more quickly to contractual chain order applications in time-sensitive circumstances. It allows the minister to determine that an application be determined quickly when it is in the public interest. It essentially allows the system that currently exists to deal with these challenges very quickly when it is necessary and in the public interest. This is an important change that is reflective of the circumstances we find ourselves in. Road transport is essential to keeping goods moving across our country, and it's important that we keep the system working under global pressures. This is about making sure our transport businesses can continue to operate to keep goods moving across the country. We know that, when road transport is disrupted, the impact is felt well beyond the industry itself.

This bill strengthens the system's ability to respond when conditions change. That is the purpose of what we're doing today. This is, of course, part of a broad suite of work our government is undertaking to keep fuel flowing where it is needed; we're introducing new laws to help fuel suppliers bring fuel into Australia from overseas while also keeping more Australian-made fuel here at home, and we're working with the states to get fuel where it is needed most. We are committed to doing this work that is needed to give Australians confidence that, in the midst of this global crisis, they can get the fuel they need, and that's ultimately what this bill is about today—giving the trucking industry the confidence it needs to keep goods moving. I am very pleased to support this bill today.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. In a fuel crisis, this bill deals with an important issue. It is incredibly important that we deal with it as we see fuel prices going through the roof. Right now, across Australia, working people are feeling the sharp edge of rising fuel prices. This bill amends the Fair Work Act to create a fast-track emergency mechanism for regulating the pay and conditions of the road transport industry. Simply put, this bill gives the minister and the Fair Work Commission rapid response powers to impose temporary minimum standards, like fuel cost recovery, across the road transport industry in an emergency. The goal is to ensure that transport workers and contractors can recover sudden cost increases, like fuel, rather than absorbing them. It follows on from changes made to the closing-loopholes reforms to ensure that the Fair Work Commission has the power to deal with pressures on workers and businesses in the road transport sector. The Greens supported those measures.

But we need to talk about why this bill is before us today. We're debating this bill in the shadow of, and as a direct result of, Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war and attack in Iran, which have unleashed more chaos across the Middle East and are clearly threatening global peace. Just like other US wars, this war was not to bring about safety or freedom to the brave Iranian people resisting the regime that they face every day. History is clear: you cannot bomb your way to peace. This rapidly-escalating conflict has already sent shockwaves through global energy markets, and it's pushing our fuel costs through the roof here in Australia. The closure of key shipping routes, like the Strait of Hormuz, has disrupted a significant share of global oil supply, pushing our fuel prices higher and higher, and ordinary people are paying the price, as ever, for the costs of war through casualties but also through inflation and the fuel and other cost-of-living increases that Australians are feeling the harsh effects of every day. Workers pay an especially high price—the cost of price-gouged fuel, groceries, interest rates, mortgages and rents.

We know rising fuel prices feed directly into inflation, and we have seen warnings that food prices will rise, construction costs will increase due to fuel surcharges and essential services will become more expensive. We know farmers around our nation are suffering, and that will feed through into food prices. This is how energy shocks spread through the economies and around the world, yet at the same time wages are not keeping up. Workers are being squeezed from both sides—from higher costs, from interest rates going up and from stagnant incomes—and it's getting worse and worse as the war drags on. Treasury modelling predicts that inflation could go beyond five per cent as a direct result, and Treasurer Chalmers has now said that is a conservative estimate. We saw in COVID that workers pay a price very early, and it's a high price. They lose hours, they lose jobs, they lose incomes.

This illegal war, backed by Labor—Australia was the first country in the world to leap to backing Trump and Netanyahu in this illegal war—is costing workers, families and people relying on government benefits a very great deal. It's a cost in terms of fear and concern for so many Australians who now live in fear for the lives and safety of their friends and family and the citizens—women, men and children—living in the Middle East. It's a huge economic cost to workers and their households. This is a conflict that Australians want nothing to do with, but they are paying the price for it. The latest Guardian Essential poll found that only one in four Australians approve of the US-Israel war on Iran. Only a third supported this government's actions in sending a military plane and troops to the region.

Despite the lack of public support for this government's involvement in the war, the consequences have been immediate and severe. Here in Australia, we've seen diesel prices jump from around $1.66 a litre to over $3 in a matter of weeks, and they're only going one way. They're going to continue to go up. This is a war where, as Germany's defence minister said recently:

… there was no consultation, there is no strategy, there is no clear objective and the worst thing from my perspective is that there is no exit strategy.

He is spot on. Right now, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence can unilaterally take Australia to war with no parliamentary oversight before the decision is made. That's why my colleague, Senator Shoebridge, reintroduced a bill to this place last week that would require the houses of parliament to vote before the government can send Australians to wars overseas.

We know that 90 per cent of Australians support this reform, and most are astounded that the parliament does not already have that power. Australians should decide when they go to war, not Washington, not a handful of people in the war parties and not on the whim of the unpredictable maniac, Donald Trump. We are living through the chaos of a war that's supported by a handful of powerful people without public consent, and this war is directly making the lives of Australian workers harder. The cost is especially high for those who work in the transport industry. The bottom of the road transport supply chain are transport workers and self-employed truck drivers whose livelihoods and the livelihoods of their kids and their communities' families are already being hit so hard by those sharp increases in fuel prices.

People like Frank Black, a member of the Transport Workers' Union, who's been a long-distance owner-driver for more than 30 years, who I met recently, have had their diesel cost gone up directly from $1,600 to fill his tank to $2,500 last week. No doubt, it's probably even more today. Frank Black's earnings have been wiped out. He cannot run his business. That pain should be shared along the road transportation and product distribution and retail chain. This bill shortens the delay in changed terms and pay conditions of transport workers. It offers them some protection. In an emergency like the one we're in, we have to support those workers and their families so that, on this one issue, we can make sure that the price and the pain of this emergency does not fall unfairly on those at the end of the supply chain and on their families. I acknowledge the work of the Transport Workers' Union in calling on the government to pursue this change. The TWU national secretary, Michael Kaine, has said that, without putting in place these emergency powers, we'll see more transport workers will die on our roads, more businesses will go under and supply chains will continue to be at breaking point, as they are today.

This bill is called the fairer fuel bill because it aims to make the cost of fuel fairer for workers in the road transport industry during this time of crisis. But what does this bill do for all those workers whose hours of work and jobs are being affected by this emergency—all those workers in other parts of industry sectors. It does nothing for them. Who is helping all those workers in the care economy, child care, aged care and disability services who are using their cars and paying for the fuel to look after the people they feel so responsible for and are paid to take care for? Who is helping those in the manufacturing industry, our hospitals, schools, and retail and hospitality sectors who are also being affected by really significant changes in their fuel costs. These workers are impacted by the fuel crisis. Their bills are through the roof too. I've heard directly from Australians that many of them are spending $50 a day in cities like Sydney just to get to and from work—for fuel and for tolls. The costs of this fuel crisis are painfully felt by them in their communities. The aged-care sector is having difficulty getting staff to come in, because they can't afford the fuel costs.

Instead, we get this bill, which, while important, does nothing for those sources of pain, for those workers in those other industries who are feeling that deep pain because of the illegal Trump-Netanyahu war that Labor has readily signed us up to without an exit strategy. This bill does nothing for inflation, for interest rate rises, for higher mortgages, for higher rents, for higher grocery costs—and the list goes on. It does nothing for those five million Australians who live on income support payments and who are facing all of these increases in expenses, including their fuel, without any increase in their payments. Their households are reeling.

We need to end this illegal war and we need to end Australia's support for it. We need to take the wide range of measures that we know Australian communities and workers need, including a stronger right to work from home. Working from home will make a real difference in this crisis. People are talking about it. They want to be able to do it and they need to have a stronger basis for their negotiations with their employers to get it in so many sectors where they're still struggling to find that right to work from home.

So, while the Greens support this bill, the government must do more to provide immediate relief to Australians—a broader range of Australians. Labor must make public transport free for the duration of this fuel crisis. The Greens have called for Labor to coordinate free public transport with the states and territories at today's National Cabinet meeting, and momentum is certainly there. This commonsense Greens call is backed by people being smashed at the petrol pump. It's backed by train, tram and bus drivers and now by the ACT and Tasmanian governments as well. Free public transport would be an immediate cost-of-living relief for people in our cities and in our suburbs and would take the pressure off fuel suppliers so farmers and people living in our regions can fill up and regional servos don't run dry.

It's also worth mentioning who's benefiting while workers and those living on benefits suffer. Large oil and gas companies are raking in wartime profits, and they are long overdue to pay their fair share of tax. Workers should not be paying more than a massive gas corporation selling our key resources to the world with so little tax and more than a majority of that gas without any real tax. We know that the US's illegal war on Iran is making Australian gas corporations even richer. The government needs to act now to stop this war profiteering and ensure that Australians get our fair share of gas wealth. That's why the Greens are fighting for a new, minimum 25 per cent export tax on gas revenue. It is time to act. There is support in our community for this. We must tax these gas companies, especially as they profiteer from these war opportunities. The government has the numbers and the Greens in the Senate. We will work to pass good reforms like that, which would make a huge difference in this crisis and in the longer term.

Australians have been crystal clear: they want to tax gas exports and they want to tax them now. The Greens support this bill because it provides urgently needed relief for those at the bottom of the fuel supply chain. It recognises that fuel price shocks cannot simply be absorbed by those who live and work at the bottom of that supply chain, and it takes steps to move towards more fairness in the way costs are distributed. But let's not pretend this is the end of the story. This is a short-term fix to a long-term set of problems. Our economic stability is deeply entangled with global conflicts over fossil fuels, and this is a position of vulnerability. This crisis underscores the importance of pursuing an independent, peaceful foreign policy—one that prioritises de-escalation, diplomacy and stability. The crisis also shows us how important it is that we have long-term plans for sovereign control of key items, like our fuel supply, like our fertiliser supply.

The increased costs for transport workers—for all workers—are because of this war. Let's not forget it. We must stop supporting it.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. We're now entering the fifth week of the fuel supply crisis the government denied existed and sought to ignore. First, the government told us there was no fuel supply shortage. Apparently, Australia had the best fuel stocks in 15 years. Transport minister Catherine King responded to questions about shortages by suggesting it was actually flooding in Queensland that was causing bowsers to run dry across the country. Then resources minister Madeleine King claimed fuel prices were actually holding steady in the first weeks of this crisis.

Well, it shows this government can't get out of its cushy ministerial wing to the suburbs and the regions of this country and realise, at that point, prices had already jumped 40 cents per litre. Over the past week, the road transport industry has been crying out for immediate assistance to help them get through the current crisis. There are transport businesses parking their trucks and refusing jobs because they cannot afford to pay the skyrocketing diesel prices, which over the weekend were $3.21 and 0.9c in capital cities. That is up from $1.65 just a few weeks ago.

Let's be very clear: this legislation does not provide any immediate relief for the heavy vehicle sector. For the transport businesses listening to this debate and for their representative association, who have asked the parliament to pass this legislation, the bill does not provide you the immediate support you seek. In a briefing provided by the office of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, we were told that it would take weeks, plural—not days—and that is after an application had been submitted to the Fair Work Commission that would make a road transport contractual chain order. That is weeks before the estimated 50 per cent of truckies who do not have fuel levies in their current contracts can get relief. That is if they can survive that long without laying off workers and without distorting and disrupting supply chains.

By contrast, the opposition announced this week some immediate assistance for our transport industry through an immediate, temporary cut to the fuel excise and a corresponding cut to the road user charge that is paid by our heavy vehicle sector. That is real relief at the bowser with every single litre of petrol for Australian families and, importantly, for our transport sector. The government could announce this assistance today. They don't need legislation to make those changes; they're the government. They could sign a change of regulation, and it would happen like that. You've got to ask why they won't do what the industry has asked and give that immediate relief, rather than have us debating here in this chamber about changes to contractual arrangements that could take weeks for actual impact to be felt.

The industry is also looking for immediate support and has made the following requests to government over the last few weeks, none of which have been picked up by a government that's more interested in calling national cabinet meetings to sit around big tables with premiers to talk about the problem than to actually take responsibility for it. I've had the great privilege of being a minister. It is hard. It is a hard job. And every time it gets hard for this government and these ministers, they look for someone else to blame instead of doing what they swore to do when they took on these ministerial responsibilities under the Crown to act in the national interest.

The industry wants a disaster declared and $25,000 emergency small-business grants to become available to these trucking businesses. They want the 32.4 cent per litre price on diesel abolished. They want that done temporarily, in a targeted way, while this crisis is occurring. That, again, is relief that the government could give today and could have given last week, the week before or the week before that. What we've seen is trucking businesses, who were becoming insolvent at the rate of two businesses a day before the Middle East crisis, being slugged with fuel bills in excess of tens—and, in some cases, hundreds—of thousands of dollars and contractual arrangements that don't assist.

What the industry is also asking for is something that we instigated during COVID, and that is a six-month moratorium on banks or creditors imposing lending repayments. That gives these companies the cash flow relief that they need right now to keep their drivers employed, their trucks on the road and goods turning up across all of our retail sector—picking up primary products, whether it be bananas in northern Queensland, which are currently being left to just rot because no-one can afford the fuel bill, or B-doubles of cattle heading to the abattoir. Indeed, our grain growers, who are trying to get seed in the ground for this harvest, can't afford their diesel bills. That's what's actually happening.

The National Road Transport Association, which represents transport and logistics businesses, has said this legislation is 'too little, too late', with 'dozens of businesses already being forced to close because of high costs and lack of cash flow'. Again I say passing this legislation today will have no material impact on these businesses at all. NatRoad is an organisation that cautiously supports the passage of the amendment, but they are clear that this does not respond to the urgent need being experienced by our transport sector.

Before the start of the fuel crisis, transport companies were going insolvent at a rate of two businesses every day. Following the passage of Labor's closing-the-loophole legislation, insolvencies in the sector have escalated—something the government doesn't want to admit or recognise—and this does nothing to help that. The transport sector insolvencies increased by 42.7 per cent in 2023-24, the year those industrial relations changes were made, and that was followed by a further 48.3 per cent increase in 2024-25. So, if you like the big end of town in the transport sector, you haven't got a problem here. You have not got a problem here, Mr Kaine, have you? But, if you are interested in owner-operators, small businesses, mum-and-dad businesses—particularly out in the regions and the suburbs—being able to employ locals and meet locals' needs, this is not the way to go. And insolvencies have further increased by 21 per cent this financial year to date. In total, to the end of January 2026, 449 transport sector businesses went insolvent, and that isn't good enough. Everyone's fine, because the big end of town picks up the slack. But, in the National Party and on the opposition benches, we back small business—we back small to medium enterprises—as a way of community standing up and solving their own issues.

Because the government denied and refused to acknowledge the fuel supply crisis facing many trucking businesses and farmers, the opposition last week established a self-reporting website: nofuelhere.com.au. The website enables Australians to report petrol stations where there are fuel shortages or where informal rationing is going on, and we are using that data to help the government help our country. Today I was able to write to the fuel tsar and let her know where the shortages were in my home state of Victoria. What is clear from this government is that they're busy telling us we've got more supply than ever before, and yet we've got 600 servos that you can't get a drop from—let alone the price problem.

One job—here's one job, Prime Minister. Please take it out of Chris Bowen's hands; he's absolutely incompetent. Here's one job, PM: ensure that fuel is affordable by cutting the fuel excise and the road user charge, and also ensure that these abundant supplies you are telling the Australian community exist onshore—we'll take you at your word—get to where the shortages are. It's no good for the four big fuel companies to be hoarding and hedging, clipping the ticket on the way through, because, right now, people are going broke, workers are being laid off, and our communities are suffering. The level of anxiety out there not just in the business sector but across communities is significant.

The coalition will be moving amendments to this bill. This bill is tarted up to say it's an emergency measure for a crisis, yet the measures of this bill will extend far beyond the crisis. In fact, it will embed these measures and the ability to reach into contractual arrangements beyond it just being an issue of whether you're one of the 50 per cent of the trucking industry who aren't able to have their contract reflect increased fuel prices, so we will be moving a sunset clause. I really encourage the government to put a timeframe limitation on this particular measure. This measure hasn't gone through the usual process of a Senate inquiry, where we're able to go out and examine it in detail. We are taking the government at its word that it wants to assist trucking companies who can't have those increased fuel prices that aren't reflected in their current contractual arrangements ameliorated, but this shouldn't be a measure that is beyond the current crisis, so we will be moving a 12-month sunset clause.

We'll also be seeking an independent review after this has operated for six months, because this hasn't been through the usual process of parliament, where we go out to communities, experts and legal eagles to understand the flow-on impacts of this. We're going to move amendments to require the Fair Work Commission to consult on proposed orders. One of the critical concessions that the transport industry negotiated during the closing loopholes legislation debate was a lengthy and encompassing consultation process. We know that Labor doesn't like consultation, because they don't like to hear that they might have a bit wrong. They shut this chamber down from debating serious, nation-changing legislation at a whim—with their partners, the Greens—instead of just allowing this chamber to do what it does.

You've got the numbers; don't be afraid of the debate. You're going to win, but the Australian public has sent us all here to put our views on the table in this democracy, which all deserve to be heard. Consultation going forward will be one of the amendments that we seek, because this legislation seeks to truncate that safeguard. We want to make sure that the Fair Work Commission must consult on any emergency application. We want to restrict the emergency orders solely to the issue of fuel charges, because this was the original request of the Australian Trucking Association. However, no limitation on this power exists in the legislation. You've got to ask: why? Why do we have a much broader application than what the industry wants?

The government is seeking to expand the range of matters that could be determined by the Fair Work Commission under the emergency powers, and I don't believe that's appropriate. We want to move an amendment that ensures the minister can only make a determination if a declaration of the national emergency has been made under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. That's important. We're all being inundated, around this chamber, with the real-life impact of the current issues. I've been contacted by a bulk haulage transporter from Inverleigh, west of Geelong, who wrote to me over the weekend, talking about the reality of parking trucks because they can no longer afford to keep them on the road. It's core business—Roe Transport in Barnawartha also. Thank you. We've all been inundated in other debates. I'll be able to outline that.

Transport is an essential service. Every Australian depends on it for food, water, housing, energy and medical supplies. Without a transport industry, those sectors fail. Everything we know fails. We won't be frustrating this legislation, but we will be moving sensible amendments to ensure that this legislation works for industry in the long term.

Here we go again—ideology over substance. We've had, to this chamber and with this bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill, representation from owner-drivers, employee-drivers, contracting companies, many fleet operators, large transport companies—a great variety of people right across the board—and all we can hear is rubbish from Senator McKenzie, saying about consultation, 'Is this an urgent requirement to be put forward by the government?' Well, if you turned around as the shadow minister of I don't know what, because you're actually talking to transport companies, you'd be finding out about how urgent this is.

What do they come in here with? An amendment to say that we should wait until 29 May before we start discussing this further. Last week they were turning around saying how important it is that we act urgently on fuel, yet they're putting amendments up about delay, delay, delay and red tape after red tape after red tape. Their ridiculous approach to the whole substance of what they've been putting forward is making sure that we delay the whole process of making sure mum-and-dad truck operators, those in the supply chain, are actually getting the benefits of having these sorts of issues in front of the Fair Work Commission. What don't like is that, during the closing the loopholes bills, there was a proposition that we should have supply chain accountability for those big retailers, who they're always on the side with, and those big miners that are screwing down people that are in the supply chain, who they're always on the side with. Those in powerful positions in the economy, under the closing loopholes bill, are held to account about transport costs.

What this bill simply does, but importantly does and critically does, is make a variation to say that the Fair Work Commission doesn't have to wait six months at least to make a decision. They have to consider the arguments. They have to consider the evidence. They have to consider the positions put forward by all the parties right across the economy. But they don't have to wait an arbitrary six months.

Now, to the credit of a number of companies—it might be funny for me to come in here and say some good things about Woolies and Coles because I spent about 30 years bashing them up. On this one issue, they've turned around, as a result of the closing the loopholes bill that we put through—that One Nation voted against, that the Liberals and Nationals voted against and that is the result of a discussions that have taken place so far on the bill that has already been passed on closing the loopholes on supply chains—and said that they'll go to fortnightly payments. They said they'll go to new payment terms to make sure truckers aren't sent bankrupt. The consequence for all of us in the community if that happens is that we won't have supplies of fuel actually making it to the petrol station. We won't have food going to remote communities, to regional communities or to your local shop in our capital cities.

This bill is to make sure the urgency that's required of the fuel challenges that we have now because of the Middle East crisis is dealt with in a faster, more efficient way. But they're just against it because of ideology. They don't like the fact that some of the biggest, most powerful companies in this country, along with owner-drivers and employees and transport companies, can all come together and work out a solution and that, if they can't get a solution, then the arbitrator by hearing the evidence can make a decision to make sure that nobody's left behind. Those good companies—and there's a number of them out there—that are doing the right thing and that are making sure their transport operators don't go bankrupt are competing with the mongrels they're protecting. If they don't pass this legislation and if they don't pass this bill, then they are turning around and going to the most base and crass operators that are turning around and profiteering from the challenges that we have because of the Middle East crisis. They're going to stand with them rather than stand with those businesses, those owner-drivers and those employees who are doing the right thing.

I heard the comments from Senator McKenzie before: 'Heaven forbid, the unions—oh, my God, the unions are involved with this as well. Isn't it horrific?' Well, I'm proud to say—yes, I'm union member; yes, I was the national secretary of the Transport Workers' Union. It happens to be the largest small-business organisation in this country, with tens of thousands of owner-drivers in every transport chain you could possibly think of—gig workers, taxi drivers, long-distance truck drivers, waste workers and car carriers, and the list goes on. The TWU still are the largest organisation in this country representing small businesses.

But it's not just they who have come to the table and said how important this bill is. It's people like Peter Anderson, who's the secretary of the peak transport employee body, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. On 23 March of 2026, he said this:

There are plenty of good transport clients out there doing what they can to get everyone through these fuel price spikes. But they're being undermined by the many others who are forcing transport businesses to fully absorb skyrocketing fuel costs themselves. They can't afford that, and that poses an imminent threat to our supply chains. We need to see these emergency powers put in place for the immediate viability of our transport industry.

The Australian Trucking Association CEO Mathew Munro—we've had a few arguments over the years, too—on 26 March 2026, this year, said that the Senate must pass the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill to save trucking businesses struggling to cope with crippling fuel bills and dwindling funds. The National Road Freighters Association on 23 March, a long time truck driver, Glyn Castanelli, spoke. Glyn and I have had a few arguments too, but we all agree on something. This is what Glyn says:

This is a positive step forward to protecting the viability of Australia's transport operators and maintaining the continuity of essential freight across the country.

Senator McKenzie, maybe you should listened to the transport industry. Maybe you should stop for a minute, read what they've said, read what they put in writing and listen to what they were saying to you. If you don't listen, and if the Liberal Party doesn't listen, then others will. We're going to make sure we got to transport industry's back.

Senator Hume called for urgency now. Maybe they should follow through and actually vote for what hardworking Australians are calling for instead of playing games, because this is a simple ideological attack—because they were against closing loopholes, all those years ago, when it was passed in this place. This is an amendment to make it more efficient, more effective and more successful for every hardworking Australian. This doesn't cover just people who are members of unions or those associations; it covers everybody. Where did Senator McKenzie's ridiculous 50 per cent thing come from? It's like everything else—truth plucked out of thin air, and you know where it should be put, because it doesn't actually exist. You're just coming in here and saying a whole pile of absolute rubbish rather than turning around and sticking to the facts.

If Senator Hume, who's also the shadow minister for industrial relations says there won't be proper consultation, Senator Hume might want to turn around and have a look at what it actually says in the Industrial Relations Act. I'm sure she's aware of it. The Industrial Relations Act requires proper consultation. It requires proper consideration. It's a necessity of the act. Judges sit there—the same judges as are in the other essential courts in this country—and consider those arguments. But, most essentially, it brings parties together on a common cause, with common views, for a common industry. That's what's happening in this parliament. It's a common cause, common views and a common sense of history and importance in passing this legislation.

We've seen the impact of the Middle East conflict. It's having a horrific effect on so many people across the world and in this country. We know that we have to take steps, and this is one of those important steps that needs to be taken to make sure that we have a trucking industry viable and still operating, to make sure we get the goods into our shops. This means that the commission can require retailers, mining companies and manufacturers—those at the top of the supply chain—to offer fair contract terms, which they want to minimise in their amendment. They don't want fair contract terms. They don't like the whole idea of having this act in the first place, because they voted against it. They don't want to have fair contract terms because that's actually what the industry is asking for. I might add that the industry is asking for this not only for those big clients and big retailers at the top of the supply chain; they're saying that when they subcontract they'll also be held to account for that. The responsibility goes right through. Not only are they saying, 'You should do it for these people'; they are saying, 'You should be doing it for all of us.' We're in this together. Not them; they're not in it with everybody else. They're in it for the ones at the top of the supply chain, not the ones doing the right thing right now. They are the ones who continue to do the wrong thing and put the transport industry in such dire risk. Tens upon tens of thousands of owner-drivers—mum-and-dad businesses—are making sure that we turn around and get the right thing done here.

This whole review system on 29 May and the proposition from the opposition that this is all some sort of stunt—well, say that to truck drivers that are doing it tough out there at the moment. Say it to the ones that can't get proper fuel cost recovery. Say that about the terms of payments on that fuel in a situation where it's so ridiculous it's putting pressure on businesses and, ultimately, will close them down.

We've just heard about price gouging. We know there should be further questions and investigations. That's why the government has got the ACCC doing an investigation into price gouging. But those same fuel companies at the top of the supply chain can apply pressure and change at a whim the terms on how payments are made for fuel under these difficult circumstances. They want to close all that down. Then they want to have a limit on it. They're saying: 'If we can't bash them that way, knock them out that way and delay it this way, then we'll have a limit.' They'll say, 'Let's make it six months,' then, 'Why not make it nine months or 12 months?' Then they could say, 'Let's think about it and make it two years.' Any sort of proposition is purely because they want to make sure they can frustrate this whole aspect.

If there's an emergency, there's an emergency. The minister has the capacity to turn around and connect that through to the Fair Work Commission. The independent body then makes a decision about the emergency and the status of that emergency and how it deals with it after hearing all the evidence from all the parties. I'm saying to everybody in this chamber: get your ideological blinkers off. Turn around and tell the trucking industry—owner-drivers, employees, small fleets, mum-and-dad operations and truck drivers—that their jobs are going to be more secure because there will be the chance for the commission to deal with the issues that have been proposed here about some ways of stopping the impasse. What's been suggested here are things that the Fair Work Commission does in an orderly, transparent, collective way, where people are able to see what the results are and how the results are arrived at.

To those opposite: I guarantee you that there will be lots of companies throughout that supply chain that will go to the commission and have a common view and common task. They've already had that. It's the ones you're protecting, that you're slowing up, by having this bill not go through, by putting all this red tape in the way. If you want to put all this red tape in the way, it is all about frustrating an outcome for truck drivers and it means fewer trucks on our roads, more pressure on small mum-and-dad businesses and fewer drivers out there to deliver our fuel, our feed and our retail supplies—and our local shops are getting it in the neck as well.

To those opposite: I applaud that you support this bill wholeheartedly, not just these ridiculous amendments that you're suggesting should be put through. Reconsider the ridiculous amendments you're putting forward and withdraw them.

The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 is a drop in the tank when it comes to managing the fuel crisis. The bill relates to road transport contract chain orders which used to be called delivery contracts. It allows those contracts between businesses and their trucking companies to be renegotiated as a result of this fuel crisis. Currently, that process takes 12 months or more. This bill may—'may', not 'will'—reduce the lead time on a contract renegotiation to a few weeks.

The road freight industry is critical to the functioning of the economy. Everything in our supermarkets, hardware stores and shopping centres is trucked in. If trucks stop moving because the government failed to secure a supply of fuel, affordable diesel, then people starve; chemists, doctors, dentists and hospitals run out of supplies; casual employees and apprentices are put off work; and loans, rents and mortgages go into arrears. And it's all downhill from there. It's that simple.

This bill amends legislation that Labor introduced in 2024 which created these road transport contract chain orders without any emergency provisions or the ability of the government to step in when the public interest is not being protected. This bill corrects the Albanese government's lack of foresight and forethought. This government needs to slow down its conga line of poorly written bills—we've had so many—take the time to consult and stop using the committee system as a rubber stamp. Had it done that, these provisions would most likely have already been included. The problem with this bill is that it doesn't actually relate to the current fuel crisis, yet it gives the minister powers to interfere in any RTCCO—road transport contractual chain order—it wishes for the rest of time. Powers are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there's no requirement to make an order introducing an emergency RTCCO through a legislative instrument. Power without accountability is always a very bad idea. Emergency powers exist for emergencies, not to tip the scale in favour of your union mates.

One Nation will support this legislation. Given we have not had the time to prepare amendments to introduce checks and balances, One Nation will amend the bill when we take government. Our changes will require a declaration of emergency to be a legislative instrument setting out the reasons for the order and include a sunset clause, a trigger, so that, unlike what Labor is trying to do, measures do not extend past the end of the crisis.

One Nation points out that, while the trucking industry deserves the help this bill may provide, so does the rest of Australia. Due to a doubling of fuel costs, farmers are struggling to fund their harvests. Farms' fuel bills must be paid in 14 days, while farmers are not paid for their harvests for an average of two months. With fuel costs rising from, as in one case I was told about, $15,000 per week to $30,000 a week, there are massive extra amounts for family farms to bankroll themselves—and they can't. Around Australia today, farmers are unable to plant their winter crops. The spring harvests will be down, and fuel prices will go up. The Labor government is hollowing out the bush again. It's driving people into the cities, and it's running the fuel crisis to push that objective.

If the government had the best interests of Australia at heart, it would have already invoked the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. The act enables the Commonwealth government to prepare for and respond to severe shortages of crude oil and refined liquid fuels such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel. It supports Australia's obligations under the International Energy Agency agreement and emphasises cooperative responses with industries, states and territories. It provides strong ministerial powers as a last resort if market mechanisms are insufficient. The act requires the minister to be satisfied that there is or is likely to be a serious shortage of liquid fuels with national implications that cannot be adequately addressed without using this bill's special powers. Powers include directing industry-held stocks of crude oil and liquid fuel, such as requiring companies to maintain, purchase or release specified reserves at certain locations and, secondly, regulating fuel sales and distribution across Australia, including bulk-supply restrictions and retail rationing. This legislation is there, and it should have been invoked weeks ago. This is day 32 of the Iran conflict—32 days for the Prime Minister and his ministers to stop the selfies and cringy TikTok videos and address the real crisis; 32 days of horror for the economy, the devastation of which will ensure the ALP do not form government again.

Let me explain what's going on here. These powers require the minister to do certain things. One of those things would be to force foreign multinational oil companies to direct the fuel they're currently hoarding and supply some into the spot market. This is the market which supplies smaller outlets, especially in rural and regional areas. These are the outlets that suppliers are currently charging way over the odds for their petrol, causing price spikes. Then, once they've driven price spikes in the regions, the city outlets that those same multinational fuel companies own themselves put up prices to match prices imposed on the bush. The outcome is price gouging. It's calculated, and it's deliberate. The government rammed through legislation last week to increase the fines for doing exactly that, but it will take years before the ACCC's legal action against multinational fuel companies gets through the courts. They'll get a rap on the knuckles and agree to a small fine, banking windfall profits and most likely doing it all again. The Albanese Labor government is once again proving it's the best friend of foreign multinationals and no friend of everyday Australians.

The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 will result in transport charges rising—and that's the point of the bill. Before the crisis, getting a tonne of produce to market cost $100. With the fuel shock, it's now $175. This legislation will drive that price even higher. This isn't the government helping the trucking industry; it's the government making the rest of the economy pay more to help the trucking industry. Food will be dearer. Clothing will be dearer. Consumers will pay. The answer is to reduce the price of fuel, not force up the price of freight.

Last Friday, the National Road Transport Association, NatRoad, published comments critical of the legislation, pointing out:

… most small to medium operators simply could not survive until Fair Work Changes flowed through.

Here's another quote:

… recent announcements, including emergency Fair Work Commission powers and moves toward better fuel monitoring failed to address the immediate needs of industry.

…   …   …

NatRoad is calling on the Federal Government to urgently implement three … measures to keep trucks on the road and prevent further economic disruption:

The national road user charge is a tax of 32.5c per litre of diesel. Operators claim back the fuel levy of 52c per litre and then pay the road user charge. One Nation calls on the government to suspend the road user charge for heavy vehicles for as long as this crisis continues. Taking out the fuel duty and the GST will make a large difference to trucking industry cash flows and their ability to get through this crisis—and reduce grocery bills. Invoking the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 to stop multinational fuel companies profiteering will reduce fuel prices and reduce the need for freight charges to rise.

The truth is that every sector in the economy is in need of assistance. The knock-on from extreme fuel prices extends right through the economy. Trucking has the potential to impact everyday Australians—and every Australian—and more quickly than other sectors, so it deserves first attention. We see no problem in that. My objection is that the Labor government is picking winners, helping some but not others based on its radical communist ideology. Labor says to small business, 'No assistance for you'; to manufacturing, 'No assistance for you'; to farmers, 'Definitely no assistance for you lot'; to rail transport and ports, 'No assistance for you'; to Defence, 'No fuel for you.'

The Albanese Marles government refused the request from President Trump to participate in international efforts to make safe the Strait of Hormuz so Australian bound fuel tankers can get through to Singapore or South Korea to refine our petrol for us. This raises the question: Australia doesn't have a defence strategic liquid fuel reserve, so just how much fuel do our armed forces actually have? And why did the Navy ponce around in Exercise Kakadu Fleet Review last week? This wasn't a training exercise; this was to show off. From where did those boats come, to where are they returning, and how much fuel was wasted for a photo op in the middle of a fuel crisis? Fair dinkum! The Navy has now caught the selfie virus. Heaven help us.

The Albanese government snubbed the President of the United States, our greatest ally, while grovelling on hands and knees to him for fuel. 'Please, sir,' the Prime Minister pleads, 'can we please have some of your oil reserve, as we sold ours off for a quick buck?' The Albanese Labor government is a dishonest national disgrace. How did you not see this coming? One Nation have been banging on about the need for restoring oil production and increasing our domestic reserve since 2020—and about fuel security since 2016.

Now, I know social media is circulating a Liberal Party meme claiming that One Nation voted against giving subsidies to the Kwinana and Altona refineries in 2020 to keep them in production. Let me address that first, with a history of closures. Port Stanvac closed under the Howard Liberal government in 2003. Clyde closed under the Gillard Labor government in 2012. Kurnell closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2014. Bulwer Island closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2015. Kwinana closed under the Liberal and Nationals in 2021. Altona closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2021.

Now, the meme circulated says that One Nation voted against the fuel security package in 2021, which we did. What the meme does not tell you the bill we opposed was a stunt. BP and Exxon had already announced the closure before the bill was ever written. The Liberal-National government designed the bill to pretend to the public in the 2022 election that the Liberals cared about fuel refining—all to look good, not do good. Exxon and BP never received the money. They knocked it back because plans for closure were underway, and $2.3 billion wasn't enough to change their minds. So what did we vote against? Nothing—a Liberal Party con, a fraud on the voters. I'm so pleased the Liberals dug that one up though; it shows they haven't changed.

By the way, I remind people that Pauline Hanson said: 'Why are we handing over money? We need equity.' No, the Liberals didn't want equity. Just hand over the cash. In her speech in the Liberals' 2021 bail-out bill, Senator Pauline Hanson called on the government to use that money to buy those refineries and put them into the hands of Australian people to maintain our domestic refining capacity. Of course, the Liberals and the Nationals ignored that request.

Let's be clear. Australia is in this mess because the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, the Teals and the Labor Party all still believe in climate change. I tested that last week with my amendment to the appropriation bills that called for the net zero spending to be removed from the budget. Their vote on our amendment is damning. Labor opposed. Liberals opposed. Nationals opposed. Greens opposed. Teal David Pocock opposed. These parties all support giving away another $9 billion to climate prostitutes feeding off the UN net zero scam—parasites killing Australia's energy and economy. So, of course, they're not going to do anything to help the petrol and diesel industry. This government is making a horrible mess of the fuel crisis because it's making decisions based on ideology not practicality—on a scam and contrary to the hard, empirical scientific data. And the globalist Liberals and Nationals are right there with them. Shame on you all!

We need to drill for oil; restore production in the known deposits—and we've got plenty; get started building new refineries; and, in particular, build new gas to petrol plants to use Australia's cheap, natural gas to make our own petrol again. One Nation introduced legislation for a domestic gas reservation to provide the gas we need for that, and of course the uniparty voted it down. When will people realise these tired old parties love their ideology and their donors and hate anyone who doesn't agree with their ideology or with their donors? One Nation cares about everyday Australians, and that's why we're surging in the polls. It's not about patriotism or nationalism. Our surge is the public realising that the old parties do not have their backs and One Nation does.

To remind the Senate, One Nation has already called for the removal of the fuel excise and a three-month moratorium on GST on liquid fuels. Taken together, they will reduce fuel prices outside the trucking industry by 75 cents a litre—a real benefit for everyday Australians. The government has refused to take that measure, even while Treasury is making out like bandits raking in hundreds of millions of dollars each month in additional GST payments on crazy-high fuel prices. I haven't heard a state premier complain about that either, as they benefit from the GST. The states must be held to account, as well, for their greed.

Everyday Australians are filling up their vehicle in terror and, yes, in anger at the Albanese government's greed and arrogance and distance. It's $100 to fill a small car and up to $200 to fill a family car in the most energy-rich nation on Earth. The biggest exporter of hydrocarbons in the world is Australia. Groceries will go unbought; that's if they're available. Clothing and homeware stores are already reporting slow-downs. Your children won't get those new clothes, new shoes or quality groceries, because their parents are having to pay for the stupidity, the arrogance, the dishonesty, the deceit and the greed of the Chalmers-Albanese Labor government. I foreshadow One Nation's second reading amendment on sheet 3747.

I'm pleased the government sees the fuel crisis is real. When we mentioned it first, One Nation were called far right extremists for labelling it. I'm pleased the government sees the regional crisis is now real. Again, One Nation called it first because we listen. Suspend fuel taxes now! (Time expired)

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. I always listen carefully to Senator Roberts. I think he makes often great contributions on debates. Whether I agree with them or not, they're always well thought and considered. One thing I'll point out though, with their vote on the appropriations bill last week—it was actually quite reckless to do, to come into this place and vote against a supply bill, a bill that enables the government to fund essential services: defence, health, education. That's what One Nation voted against last week. They tried to move a pious amendment in relation to net zero, the spirit of which I support. I'm dead against this government's net zero plans and policies and the reckless way that they're affecting our economy, but to move a stunt amendment to a supply bill was a reckless thing for One Nation to do. I wish they were a little more focused on sensible measures to address the issues that Australians are facing, rather than coming in here with those sorts of stunts.

Anyway, I come back to the issue at hand here. This bill gives the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations the power to declare certain applications for road transport contractual chain orders as emergency applications and enable faster regulatory responses when the road transport industry faces sudden, nationally significant disruptions such as sharp fuel price increases. The coalition fully supports the trucking industry. We intend to propose a few amendments to this bill to reflect the industry feedback and aim to support a commercially viable, competitive and effective transport sector. Before I continue with my speech, I want to correct something that Senator Sheldon said in his contribution.

We support the passage of this bill today. We understand what we're dealing with in this country right now. We understand the emergency and the crisis, and that's why we'll be supporting it. We do want to see a retrospective inquiry into the bill, though. That will not in any way stand in the way of this bill having effect as soon as it's given royal assent. Senator Sheldon said that we are proposing to delay the implementation of the bill until 29 May. That is incorrect. What we're calling for enables the bill to pass but requires a retrospective inquiry. We are rushing this bill through. It was only just introduced into the parliament, and we're rushing it through. Given the circumstances, that is appropriate, but we think that it should be examined. This is the house of review, by the way. The government has a tendency to just rush stuff through, and it's inappropriate. There are times when it's appropriate, and, as I said, dealing with this matter right now might be one of those times. But, when you take measures to rush stuff through, you need to open yourself up to transparency and scrutiny and allow the bill to be properly examined by way of an inquiry. That way, when we come back in May or June—whenever we're back here—if there are some unintended consequences from this bill passing without proper scrutiny, we will be able to make the necessary amendments to ensure that it achieves its intended objectives. Senator Sheldon is a good friend of mine, and I don't like criticising friends, but faithful are the wounds of a friend; they're better than the kiss of an enemy. So I will say, Senator Sheldon: you are wrong in this instance. We don't want to stand in the way of the passage of this bill.

The coalition has called for lots of things in relation to dealing with this fuel crisis. The government is not fully responding to the fuel impacts affecting the transport sector. That's why the coalition has called for a temporary reduction in the petrol and diesel excise, along with a corresponding adjustment to the heavy vehicle road user charge. A reduction in the fuel excise would lower the tax on petrol and other liquid fuels, from 52.5c to 26.3c per litre. The coalition has indicated it would work with the government to identify appropriate budget offsets to support long-term fiscal outcomes and manage inflation without introducing new taxes. We could go after the crazy EV subsidy, for example, which is enabling wealthy people, essentially, to get a tax deduction for purchasing an EV, while the people that can't afford to get an EV are paying at the bowser every day. It's $3.20-odd a litre for diesel at the moment. We could go after things like that to make the savings that are necessary.

Now, such a reduction would provide relief to small business and to tradespeople and essential workers who rely on driving as part of their daily work. Halving the petrol tax would result in a saving of 26.3 cents per litre at the pump, which represents half of the fuel excise and more than 10 per cent of the average price of, for example, unleaded 91 in New South Wales as of 25 March 2026. The proposal is a temporary and targeted measure with the stated aim of easing cost-of-living pressures for Australians affected by higher fuel prices.

This bill also gives us the opportunity in this debate to shine some light on the government's general mishandling of the fuel crisis, particularly by the Prime Minister and the hapless Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Mr Bowen. A headline in the West Australian said last Friday: 'Crisis? What crisis? Anthony Albanese and Chris Bowen's panicked response to the energy shock.' Every community in Australia, metropolitan, regional and rural, has to deal with the shortcomings of this government's handling of the fuel crisis. Petrol prices have soared more than 30 per cent in four weeks. Farmers and others in agricultural and mining industries in my state of Western Australia, who rely heavily on diesel and fertiliser to go about their jobs, now have to reduce output and prioritise what is feasible with the existing fuel capacity they have. It's as if the government did not even consider what would ultimately occur after the gulf situation happened.

Back in 2020, the then opposition, now government, liked to tell the former Morrison government at frequent intervals what it had done wrong with the preparations related to the pandemic. Remember that? Remember the COVID pandemic? Well, increasingly, we are seeing that rhetoric come back to bite this government. Senator Ayres said in this place, sitting somewhere around here when he was in opposition back in June 2021:

The government has been warned for years that fuel security is a matter of national importance. The question is: why did it take them so long to act?

He also said:

Australia will still be noncompliant with its International Energy Agency obligation to hold 90 days of reserves. Australia will still disproportionately depend on imported fuel from vulnerable supply chains, still leaving us vulnerable to geopolitical tensions.

Indeed, we could ask the same thing of the minister here today. Well, we have been.

Reviewing the actions of the current minister for energy over the past two weeks is like watching that old episode of Fawlty Towersthe one in which the hapless Manuel starts a fire in the kitchen, which then results in setting off the building's fire alarms. Each time Manuel frantically runs in to tell Basil Fawlty, the hotel proprietor, about the fire, Fawlty sends Manuel back into the kitchen, into harm's way. At first, Fawlty's reaction ranges from indifference to ignorance. When he realises that there is, indeed, a fire, he causes more confusion and panic than Manuel ever did when he tried to warn him in the first place. Well, the minister for energy is a bit like Basil Fawlty: 'Fire? What fire? Nothing to see here. What problem? No problem. What crisis? No crisis.'

And then let's unpack the form of the minister for energy over the past couple of weeks. First, he said the country had plenty of fuel supplies and told the reporters in Brisbane that fuel rationing was not even being contemplated. Then, last Monday, he told the House of Representatives that his own department—the one he is responsible for—was undertaking analysis for fuel rationing. He's told commuters that it was un-Australian to panic-buy fuel and stock up on surplus supplies, yet, in the Perth suburb of Nollamara, one motorist who'd already waited for 40 minutes for fuel and anticipated another 30-minute wait put it plainly. They said, 'I have to because I'm working every day, so I need fuel, and what's going on at the moment with the oil—it could get worse.'

Minister, Australians are not mugs. They know what fuel reserves this country has, and certainly, with the minister behaving like Basil Fawlty, he's not giving them any assurances or even comfort. People are not acting out of hysteria; they are responding to uncertainty and the lack of leadership.

I want to deal very quickly with this idea that it's people who are going to Bunnings and buying a jerry can and putting it in their boot or on their ute and filling it up—that 20 litres of extra fuel that they've bought—that is bringing down the distribution system. I mean, it's ridiculous. It's not the 20 litres or 40 litres. Commuters can hoard only so much fuel. Your fuel tank has a certain capacity, and then you might be able to get a couple of extra jerry cans. That's not what is pulling down the system. Yet the way the government has carried on in the past couple of weeks—blaming commuters, blaming consumers, motorists, for having a bit of extra demand—is ridiculous. I mean, come on. It's people who are maybe buying tens of thousands of litres of extra fuel. It's not the average commuter who's bought a jerry can from Bunnings. Australians are not mugs.

This is not an isolated incident. This is happening every day in every part of this country. Working Australians are queuing for fuel, budgeting their time and income, and worrying about how much worse things are going to get. We know that many Australians are cancelling their Easter holiday plans. They can't do the big commute. They can't do the big drive. They can't hook up their caravan and go far away, because of the cost and the worry about whether they'll get there and not be able to refuel to come home. This is not another episode of Fawlty Towers. This is a very serious real-life situation. Yet the minister is performing the role of an actor. What Australians see is confusion, mixed messages, and a government reacting instead of preparing, despite its warnings way back in 2021. This government needs to step up and take action.

I'll close by sharing the sentiments of many Western Australians, echoed by Derek Goforth, a father of three living and working in Geraldton, who wrote in the Geraldton Guardian on 27 March, just last week:

West Australians are practical people—

I agree—

We understand that global markets play a role. We understand that not everything can be controlled locally. But we also expect honesty, clarity, and when things go wrong, action. At the moment, what many of us are hearing is one thing, while experiencing another.

I couldn't agree more with Derek up there in Geraldton.

Prime Minister, responsibility cannot be accepted in words alone. It must be demonstrated in action. Just saying that it's not your responsibility because it's the responsibility of the states is not okay; it's not acceptable. When we've got fuel shortages across the country—and we just had the most magnificent rains across the Wheatbelt over the weekend, beautiful—those farmers, for whom now is the time to go and sow their crops, to fertilise their fields, are not sure they're going to do it, because they don't know whether they'll have the supply of fuel and fertiliser over the next six to nine months while their crops grow.

So we've got to take action, and we're not seeing this prime minister step up and take the action that is needed. We need secure fuel supplies. We need secure fertiliser supplies. We've got to get fuel to where it's critically needed. Prime Minister, do your job. Just get the job done.

I proudly rise to make my contribution to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. I didn't intend to make a contribution today, because I'd rather cut the time down and get the vote on and get on with it. But I can't be silent. I listened with the greatest respect to some of the contributions—not the one from my learned friend Senator O'Sullivan, who is one of the good ones, but to the contribution from Senator Roberts. I have a lot of time for Senator Roberts, but I have to clear this up.

Firstly, I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge in the gallery today some industry legends, and in no particular order; I'll start from the left and work my way across: Michael Kaine, National Secretary of the Transport Workers' Union, and Peter Anderson, the CEO of VTA and also the chair of the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation. See that gang? We've got the union and the bosses sitting side by side.

This ain't a phenomenon that started this morning. This has been going on for 20 years. We have been working together to establish and try and implement a safe, sustainable and viable transport industry. I tilt my hat. I'll go along the chairs here: Glyn Castanelli, the National President of the National Road Freighters Association—it's good to see you, Glyn—And, Brownie, you're here too, mate. Guess what? Glyn was an owner-driver like me. Now, with all of these collectors up here—and there's many more—I'm going to take the opportunity to name them. They've been working in this building solidly for probably about the last seven or eight years, week in and week out, not only meeting with government senators and members but meeting with opposition senators and members, shadow ministers, One Nation.

Senator Roberts stood up there and said this is some union folly. Senator Roberts, this mob up here, along with the Victorian Transport Association, NatRoad, Tasmanian Transport Association, Road Freight NSW, Queensland Trucking Association, South Australian Road Transport Association, Western Roads Federation, Northern Territory Road Train Association, owner-drivers from around the nation and the TWU, are pleading to put the case. We need to be together to have a safe, sustainable and viable transport industry. Senator Roberts, I know you're not listening—you've had to go off to another meeting—but your staff will be listening. Senator Roberts, they came and saw you too, and they saw your boss, Senator Hanson. You know what you did? 'Don't come Monday.' Put out the odd tweet saying, 'Truckies need to be looked after.' We appreciate that. Yes, they do need to be.

I will remind you we do need to refer to senators by their correct title.

I'm sorry, did I miss Senator Hanson?

Yes.

Sorry, I thought I said 'Senator Hanson'.

I don't think you did. If I'm wrong, I apologise.

You know me. I'm full of respect for the chair and full of respect for my colleagues in the chamber here. But you gave them that when they asked you to vote—am I allowed to do that? Do you want me to retract that?

Senator Sterle, continue.

I will. I get emotional on this because this is my livelihood, as you know. I've got diesel running through my veins. I can't help this. I get so passionate. You gave them the thumb. You didn't vote for it. Senator Roberts, it's not right to say this is union folly. I've just gone off and announced who has been working on this for six or seven years. The whole transport industry united to come together to give us a safe, sustainable and viable transport industry.

I promised my colleagues I wouldn't speak for long on this. I'm going to park Senator Glenn Sterle, a Labor senator from Western Australia, over here. I'm going to park the same bloke, who is a proud life member of the Transport Workers' Union not because I've come through university and thought: This is a nice union. I want to join them.' It's because I was a truck driver. I still am a truck driver, ladies and gentlemen. Three generations of the Sterles are truck drivers. My son is still out there. Two weeks ago, I did a two-up run, a lovely 909 with three trailers to Broome, to keep my hand in. This is what I do. When other people are out gardening, I go truck-driving. I want to talk about Glenn Sterle, the owner-driver, in all my years, when I was at Ansett Wridgways, which was then gobbled up by TNT.

Let's talk about fuel. My wife and I lived through the Falklands War. Trust me, when I'm coming home from the Northern Territory and I heard that a war's broken out, my first reaction as a truck driver owner-driver was, 'My goodness me, what's that going to mean for my fuel bill and our fuel bill?' I lived and breathed that. Fortunately it didn't go on for long, but the first thing I did was get back to Perth. We didn't have mobile phones in those days. I put up a notice on the notice board, got all the owner-drivers together and said: 'Boys'—and they were all boys—'we're going to go in there, and we're going to dust up Ansett Wridways, because we ain't carting their freight up and down the highways to the goldfields, to the south-west, the eastern states, the north-west and the Northern Territory supplementing their clients. No damn way.' It was a pretty easy decision. It was either they pay us the fuel levy or we park the trucks up.

I still say that today. Why should the trucking industry—there were some contributions from over here. I know you're going to pull me up if I start mentioning some of the rubbish that came out of Senator McKenzie's mouth, so I won't say that. But I am someone who's paid the fuel bills and someone who understands what it means when you kiss the wife goodbye and the baby on the head while there's still the bill on the fridge—you know the magnet on the fridge, the finger with the ribbon tied? I'm talking to the truckies now. I am one of those of us who have actually been in small business. You can all answer for yourselves. I don't know what your background was. Mine's small business in the trucking industry. I know how darn painful it is as you're going up the highway and you're trying to navigate a bunch of other road trains and other users, while, in the back of your mind all the time, is: 'My goodness me, I haven't paid that bill because they haven't paid me. Ansett's been a bit slow.'

While I sit here and hear some of the rubbish that comes out today, I want to put the truckies' position there. I don't speak just for owner-drivers; I speak for every trucking company in this nation because 70 per cent of our industry is small- to medium-sized business. I still call it 'our industry' because I'm still a damn proud activist in this industry. We started with one truck, and then we had the opportunity to buy a second and third. That's what's made this nation so great—that truckies could drag themselves up by their bootlaces to become something in this nation.

But to listen to some of the diatribe that this is a union folly—this is what I heard earlier on, through you, Deputy President Brockman—and asking why small business should have to pay the way—well, what about us truckies who are small business? I say this with the greatest of respect, to my colleagues across the chamber: when you talk small business, do you know how insulting it is to us owner-drivers in the trucking industry, in small business, to hear that we don't matter but the corner shop matters or the shoe shop matters or the farmer matters, to hear, 'You truckies are not the same as small business, so why should we have to pay your fuel costs?' I have to get that off my chest because I've got a burning fire in here, and it's been here for 50-odd years. I will defend the trucking industry to my very last breath. Enough of the talk. Get this bill through. We're not the bank of Australia. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen, but someone has got to pay for our fuel costs.

I rise today to talk about the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. At its core, this bill appears to be an effort to fast-track a process to deal with emergency fuel related pressure in the road transport sector. In plain English, this appears to be an effort to get relief through the chain faster when we're dealing with fuel price surges and when truckies are getting smashed—and we acknowledge that; truckies are getting smashed. There is real merit in this because, when fuel costs explode overnight, the owner-driver and the small operator are often the ones who get crushed first. They cannot absorb endless cost increases. They cannot run at a loss forever. If they park the truck, the whole country feels it: freight stops, shelves are empty and the cost of living goes up again, which then flows through in higher inflationary pressures and mortgages. It's terrible for the entire economy.

I acknowledge that, plainly, in what is a genuine crisis, a genuine emergency that One Nation has been calling out for nearly a month now—we were the first to raise it—this fuel crisis that we are dealing with is going to have severe consequences through the entire chain. We have to acknowledge that, in a genuine emergency, government cannot just stand there and do nothing—which was what was happening. If there is a way to keep the truckies on the road, to help small operators survive and to help stop the entire burden being dumped on one of the weaker links in the chain, that has value.

But let us be honest about what this bill is and what this bill is not. This is not a fuel security bill. It doesn't create more fuel, it doesn't build more storage, it doesn't reopen refineries, it does not increase domestic extraction and it does not prepare Australia properly for future international supply shock. It is a short-term mechanism to shuffle costs and responsibilities inside the freight system after the crisis has already arrived—a crisis that we were grossly unprepared for because of long-term failures from this government and past governments. So, yes, whether there's merit here—we're not going to deny that; there is merit, and we believe it's important to help truckies stay on the road. But we're seeing and dealing with a reminder as to how badly this government failed to prepare this nation in the first place. That is why we are being forced into these urgent fixes—because we are completely exposed due to long-term failure by government.

This crisis did not come out of nowhere. We knew that, in the event of global conflict, our supply chains were exposed and Australia was exposed because Labor, and coalition governments in the past, have left this country weak, dependent and unprepared. For years, One Nation has warned that Australia's fuel security was fragile. We have known we were too reliant on imported fuel; we have said so for years and years. We have known our onshore storage is not good enough. We have known our domestic refinery capacity has declined, and we know that Australia would be in trouble if global shipping routes were hit or the world market seized up—which is why, for years, One Nation has been arguing that we need to do more to improve our onshore storage. We need to do more to increase our resiliency as a nation so we're not so dependent on these foreign supply chains. Yet instead of treating fuel security as a matter of national resilience and sovereignty, over the last couple of years since getting into government Labor has drifted along and hoped for the best.

I very clearly remember, actually, Labor being much more strident on this issue in 2019, I believe. I remember Bill Shorten talking about this and warning about this like One Nation was, something that Labor then failed to act on once they got into government. A serious government would have actually acted to build a strategic resilience. A serious government would have increased onshore fuel storage. A serious government would have fought harder to keep and strengthen domestic refining. A serious government would have backed more domestic extraction and made sure Australia had the capacity to stand on its own two feet in a crisis. A serious government would have seen fuel not just as a commodity but as the lifeblood of the economy—of freight, of farming, of emergency services and of everyday Australian life.

Instead, what have we seen from this government? We have seen an obsession with net zero ideology, a dogma. We have seen governments obsessed with emissions targets—applause from international agencies and things like that—and green symbolism, while the hard, practical foundations of an economy that is strong, resilient and reliant were completely neglected. Net zero is not just some abstract environmental target; it is a mindset of this government, and it tells politicians that they must dissuade, discourage and destroy traditional energy markets and traditional energy sources. Instead of making those long-term investments in our fuel extraction capacity and our fuel refining capacity, they punish those industries. They punish those dependable industries that we've relied on for so many years and pretend that a slogan—net zero—is a substitute for national capability. It creates policy uncertainty, it drives away investment from those industries, and it makes government less willing to back oil and gas refining and the infrastructure that actually keeps our economy moving.

You know how we know it keeps the economy moving? When we see it disappear, we're suddenly in a crisis. That is why Australia, under Labor, has become weaker, not stronger. We cannot run a country by wishfully thinking that everything's going to be okay. We clearly cannot run a country on industrial wind and solar out in rural and regional areas. You cannot move freight on solar panels. You cannot stock supermarket shelves with wind turbines. What we're seeing now—this failure to prepare and to ensure that we're resilient—is going to flow along the supply chain into our supermarkets and, ultimately, onto the kitchen table. Families are going to have to deal with higher costs. Small businesses and truckies are going to face serious difficulties with their industry.

While we're happy to support these measures to provide relief, let's be clear about why we're having to deal with these urgent measures in the first place. It's because of long-term failure by this Labor government and Liberal governments. That's why this bill is so revealing—because the government is now turning to a workplace regulation, an emergency Fair Work process, because it failed to do the bigger job earlier. It failed to manage this pain after the fact because we did not build resilience before the fact. This goes beyond this crisis. Net zero more broadly is making Australia more expensive and less secure. It has fed into higher energy costs, it has undermined confidence in dependable supply, it has weakened the productive side of the economy, and it has made us more vulnerable to shocks. Australians are paying for that, truckies are paying for that, farmers are paying for that and families are paying for that at the checkout.

This should be a wake-up call, because, as serious as this disruption is, it is still a drop in the ocean compared to what we may face in the future and what we may face if China follows through on its threats to move on Taiwan. This is the point we should be making very clearly. If a disruption like what we are seeing now can shake confidence, push up fuel prices and pressure our freight industry, imagine what a conflict with Taiwan would mean with how exposed we are to China's economy. The shock to shipping routes, trade, fuel availability, supply chains, supermarkets, farming imports, manufacturing imports and everyday household goods would be on a completely different, infinitely worse scale. That is what we should also be looking to prepare for.

If you think that this crisis is affecting your industry now, the crisis that we are failing to prepare for and should be preparing for—and it looks like the Labor government is again wishfully thinking and hoping that this crisis will not occur, but we know one thing that we can be very clear about is that, in the future, conflict will arise overseas. If we're not ready, if we can't stand on our own two feet, then we'll be back here in a few years time with more bandaid fixes. Fuel security is not optional. Domestic refining is not optional. Onshore storage is not optional. Domestic extraction is not optional. Strategic preparedness is not optional. We need to be acting on these things now, and we must be doing so with more urgency than this government is showing and past governments have failed to show.

There is another part of this crisis that again the Labor Party doesn't want to talk about: their mass migration agenda. Another thing it has to accept is that, when you bring in record of numbers of people into this country year after year without matching infrastructure, housing, energy and national capacity, while at the same time destroying our capacity to refine or extract our own fuel, you're going to have more demand. Without doing what is needed in order to make sure the system can handle it, you're going to have more demand for goods, more demand for freight, more demand for diesel powered transport, more demand for road, warehouses, logistics and supply chains. There will be more pressure on the whole system.

That also matters in a fuel crisis. If you already have a stretched country, stretched infrastructure, stretched housing and stretched energy supply, then any shock hits harder. That's exactly what Labor's mass migration agenda has done. It takes an already strained system and places even more demand on it, so when fuel costs spike or supplies are disrupted the consequences are worse because the baseline pressure was already high.

This is not about blaming individual migrants; it's about blaming Labor's failure to manage the system properly. It's about this government using mass migration as an economic crutch while refusing to build the infrastructure and productive capacity needed to support it. It's about this government chasing headline CPI growth, desperately attempting to patch over the cracks in the economy that their failure to invest in our capacity has caused. When a crisis occurs we are already under strain, we are already stretched, and that shock wave—that damage—flows on through.

They're saying we need to make sure that the fuel gets out of the city into the regions where we need it. One of the reasons our cities have such a need for fuel is that the population has been artificially boosted by a government obsessed with mass migration. In the end, their mass migration agenda has made this country more congested, more expensive, and made it harder for us to absorb shocks. It drives demand faster than supply can keep up with. It feeds the housing shortage, pushes up rents, pushes up wages in some sectors, overloads infrastructure and increases dependence on complex, fragile supply chains just to maintain normal life. That is why this issue cannot be looked in isolation.

The fuel crisis is not happening in a vacuum. It is hitting a country already under pressure from population growth well beyond what our system can comfortably absorb. If you have more people, you need more freight: more food moved, more goods moved, more construction material moved, more fuel consumed, more pressure on trucking, more wear on infrastructure and more exposure when things go wrong. And when things do go wrong—which they clearly have, because we are now in a crisis that this government is scrambling to deal with—who pays? It's the everyday Australians: the people paying the rent, the people buying groceries, the truckies and smaller owner-operators filling their tanks trying to keep their businesses alive—the family businesses that do not have the luxury of passing on every cost that comes down the line.

That is why mass migration is also part of this same pattern of failure, just like net zero. In practice, it often means more pressure on the nation, less resilience and a lower quality of life for the people already here. A government serious about our nation's sovereign capacity would be looking to dramatically slow the mass migration to a level we can sustain, because we can't sustain what is going on right now. A serious and sensible government would put Australians first in housing, infrastructure and economic planning. It would stop using population growth as a substitute for productivity and national strength. It would understand that resilience matters. Our capacity to stand on our own two feet matters.

Yes, a fuel crisis is about energy and freight. But it also sits inside a bigger story—a story of a government that has loaded more and more pressure onto the country while doing less and less to make the country capable of handling it. That is what they have done with their mass migration agenda. It has amplified strain across the board and makes this crisis and every crisis of a similar nature more painful and more difficult than it needs to be.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a position where we can say two things at once and both things are true. First, in the middle of the genuine crisis we we're in we cannot ignore the immediate reality facing truckies and small business owner-operators. If they go under, the country suffers. If they park the truck, supply chains seize up. If this bill helps us get some relief through the system faster and helps keep some truckies on the road, then that is a real benefit, and we acknowledge that. But, second, we should never confuse emergency damage control with serious national leadership, which is what we are lacking. This bill is not a fuel security strategy. It's not a plan for more sovereignty or a plan for resilience. It is a quick slap patch after a failure.

While One Nation acknowledges the merit of acting and the need to help truckies survive the immediate shock, we say clearly that Australians deserve much better than emergency patches and after-the-fact fixes. We need fuel security. We need more domestic capacity. We need a practical government that sees the danger we're in and the crises that are coming down the line. Australia needs to put our national resilience ahead of an obsession with net zero and mass migration. That is the real lesson here. Until governments face the truth, our country will keep lurching from one avoidable crisis to the next. Unless we take steps to stand on our own two feet as a nation, we will be back here in a few years time having the exact same argument. (Time expired)

Given the alacrity and urgency with which the government has introduced this legislation into the chamber and given the lack of review, scrutiny and debate that have been provided for it, you would think that this legislation would be about addressing the national fuel crisis. But will this legislation lower the price of fuel across Australia? No. Will it improve transparency around supply? No. Will it unblock bottlenecks and improve coordination with the states and territories? No. Will it improve Australia's refining capacity? No. Is it going to increase our stockpiles? No. All this bill does is give the minister greater power and introduce more regulations into our industrial relations system. There are elements of it that are worthy of consideration, debate and, potentially, approval, but it's a complete misallocation of priorities and resources to introduce a measure like this. The bill is basically designed to give the government what it's always wanted—a greater power for ministers to intervene in industrial relations—and to use as justification the fuel crisis, something which this measure alone will do very little to address.

The Labor government has dithered, procrastinated and delayed for four years now when it comes to fuel security. Instead of ensuring Australians can access fuel when they need it, the government spent the last three weeks blaming Australians for trying to access fuel. It said people were contributing to the crisis and accused them of being un-Australian for taking prudential measures to safeguard their own business or their own household, instead of levelling with the Australian public about the challenging fuel outlook we face, being transparent about where the shortages and bottlenecks are and harnessing all the powers of the federal government—including the convening power to bring together state and territory premiers, industry, business and road users—to coordinate the best response to this crisis.

What's striking about this response is that, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister, the member for Grayndler, said he understood the importance of this issue. I remember in 2020, I think, he posted on social media about the price of fuel, which was then about $1.80, saying, 'Has Scott Morrison'—who was then the Prime Minister—'even checked the price of fuel lately?' The price is now about 50 per cent higher than that. In 2018 the then opposition leader and now prime minister said, 'Fuel security is critical to our national interest, and the current government is asleep at the wheel.'

I would put to you that, over the past four years, the current government has been asleep at the wheel. Since they came to office, we haven't seen any more refineries built in Australia, we haven't seen Australia's level of fuel reserves materially increase and we haven't seen any greater compliance with our international obligations, under the International Energy Agency, and now the government is being forced to play catch-up. That's okay—we will support them in playing catch-up, but the measures need to be directed at alleviating what we're dealing with today.

As I said, we're dealing today with higher prices. This bill will not address that. We're dealing with a shortage of available supplies. This bill will not address that. We are dealing with a lack of refining capacity and are hostage to international supply chains. Again, this bill will not address that. There are now 880 petrol stations reporting fuel outages nationwide: 340 in my own state of New South Wales, 178 in Queensland, 163 in Victoria, 110 in South Australia and others across Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. In New South Wales the average price of diesel is 307c per litre. And E10—what many motorists put in their passenger vehicle—is at 248.5c per litre.

This is hitting households and is also hitting small businesses, tradies, truckies, freight operators and families—anyone who is reliant upon transport to get around. And it's not only affecting them at the bowser but increasingly will be affecting them in terms of the price they pay for goods on the supermarket shelf, because the cost of transportation, the cost of energy, is embedded in absolutely everything we consume.

The coalition has been clear. Unlike this bill, what we are proposing is to offer immediate and practical relief by, firstly, halving the fuel excise for three months and, secondly, reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge. Halving the fuel excise for three months would immediately cut 26c per litre off the price people are paying for fuel, delivering immediate cost-of-living relief. This is designed to be temporary and targeted and to ease pressure on households and small businesses.

We have also identified savings that will pay for this. But I would point out that the government's own electricity rebate scheme, in its several iterations, cost the budget $6 billion all up, in about three or four different phases. At that point the government recognised that spiking wholesale energy prices merited relief for households that were dealing with the inflationary consequences of that. Well, today we have spiking petrol and diesel prices, and surely the case is as strong to provide households with immediate cost-of-living relief for that.

When the coalition was in government we passed the Fuel Security Act, we introduced what's called a minimum stockholding obligation, and we rescued the last two refineries that were threatening to go out of business in Australia. Importantly, we put in place the legislative, policy and legal framework to allow subsequent governments to improve our fuel security. We had the mechanisms in place to incentivise the maintenance as well as the growth of refining capacity. We had the mechanism in place for the minister to change the minimum stockholding obligation.

All these powers existed when this government came into office. And, since this government has come into office, the international outlook has deteriorated dramatically. That's just an objective observation. Since this government came to office, we have had a war in Europe involving major powers—Russia and Ukraine as well as European Union powers and the United States. That war is now in its fifth year. We have had a war in the Middle East, again involving major powers. Its currently iteration—Israel, the United States, and Iran, but there have been multiple phases in this conflict—has been going for 2½ years.

You would think that if you wound back the clock five years you would realise that the security environment today is different to what it was five years ago, and our ability to rely upon international supply chains, freedom of navigation and commerce on the high seas, sea lanes of communication—everything that has underpinned Australia as a modern, open trading global economy—has changed dramatically in the past four years. But the government has not changed any of the policies or any of the settings to adjust and allow for that more risky environment. If we put in place four years ago the Fuel Security Act minimum stockholding obligation and the policy levers to support refining capacity, then, in the four years since this government came to office, you would have thought that, with everything that's happened internationally, they would have built upon those mechanisms. But instead they have done nothing. They've been completely idle these past four years and now they are dealing with the consequences of that.

Even four weeks ago, before this current conflict broke out, the government had nothing to say to warn Australians about this. This conflict between the United States and Iran was eminently foreseeable. The United States had issued public deadlines. They had moved two aircraft carrier battle groups to the region. They had engaged in a diplomatic process with some clear time limitations put on that. But, in the week before this crisis broke, you didn't once have the Prime Minister front the media, hold a press conference, warn the Australian public—never mind the motoring Australian public—about the risks of this conflict. We saw no steps from the government to improve fuel security in advance of this crisis. We saw no attempts to warn the travelling Australian public by changing the level of our travel advice. We didn't see the Foreign minister stand up. We didn't see the defence minister stand up. This sort of indolence that they displayed before this current war broke out has been mirrored right across their past four years in government, when they have done nothing to improve refining capacity, nothing to grow the minimum stockholding obligation, nothing to increase the stockpiles Australia holds, nothing to build redundancy and complementarity into our supply chains.

On this legislation in particular, let's be clear here. It doesn't introduce a new framework. The so-called 'road transport contractual chain order framework' already exists in law. All this particular piece of legislation does is allow the minister to look at applications under that framework, determine that they are emergency applications and expedite their consideration. I think that, in the circumstances we face, that is something worthwhile. I think that is positive. But I think we need to be clear that this will not lower the price of fuel or diesel or petrol for anyone. It will not provide one more litre than already exists here in Australia. It's not going to improve our capacity to meet our own fuel security needs. All it will do—and this is worthy—is provide some relief to people who are locked into contracts where the rapid increase in the price of fuel makes their continued operation unviable.

But, if this is a temporary emergency—and it is—then why are the powers that we're being asked to provide the minister under this act permanent? We are talking about a temporary relief measure to address a temporary crisis, but we are enshrining via legislation a permanent power for the minister to determine that an emergency application exists in any future scenario. If this is a temporary crisis, why is there no sunset provision to this legislation? Why will this power be given to the minister in perpetuity? If this is a temporary crisis, why is there no review mechanism built into this legislation? These are all good public policy features of legislation that everyone in this chamber is familiar with—sunset provisions for situations where the emergency is likely to pass and automatic reviews of legislation within a year, two years or a specified timeframe to see if it's working as it should. But this bill does not contain any of those protections. There's no automatic review. There's no sunset provision. I'm not even sure if the instrument that the minister uses to determine that an emergency application exists is a disallowable instrument. To be honest, I haven't had the time to look at the legislation closely enough to see if that's the case.

But I don't think that withstands scrutiny. This is a power grab. This is about giving a minister greater unfettered authority, and I don't think the business case has been made for that. As I said, this is addressing a second- or third-order issue of the crisis we're in, not a first-order issue. It is providing the minister a broad discretion that doesn't currently exist, but the framework to address this policy problem—the road transport contractual chain order mechanism—does exist, and we're being asked to grant these powers without the normal scrutinies and processes of legislative review and deliberation that the Senate is designed and empowered to conduct.

Now, if you could tell me that this legislation, if passed today by us and given assent this week, would immediately bring down prices, would immediately improve supply, would immediately improve the cost of living for Australia and would immediately provide security to manufacturers and transport, then I would be prepared to look past some of these concerns, but not even the most fervent supporters of this bill can pretend it does any of these things. The most they can say is it will have an impact on the margins in alleviating some of the pain associated with this crisis. As I said, that is not an unworthy goal, but the mechanisms we're being asked to support are disproportionate to the benefits that this legislation is intended to achieve. For those reasons, we will be moving amendments—I expect the coalition will be moving amendments—to this bill and we will continue to scrutinise this government's response to an ongoing energy crisis.

I rise today to support the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. I do so proudly as part of a Labor government that believes in one simple idea: if you work hard, you deserve a fair go. That belief has guided this government from day 1. It's why we've lifted wages, strengthened workplace protections and stood up for the people who too often get squeezed at the bottom of the system. That's why we're acting again today—because Australian truck drivers deserve nothing less.

It's interesting. The former speaker condemns the government for not pre-empting wars, not taking action, not rushing. His view would be that you should just rush in and make decisions, which was the hallmark of their 10 years when they were last in government. Well, we aren't like that. We actually consult and we take considered decisions.

Truckies keep this country moving, and not once did I hear them, in any of their contributions, giving any credence or support to the trucking industry in this country. They deliver the food on our tables, the fuel that powers our communities and the goods that keep regional and remote Australia connected. When disasters strike, when shelves need restocking, when communities need supplies, truck drivers are there. But right now they're under immense pressure. We've listened to them and we've taken the action. Global fuel prices have surged as a result of the war in the Middle East, not because of the Albanese government and not because the Labor government hasn't taken actions. It's happened because of the war in the Middle East, which we cannot, as much as we would like to, end right this minute. We can't do it.

These prices have been a shock. They've been unpredictable and completely beyond the control of Australian workers and small businesses. Once again, those at the bottom of the supply chain have been asked to carry the heaviest burden, and Labor does not accept that. We do not accept a system where costs are pushed downhill while the biggest players protect their margins while truck drivers are left wondering if they can keep the lights on. That is not fair, and it's not the Australia that we believe in.

Unlike those opposite, we don't just talk the talk, playing politics at every opportunity when Australians are feeling the impacts of the consequences of the war in the Middle East. We're not about playing politics. That's what those people on the other side do each and every time. The Prime Minister is consulting to ensure that we take the actions needed to support our communities. We fully understand the impact of the increase on the fuel prices on the trucking industry and all motorists. I just want to mention that the Tasmanian government have made public transport available in Tasmania, which is a good thing. But what they've done is overlook the impact on the taxi industry. Fuel costs for taxis, particularly the maxi taxis that transport people with disabilities, have gone up exponentially, and there's been no assistance. I'm calling on the state government in Tasmania to take immediate action to support the taxi industry.

This government has already taken strong action to fix the broken systems in broad transport. We recognise that supply chains don't operate at just one level; decisions made at the top have real consequences for workers at the bottom. That's why we empowered the independent Fair Work Commission to set enforceable standards across contractual chains, so responsibility is shared more fairly. But fairness also means being responsive. Right now the laws move too slowly. While fuel prices spiked today, the system tells truckies to wait months before help can even be considered. That's not good enough when livelihoods, local communities and our economy are on the line.

This bill is about fixing that. It ensures the system can respond when Australians need it. That's why there's a National Cabinet meeting taking place today with the Prime Minister, state premiers and territory leaders. We consult and we want to work together. This is a crisis that is impacting the entire nation. Let's be clear: this is not a blank cheque. This legislation is not overreach. This is a targeted, responsible measure designed for exceptional circumstances exactly like the situation we are facing now. What it does is send a clear message: Labor has the backs of working Australians. When truck drivers go under, communities suffer.

I repeat that: when truck drivers go under, then communities suffer. Regional towns lose their services, supply chains fracture, prices rise further and the economy becomes more fragile. We cannot build a strong economy by ignoring the people who keep it running. We didn't do that during COVID. We did actually value people like truck drivers and people in retail. As soon as COVID was over and people were back to normal, we forgot about those people. Well, this government has not. That's why this bill matters beyond in chamber. It matters to families wondering if their local transport operator will survive—families wondering whether they will be able to keep their truck on the road. It matters to regional communities that rely on road freight, and it matters to an economy that needs stability, resilience and fairness to grow.

This reform has been called for by industry and workers alike. It reflects common sense, fairness and Labor's values, and that's why we're taking this action. At a time when global uncertainty is hitting local industries, Australians expect their government to act now, not to sit on their hands or hide behind processes but to step up, and that's what this government is doing. I want to congratulate Minister Rishworth, because I think she, in her portfolio responsibility, has shown the leadership that Australians know they will get from this Labor government. This is exactly what this Labor government is doing, and it's what we've been doing since day one. We are standing with Australian workers. We're standing with and supporting our communities. And we're standing up for an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, because that's what a Labor government does. Without our truck drivers and taxi drivers, the impact will be far greater. I commend this legislation, as I said. I congratulate the Prime Minister and the minister for taking the step of introducing this bill. I'd like to think everyone in this chamber will support this. We know they normally vote against everything that we put up about the cost of living, giving energy relief and reducing the cost of medications. We know they didn't support a pay rise for aged-care workers or people in early childhood education. They're the party of 'no, no, no'. Well, on this occasion, you need to support truck drivers. You need to support regional Australia. You need to support Australia.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. Labor has forgotten Australians. We've heard some evidence today they might have just caught up with what's going on. Finally, the Prime Minister has responded to coalition pressure and, I understand, is moving to change the fuel excise. As I speak, I'm mindful of the fear, anger and frustration that are very real for Australians: anger because Australians are suffering through a fuel crisis that this Labor government firstly denied was real, calling those in the coalition who raised it 'right-wing extremists'; frustration because this government delayed responding, distracted by politics rather than the things that matter to people; and fear because this government is not focused on relief at the bowser—immediate, targeted relief that matters to those most affected.

On Friday, when I left this place, my diesel vehicle fill-up cost me $3 per litre. That's in the city. Today, in just two days, it is a new price of $3.25 a litre. A tank cost me $18 more 48 hours later, and there is not much from this government that tells me where this ends. It is real fear that this government has not understood. There's no plan, no urgency and no understanding, and this government has shown no leadership. That's why Australians are fearful. The coalition will not stop pushing until this Prime Minister acts with the urgency this national emergency demands. This bill Labor has come up with does not bring relief at the bowser or for the bills that need to be paid now. The bill itself didn't amend the fuel excise, and it does not alter the heavy user charge. It provides no immediate relief.

This is not a political attack; it is a statement of fact backed by the lived reality of millions of Australians who cannot find fuel, cannot afford fuel or are watching their businesses buckle under pressure because fuel prices and supply have spiralled out of control. And where is the energy minister while all this unfolds? This is the man who stood at podiums and told Australians, 'There is no problem,' while servo after servo ran dry. Over 870 petrol stations across this country are now reporting some form of fuel outage. This is a national emergency, and the minister is missing in action. This crisis has landed on top of Labor's inflation disaster. That already existed. The Treasurer himself has admitted that Treasury's estimate of five per cent inflation this year was actually conservative. Rising costs were an issue even before this conflict in the Middle East, and this has made it much worse.

Interest rates remain elevated, national debt is racing towards $1 trillion and South Australia carries the burden of record insolvencies—no thanks to the work of state and federal Labor governments. In rural South Australia, locals are watching fuel costs spiral to $3.50 per litre and nearing $4 in most remote parts. Trucking costs are up more than 33 per cent, leaving businesses at breaking point. Already, these costs are being passed on to consumers. Small businesses, cafes and restaurants, which are barely getting by already, are considering implementing a five per cent surcharge to offset their costs. How long before their customers stop coming through the door?

We've heard about the impact on volunteers providing and delivering food to people on aged-care packages. This is having an impact right across the country. Livestock SA, who are in direct contract with producers right across the state, is reporting delays, disruptions and, at times, no fuel at all. We just had rain recently. They have to get their seeds in at exactly the right time or else there's reduced production—or none at all. These delays are putting livestock, crops and livelihoods at risk—even food supply. One primary producer ordered 25,000 litres of fuel and received just 16,000 litres. That's not an inconvenience; for him, that's a crisis, and it's real.

Fuel theft is up. Drive-offs at fuel suppliers are up. I was sent photos on the weekend of fuel tanks broken into on cars parked on ordinary suburban streets. Again, this is real. The only people that don't seem to get it are those people opposite—the Labor Party. In the remote APY Lands, the situation is dire. Fuel costs are approaching $4 per litre for diesel and a single order requires four truckloads, at a cost of between $80,000 and $100,000—money that these community stores don't have, and neither do their customers. Most are on fixed incomes or government income support. They are already going hungry because they cannot drive to stores and, like others, are sacrificing food and other basic necessities.

Correspondence I received from a funeral service provider illustrates just how far the consequences of this crisis reach and how little this government has thought through who gets left behind when the fuel runs short. Funeral services rely on transport—in particular, diesel powered vehicles—to attend places of death, to transfer deceased people and to conduct services across multiple locations. In regional areas those distances are significant. There is no flexibility in the timeline, and families in grief can't be told to wait. Yet funeral service providers are not formally recognised as an essential service within emergency and fuel allocation frameworks. This means that, when fuel is scarce and allocations are made, funeral providers are among the most vulnerable. This is the real-world consequence of a part-time energy minister, asleep at the wheel, and a prime minister with no plan, no urgency and no leadership.

I go back to looking across this chamber at the number of ministers—those people who should be making the decisions and who should have been planning—crossing the chamber for 3½ hours on a single day, instead of being back at their offices and working out, 'How is this going to affect not just my portfolio but also the people in my electorate?' Instead they spent 3½ hours every day crossing the floor in here.

The Prime Minister needs to move fuel to the hundreds of service stations that have run dry. When there's a sign that says that there is no fuel and when you're told not to take so much, well, that's rationing. The coalition has been clear about the fuel excise. The Prime Minister has finally relented to that pressure, but he should have done so earlier. What he could also do is look at a reduction in the heavy vehicle road user charge. That would also provide immediate targeted relief to those who need it now. Addressing excise will ease the crushing pressure on the trucking industry and would send a signal to Australians that their government is actually on their side.

Instead, what has the Prime Minister offered? I couldn't believe it—the suggestion to buy an electric vehicle, just like that. I'm not making it up. In the middle of a national fuel crisis with people in the APY Lands going hungry and with truck drivers facing weekly fuel bills that have jumped by tens of thousands of dollars, the Prime Minister and his government's answer is, 'Well, if you had an electric vehicle, it wouldn't be so tough.' It would be laughable if it wasn't so insensitive and offensive. Every Australian should be angry, because that's not leadership.

Now, going to the legislation before us, the coalition will seek amendments. The amendments seek for this bill to be sent to a committee to inquire into it further, but it will be a retrospective inquiry. The coalition's amendments also seek an independent review as to the effectiveness of the amendments and for that review to be tabled in this parliament. Australians deserve to know that what Labor proposed is actually working. The coalition's amendments are aligned with a request from industry and are in the interests of commercial, competitive and well-functioning transport industries. We ask why this measure is not temporary. We ask why there is no sunset clause. We ask why there is no automatic review provision.

It was the coalition that called on the government to convene National Cabinet to direct fuel supply to where it is in short supply and to accelerate new powers to the ACCC. At every turn, this government has not taken this crisis seriously, but the coalition will. This crisis is now five weeks old. Labor spent the first week denying that the risk existed. Remember when we were told there was plenty of fuel? The second week was spent blaming consumers. In week 3, it was the states and territories that needed to play a greater role and, again, it was consumers who were responsible. It has been more than a week of catching up, outsourcing responsibility to a national fuel coordinator rather than every single minister working out how their portfolios, and the states and territories, should be protected from this.

Australia is at the end of a supply chain—and it's pretty obvious; we're pretty close to the South Pole. It was Labor that did not plan for this supply shock or to protect Australian consumers with all the intelligence available to it, with all the levers at its disposal and with all the members of parliament it has in ministerial positions. It was like a shock to this Labor government. The government did none of the things that were necessary in a timely or responsible manner, and it is Australians who are paying the price. We need the government to move fuel to the servos. It's a move that matters now to every single Australian. We need an end to the excuses and we need the Prime Minister to start listening and to start leading. I commend the coalition's amendments to the Senate.

Without trucks, Australia stops. Labor is acting now to ensure we can keep Australia moving. This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026, gives the Fair Work Commission the power to act quickly in those moments of crisis. At its core, this bill is about something very simple—fairness. It is about fairness for the men and women who keep this country moving, fairness for truck drivers hauling goods across thousands of kilometres, fairness for people who connect farmers with our food markets, fairness for people who keep our supermarket shelves stocked and fairness for small transport operators who are being squeezed out by global forces completely beyond their control.

This bill recognises a reality we cannot ignore: when conflict erupts in the Middle East, demand for fuel spikes here at home. When demand spikes, it is the driver, the subcontractor and the small operator at the bottom of the supply chain who wear the cost. This amendment bill removes the outdated, rigid six-month consultation requirement for contract chain orders during fuel price spikes, because in a crisis six months might as well be six years. This is about responsiveness, fairness and protecting livelihoods in real time.

Moments like this remind us why organisations like the Transport Workers Union are so vital. For decades the TWU has stood between vulnerable workers and powerful interests. It has fought for safe rates, ensuring truck drivers are paid properly so that truckies aren't forced to speed, skip breaks or drive exhausted just to make ends meet. Let's be clear: when drivers are paid fairly and safety is prioritised, lives are saved on our roads. The TWU has led the charge on gig economy reform, demanding that app based workers are treated with dignity and fairness and get workplace and injury protections. It's pushed for stronger safeguards in our transport, aviation and logistics industries for everyone using Aussie roads. The TWU's work has prevented fatal incidents, and it has made Australian roads safer for all of us.

We acknowledge people working around the clock right now. As demand peaks, so does demand on our retail workers and business owners. If you're stuck in a queue for fuel, spare a thought for the service station attendant. If there is anything missing from your normal supermarket shelf, think about the poor staff member who is trying their best to stock shelves with supplies as soon as they arrive on the back of a truck.

Speaking of roads, this moment represents a fork in the road for our nation. We have been here before. In 2019 Australia took a hard-right turn under Scott Morrison. With that came the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, Australia's worst energy minister. What followed was nothing short of a debacle, with 20 different energy policies—and they still can't stick to one. Under Angus Taylor's watch, six of our eight oil refineries closed, domestic fuel production capacity was hollowed out, Australia became dangerously dependent on global supply chains and our fuel reserves fell to alarming levels. So, in his own words, let me say: 'Fantastic. Well done. Great move, Angus.'

Once again, it falls to Labor to clean up a Liberal mess, and we do so working shoulder to shoulder with industry and working people—for example, Labor's Future Made in Australia policy, the biggest jobs investment of our generation. This is $22.7 billion with purpose for our nation's economic security, because if you don't make it you don't control it. So we are turning Australian industry from a ghost town under the Liberals into an economic powerhouse under Labor. We're backing Australian workers, Australian industry and Australian know-how, not just hoping that the market sorts it out. Keeping our smelters open at Mt Isa and at Boyne in Gladstone is saving thousands of jobs. This is how you future-proof a nation: build it; power and back it.

The funniest thing about our Future Made in Australia policy is that it is working so well that even those opposite can't resist in. Our Cheaper Home Batteries program is so popular in Queensland that the biggest uptake has been in Liberal electorates. Our electric car discounts are so practical that even National Party senators themselves are now saying they want to buy EVs. Just last week the new leader, Senator Canavan, said he had been wanting to buy a Tesla for years. And our solar rebates are so effective that they've achieved the impossible: bipartisan rooftop adoption by One Nation.

At the start of this month it was revealed that Senator Hanson had accessed Labor's rebate to install rooftop solar panels on her own home, despite publicly calling for an end to public subsidies for renewable energy projects. So Senator Hanson doesn't believe in net zero but she does believe in solar panels to get her own bills down to zero, although she doesn't believe that the average Aussie should be able to get access to the same rebates that she's already profiting from. You can't trust what One Nation says; you can only trust what they do.

Unlike those opposite, Labor walks the walk when it comes to meaningful nation-building reforms, which is what this bill does. It builds resilience into our economy, it strengthens our supply chains and it protects the people who keep Australia trucking.

I also rise to talk on the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. This bill, brought on very quickly in this national fuel crisis, is the ultimate mea culpa that is, unfortunately, common from the Labor government. This crisis is now five weeks old, and this is the first we've heard this government acknowledge that there is a problem, despite like-minded countries across the world being weeks ahead of us in planning and preparation.

When we started ringing the alarm bells on this crisis, the Albanese Labor government said there was no problem at all, and the Labor Party was talking down all Australians' concern about their inability to get fuel in the regions. Next, everyday Australians were called Far Right extremists by senior Labor ministers for daring to suggest that this Labor government should do something about this crisis, or that the Prime Minister and his part-time energy minister should even acknowledge the challenges faced by those who feed this nation and transport our goods.

Then Labor had to finally admit there was a problem but, remarkably, they said supply was somehow even better than before, and it was Australians at fault for panic buying, that there was too much demand, that little old ladies were being scared into buying too much fuel. They said Australians were wrong to look at the price of fuel rising past $3 for diesel and to act accordingly and that anyone with a jerry can was hyperventilating and was un-Australian.

The talking down of Australians did not end there. The Senate will recall that the Labor government, as late as Friday, was saying that supply was guaranteed and, again, that Australians going to the servo were un-Australian, that the farmers who were trying to plant were imagining this fuel crisis and that industry was wrong to see the dwindling tankers and scale back their production because of Labor's inability, once again, to handle a crisis. How dare they call citizens un-Australian—citizens who were working on limited information from this government. Labor has left them in the dark, rudderless, unable to make important decisions about their livelihoods.

In the regions, they've made their decisions already. A quarter of farmers have decided to reduce planting or not plant at all, but, according, to our PM, there's a demand issue. Then, on Saturday morning, the Prime Minister fronted the cameras with another rushed bill, a bill that wouldn't be needed if he had done his job to begin with. Our PM said, 'This bill helps Australia to be overprepared.' He used that word many times—overprepared. That was an absolute course correction for someone trying to cover up the fact that this government is completely underprepared. They are weeks if not years behind where they need to be. The Australian people deserve better than what the Labor government is selling.

Because of the left's obsession with carbon emissions—which, here in Australia, make up just one per cent of global contributions, by the way—everyday Australians are paying more at the browser and more on their electricity bills. Because of this Labor government and its obsession with green ideology, Australians are paying higher mortgages, spending more time at rammed hospitals and paying more at Coles and Woolworths as they provide for their families. The truth is that this government has blown the budget, regulated industry to extinction and sacrificed our sovereign security by locking away cheap and reliable power behind absurd and economically damaging climate mandates. Importing endless solar panels cannot fuel a road train. They cannot power our smelters, and they cannot make our fertiliser.

I pay respect to Senator Sterle's impassioned plea to remember the truck drivers—the small business that drives this nation. We hear you. That is why we called on the government to halve the fuel excise tax, and the government listened. But, still, the Prime Minister's latest homemade crisis is driving Australians into poverty and this bill, his bill, does nothing to immediately relieve the cost-of-living catastrophe he has orchestrated. This is an industrial relations powers bill that, remarkably, only addresses one current application that's sitting with the Fair Work Commission—just one. There's just one in there. This is his immediate response to the fuel crisis.

There's also no sunset clause to take these IR powers away from the minister once this crisis is behind us. This is not a temporary measure. There is no sunset clause. These IR powers are here to stay. This is the government's response. The PM has no real plan. He has no urgency, and he has provided no leadership. He needs to move the fuel to the servos. This bill has been introduced haphazardly and without the usual process and—typical Labor—avoids scrutiny. It comes as no surprise that this Labor government is trying to avoid scrutiny. We have independent analysis that has shown time and again that this is the most secretive government ever. They went to the election claiming integrity and transparency. This is completely and utterly a gross failing of the Australian people.

This bill was introduced to parliament on Thursday morning. Then the government, as it always does, chose to play politics and not debate its own bill. It's really important that those at home understand this. The government is rushing these laws to clean up its own mess and did not allow any opposition or crossbench MPs over in the other place to read the bill before voting on it. This is not a considered approach. This is not a democratic norm. This is not a respectful approach to the parliament and the citizens who own it, and it does not help everyday Australians deal with the fuel crisis. It does not rectify the very real decline in trust in our vibrant democracy. This bill gives extraordinary power to the minister to bypass Fair Work Commission's mandatory review period of road transport contractual chain orders. This is a very serious and significant change, one that requires proper scrutiny. That scrutiny has been denied.

There is no obvious reason why the parliament should be asked to truncate scrutiny on a permanent amendment to the Fair Work Act when ordinary mechanisms remain available and passage is still available this week. This bill is being rushed through parliament, and that should concern all of us. When laws are rushed through quickly, we lose transparency. We do not get clear answers about how the power would work in practice, when it would be used or what safeguards would be put in place. Parliament should never be asked to legislate first and ask questions later. Our job is to scrutinise laws properly, before they are passed not after the fact.

The government says this bill is needed because of an urgent fuel crisis, but if that is true then there is still time to follow the normal parliamentary process. There is time for proper debate, proper scrutiny and proper accountability. There would be measures beyond deals with unions and beyond permanent IR changes. Will this bill increase stockpiles? Will it move supply to where it's needed most? Will it provide relief? The answer to all of that is no. It's just an industrial power handed to the minister permanently. As they say, Labor does not let crises go to waste. The PM has no real plan but is making policy on the run and is using this crisis to strengthen IR powers.

PM Albanese has no real leadership in all of this. He needs to move the fuel to the servos. Again, I thank him for listening to our calls to slash the fuel tax. Halving the fuel excise will provide immediate cost-of-living relief to Australians suffering because of the policy decisions of this Albanese government. Axing the fuel tax will give the mums and dads of Australia some relief. It will give the truckers and the farmers of Australia real relief. The increased GST that Dr Chalmers is making off of this crisis would more than pay for this subsidy if combined with reducing tax benefits to EV buyers earning over $150,000.

Regular Australians need help, not just those in the top tax bracket looking to buy a luxury car in a cost-of-living crisis. Labor has become the party of giving to the wealthy and taking from the poor, and regular Australians are paying the price. We heard this morning from Senator Gallagher, who said, 'The Albanese government is taking steps to shore up supply.' I wonder if Senator Ayres now thinks she's a far-right extremist. I think that's a matter for them to sort out. But this is all we've heard for the past two weeks. When we call out the problems of not being able to get fuel, we are called far-right extremists. Tell that to all the good people of Australia who are scared and anxious right now.

The coalition is calling on the government to act now and to bring down fuel costs. I want to be very clear that we proposed the 50 per cent cut to the petrol tax on petrol and diesel for three months first. Under our policy, this would be matched by a 50 per cent reduction in the heavy-vehicle road user charge. That would mean the fuel tax would fall from 55.2c per litre to just over 26c per litre. This is real and immediate relief for families, businesses and transport operators who are struggling with rising costs. We have made it clear that we are willing to work with the government to find sensible offsets. This can be done in a way that protects the budget over the long term, that helps keep inflation down and that does not involve new taxes to cover the gap. This is a temporary and targeted measure. It is designed to ease cost-of-living pressures for Australians, who are paying the price for a fuel crisis that Labor has failed to act on.

Australians have already endured almost four years of Labor driven inflation, and now they are facing even higher prices because of a fuel crisis the government denied existed and failed to prepare for. People need help now. This Liberal and National proposal delivers that help quickly, responsibly and fairly. Instead, this Labor PM has no plan and no urgency and has provided no leadership. Minister Bowen is spending upwards of $200,000, flying on holidays throughout the Pacific on UN business, while charging Australian taxpayers for the privilege. It is no wonder that we are in this current crisis. Inaction and ineptitude will be the legacy of this Labor government.

It being 1.30—I'm terribly sorry to interrupt you, but you'll be in continuation—we'll move to two-minute statements.

The government really has had its pants pulled down in respect of the fuel situation that we currently see in this country. They've been completely dakked—not a nice picture to paint, I know, but that's exactly where this government is. They've shown no understanding of the complexity, the scale and the depth of this problem that we face in this national crisis. First, of course, they denied we have a problem. 'We've got plenty of fuel,' they told us all. They criticised us for raising the issue, and then they, of course, went on to blame the Australian people for buying the fuel.

Of course, given the complete lack of capacity this government has had to demonstrate to the Australian people that they should have confidence in their management of this issue. Australians did what you would expect they might do: they went out, and they bought fuel.

Then, of course, we had the emergency National Cabinet and the declaration of the crisis, but the government continues to demonstrate that they don't really understand the complexity of supply chains or the depth of this issue. Of course, now, we've had a second national crisis meeting of National Cabinet, and, of course, again, they're late to the game. They're late to the game with the reduction in the fuel excise and the removal of the road mover charge. It's welcome that they have done that, but where have they been? They're missing in action. Of course, their chickens are actually, genuinely coming home to roost when it comes to fuel security and the issue of fuels in this country. They have teamed up with the Greens time after time to oppose gas projects, oil projects and exploration for these important fuels in our country, and now Australians, unfortunately, are reaping the benefits of their unpreparedness.

Today I rise to speak about someone who proves that journalism isn't just about deadlines, doorstops and decoding political spin. Yes, I'm talking about you up there, mate. It's also about personality and, occasionally, some mischief. I'm speaking about no-one other than Dominic Giannini, who leaves shortly for a new adventure. Dom joined the Australian Associated Press's Parliament House bureau in late 2021 and quickly became one of the most well-liked members of the press gallery. On paper, he's calm, composed and accurate, but, in reality, he's a larrikin. Whether it's a perfectly timed joke after a very long sitting day, a bit of cheek in the corridors or spilling coffee on his shirt just before a press conference, Dom keeps things real. He knows everyone, and everyone knows him. In a place of strong personalities and long memories, that says a lot about his character.

Dom's presence isn't just confined here to Parliament House. The Kingo, his unofficial second home, will miss him dearly, as will all of Canberra's many pubs and bars. Dom is a rare mix. He files on deadlines, asks tough questions, dominates on the sports field and still outlasts everyone at the bar. But behind the larrikin and the bold fashion choices is a journalist of real skill, recognised with the Australian Council for International Development's 2025 media award medal. He puts down his pens and heads now to Brussels. He leaves with our respect, not only for his journalism but for the journey that he brought here making this place more enjoyable. Mate, I know Europe won't be quite ready for you, but go well, grab a Snickers bar and raise a cold Carlton Draught in your hand. Good on you, and thanks for your service.

All the best, Dom.

I rise to speak to the corrosive influence of consultants and contractors in the university sector. Today the ABC has revealed that our universities are paying external consultants and contractors over $1.8 billion a year, without disclosing which firms they're hiring and what the money is being spent on. This is a staggering amount of money, and it's an extraordinary misuse of public funds. Universities are routinely outsourcing work that could be done by their own academic and professional staff, and our public institutions are being hollowed out. Jobs and courses are being slashed. The quality of teaching is plummeting, yet universities can find money for costly consultants and million-dollar salaries for vice-chancellors. Shame!

The past three years of Senate inquiries have shown that profiteering, land-and-expand practices and poor value for money are rife within the consulting sector. It is their business model. Our universities are becoming increasingly corporatised, yet there is no clear definition of what a consulting engagement is and how it's reported. Corporate executives and consultants on university councils—talk about a conflict of interest—are running our universities as businesses, leading to consultant capture and endless restructures. This is incredibly concerning. We need more transparency about the use of consultants, the details of contracts, accountability about outcomes and clear criteria as to why this work is not being completed internally by staff.

Universities need to reduce their reliance on contractors and consultants, and they need to ban dodgy contractors from getting work at all. We need a register shared by universities about their use of consultants and the dodgy contractors which we know are out there taking an enormous amount of money at the expense of the public purse and taxpayers.

Australia is facing a national crisis. But let's be very clear: this started before the war broke out, when Australia was left exposed by this Labor government. Inflation was already too high. Government spending was already excessive. Government debt, we know, is approaching almost $1 trillion. Interest rates are rising again for the 14th time under this Labor government. Cost-of-living pressures were already crushing Australian households. Australia entered this period of global instability with fewer buffers, higher debt, rising interest rates and far less room to move. The exposure was already there.

We need strong fundamentals to be able to handle these shocks, but, unfortunately, we're now seeing the consequences of the failures of this Labor Albanese government. Fuel supplies are being disrupted across the country. Hundreds of service stations are running dry. Prices have skyrocketed, and Australians are paying the price for that at the browser. That is why the coalition called for immediate, practical relief through a temporary reduction in the fuel excise. This has the potential to deliver immediate relief of around 26c a litre, reducing the pressure on Australian families and small businesses right now.

It is a positive that, just now, the government has taken up our call to reduce the fuel excise, but Australians have already been absorbing the impact of this fuel crisis for far too long. As we approach Easter, a time for families to come together, Australians shouldn't have to worry about the basics: whether they can afford the fuel they need or whether there will even be fuel there when they get to the pump. Australians deserve better preparation, they deserve security and they deserve better leadership.

In the chamber recently—I believe you were in the chair at the time—I made remarks about efforts by a whistleblower to make a protected disclosure about behaviour they witnessed and actions they're aware of at KPMG that did not evince the standards of professional and ethical behaviour we would expect from a trusted and reliable auditing and assurance provider.

I can report to the Senate that with my colleagues including Senator Scarr, the committee that I chair, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, on Thursday last week conducted a short hearing in which it received evidence relating to matters I raised here in the Senate on Tuesday. I note that the hearing was conducted in-camera but was preceded by a public statement to give authenticity to the evidence that we received.

The committee will use the powers it has available to it as part of its statutory oversight of the corporations law to inquire into these matters as it deems appropriate. The committee looks forward to corresponding with relevant parties and agencies and other as it considers its response to the information it has received.

The committee published a short statement after the hearing, and I'll reinforce one particular point which may be relevant. It reads:

The committee emphasises that witnesses are protected by parliamentary privilege, making it unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee. Any such action taken against a witness may be treated by the Parliament as a contempt …

I encourage anyone who has information that may be relevant to the committee's work to make contact with our secretariat, and I caution anyone from KPMG against using their relationships, power or influence in any way to either seek out or disparage or injure in any way the whistleblower, should that person be known to them.

I'd like to congratulate the Albanese Labor government for taking another leaf out of One Nation's book and cutting the fuel excise. Of course it's taken a national fuel crisis to do it, and as usual Labor's cuts don't go far enough. It's an overdue response to a crisis that a couple of weeks ago Labor said did not exist. Just like Labor had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commission in response to Bondi, Labor has been forced to act and implement One Nation's agenda, although our call was for a 100 per cent cut to the excise, not 50 per cent. Anthony Albanese's second term as Prime Minister is being defined as 'lurching from one crisis to the next'. They were crises of their own making. Antisemitism and fuel insecurity are problems for which Labor is to blame.

More problems are looming, not least the supply of fertiliser for our agricultural sector. Australian agriculture has always been dependent on high fertiliser inputs because of the nutrient deficient soils. It shows we need to revive our fertiliser manufacturing in Australia, so we never leave our farmers short of the essential input. We need to make sure this critical resource gets to our farmers in the most cost-efficient manner by utilising our rail freight networks in operation now. While successive governments have been obsessing over net zero and high immigration, they've forgotten the fundamentals. We can't eat wind turbines or solar panels. We need to eat food. We need farmers to produce food. We must use every measure to support our farmers.

Like I said, there's a lot more to be done over this crisis, but this is only the start. Surely we can learn from what happened this time around to better prepare ourselves. How about we actually utilise our resources—our oil and gas—more?

Australians are burdened with a weak prime minister, a weaker energy minister and sadly a fibbing Labor government. We're in the middle of a fuel crisis, and what we've been seeing from Mr Albanese is simply not good enough. In fact, it's tragic and it's an insult to the hardworking Australians who are suffering as a result. Labor have no plan and no urgency and exhibit no leadership. Mr Albanese has been blaming consumers for filling up their cars. That's if they're lucky to find a petrol station which actually has the product. But what has Mr Albanese recommended instead? Buy a Chinese made electric vehicle—it's a joke.

We may not control events overseas, but we can control how we respond at home. Hundreds of service stations across the country remain dry. Farmers can't run their machinery, supply chains are broken, parents can't take the kids to school, and people can't get to work. When fuel is available, Australians are being slugged at the browser. The average fuel price is approaching $2.50 a litre, and, if you fill up the car with diesel, it is over $3.

For weeks, the coalition has been calling for immediate relief and the halving of the fuel excise tax. We did it when in government when the Ukrainian war broke out, and Labor should have done it earlier. Only today, after our ongoing pressure, has Labor caved and done some things to support Australians. But Easter is just days away. Families, regional communities and tourism operators need certainty and relief now, not a prime minister who is wombling around the country, in and out of his electric vehicle Comcar, failing to make decisions. Australians deserve better.

Today Labor is easing pressure on household budgets by cutting the fuel excise. This will deliver immediate relief every time Australians fuel up at the browser. Today the Prime Minister has announced that the fuel excise will be cut by 26 cents a litre and we will cut the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero from Wednesday this week for a period of three months. This is about taking real action through practical measures—the only kind that Labor delivers, just like our calls for a real wage increase above inflation for Australia's hardest workers. It is for one simple reason: we simply cannot allow our lowest paid workers to go backwards as fuel prices go up. For the 2.7 million Australians who are on minimum wages or awards, there is no cushion, no buffer, no safety net as global demand for fuel spikes. And we're doing this responsibly, respecting the independence of the Fair Work Commission and making sure any increase is economically sustainable for the economy and the business.

And we've proven that we can do this. Since coming to office, Labor's support for real wage increases has delivered more than $9,000 extra for minimum wage earners in this country. That's real money making a difference in their back pocket. Our action matters to every retail worker who is closing up late at night, to the supermarket workers restocking shelves before dawn and to servo workers serving customers with a smile no matter what the day has thrown their way. So I say a big thank you to SDA union for standing up for retail workers. You are the people who keep life feeling like normal in unusual times. You are stocking our shelves. You are bagging our groceries. You are there when we pay for fuel on the way home. You show up every day and you deserve more than thanks. You deserve a pay rise, and that's what this is about under Labor.

Tropical Cyclone Narelle has left a trail of devastation across WA, Queensland and the NT. Let us be clear: the burning of fossil fuels is driving the climate crisis and it is intensifying extreme weather events like this record-breaking cyclone, which is now impacting our communities directly. In WA, homes and businesses have been destroyed. Entire towns have been inundated by floodwaters. Wildlife is exhausted and displaced and, tragically, marine life is washing up along our shores. In Carnarvon, a community already battered by a summer of heatwaves, crops have been destroyed. Farmers are describing the damage as 'utterly devastating'. In Exmouth, residents have faced a massive clean-up bill. Ningaloo Reef, a World Heritage treasure, has already faced record coral bleaching this summer and has been further shattered by this cyclone. Our fragile oceans are under immense pressure, and the cyclone is another devastating setback.

Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm for years. The burning of fossil fuels is driving global heating, leading to more frequent and intense cyclones. Governments must take action. This means no new fossil fuel projects. It means holding fossil fuel companies to account. Companies like Woodside should have to pay for the impacts of their climate disasters. I know WA is far from this place, but I do hope the government looks hard and long at the impacts on our communities—at the washed-up dead wildlife—and chooses to be bold in both climate prevention and climate mitigation.

Australians will spend this long weekend in a thousand different ways—at the beach, relaxing at home or, if they can find the petrol and if they can afford it, maybe even on the road. That's not that likely; let's be honest. But Easter remains something more than a break in the calendar. Easter is the moment that the West remembers the story that built it; sacrifice, forgiveness and the stubborn belief that death does not have the final word.

You don't have to be a regular church-goer to benefit from the story of Easter. In fact, that's precisely why it matters. Easter is not just a religious ritual; it is the cultural heartbeat of a civilisation that gave us human dignity, the rule of law and the idea that every life has value. Strip away the resurrection, and much of what we take for granted begins to look incredibly unconvincing.

In a world that feels increasingly fragmented and uncertain, Easter offers a rare pause to remind ourselves that renewal is possible no matter how dark the circumstances. A wise man once said that even if we don't believe Christianity to be true we should want it to be true—and he was right. Christianity has been the moral architecture of the West for centuries. If that architecture is to endure, it needs more than vague appreciation; it needs participation. Get yourself to church this weekend and take an hour out of your long weekend to hear again the story that built the West. You might just find that the story still speaks and it matters more than you thought. Happy Easter to all.

Recently I had the pleasure, along with the member for Hunter, Mr Repacholi, of visiting one of Tasmania's great success stories, the Sullivans Cove whisky distillery. At the time of that visit, the member and I sampled a remarkable drop and made the somewhat cheeky observation, 'We might be tasting the world's best whisky here.' It turns out our sophisticated palates were right, because only a few weeks later Sullivans Cove was awarded the world's best single cask single malt at the World Whiskies Awards. I should confess that earlier in my life I spent time living in Scotland, a place that proudly regards itself as the home of the finest whiskies. While I was there, I thought I was enjoying the best whiskies on the planet. But it turns out I didn't need to travel all the way to the other side of the world to taste the best whisky in the world; it was waiting back home in Tasmania the whole time.

Sullivans Cove demonstrates, and many other distillers across our state prove, that Tasmania has quietly become one of the world's great whisky regions, with 82 distilleries supporting over 450 full-time jobs across regional Tasmania, contributing over $300 million to our economy. This is a whisky industry that is putting Tasmania on the world map. From Hobart to the Huon, from the Midlands to the north-west, Tasmania's whisky industry is built on craftsmanship, patience and an extraordinary natural environment and pristine waters. It supports regional jobs, attracts international investors and adds enormous value to our premium food and beverage experience. Congratulations to Sullivans Cove and the whole industry, which is helping put our island state firmly on the world whisky map.

My diary is open for invitation!

Last week, during Science Meets Parliament 2026, many of us had the privilege of meeting with scientists and researchers in what I understand was a record number of 100 meetings between scientists and parliamentarians as part of this year's event. Australia's scientists and researchers are a huge part of what truly makes us the lucky country.

Last Wednesday the Minister for Science told the National Press Club that we must invest in our people and our prospects. We need this government to match those words with money—money to save jobs at the CSIRO, not just money for jobs at steelworks and aluminium smelters; money to invest in research for the public good, not just money for research that can be commercialised; money to build our STEM workforce and ensure its diversity rather than ripping funds out of programs or letting others from the STEM academy elevate scholars to fall off a funding cliff. We need to invest not just in our sovereign manufacturing capability but our sovereign scientific capability. That means serious new investments in our science research infrastructure, from a new synchrotron to telescopes.

At the end of last year some of Australia's smartest people handed the government a road map on how to do that—Ambitious Australia, the outcome of the SERD report fought for by former science minister Ed Husic. Now that the report has been released, we need to see it responded to—and don't tell me that we can't afford it while we are happy to give away so much of our gas for free. If we are to be the lucky country in the future, we need investment in research in this country as a matter of urgency and as a matter of priority from the Albanese Labor government.

Nearly everyone in this chamber has taken a flight to be here, today or yesterday, but how many have considered the conditions of the aviation workers who make that possible?

I recently met with Transport Workers' Union members who told me what's really happening behind the scenes. While airline CEOs rake in millions, the actual workers are unsafe, overworked and underpaid. A pilot told me he fears flying into regional airports servicing mines because air traffic isn't properly managed. There aren't enough controllers, and the regulator, CASA, refuses to take responsibility. Ground crews still stuck on contracts after years in the job told me that, if they speak up for secure work, they are threatened with having their jobs outsourced. This is completely against closing loopholes standards passed a couple of years ago which intended to stop this. A security guard described working 60 hour weeks just to get by, copping abuse from the public every day on wages not much higher than a teenager in their first job at Macca's. Cabin crew face higher risk of suicide and cancer than the rest of us while being forced into longer shifts with shorter breaks as airlines extort higher profits.

This airline greed doesn't just harm workers; it puts every passenger at risk. Labor could fix this with a safe and secure skies commission to lift safety standards and cap executive pay. Labor should listen to the Transport Workers' Union and show it stands with workers and not millionaire CEOs. The public are at risk catching an aeroplane in this country because Labor will not support the workers that keep it safe.

In 2022 the Prime Minister said: 'If I'm Prime Minister, I'll accept responsibility. You deserve a prime minister that doesn't always look for someone else to blame.' Well—the irony. Prime Minister, in a fuel crisis, you have one job. Make sure Australians can get fuel. Right now they can't. Families wanting to go away for Easter can't get fuel. Farmers in the Wheatbelt wanting to take advantage of the rain over the weekend can't get fuel. Delivery drivers trying to keep businesses running can't get fuel. Prime Minister, you have one job.

Instead of him taking responsibility, what did we hear? 'The Commonwealth is responsible for supply, but the states are responsible for distribution.' Australians don't care about a blame game. They care about one thing: can they fill up their tanks? Right now they can't. The Prime Minister says there's just as much fuel today as there was three weeks ago. Tell that to the Australians driving from servo to servo, hoping the next one isn't empty. Tell that to the families cancelling their Easter plans. Tell that to the farmers who can't fill their machinery full of fuel while they're watching the rain come down. Tell that to the workers who can't get to their jobs. Prime Minister, you have one job: make sure Australians can get fuel. What Australia needs right now is leadership. What Australia needs right now is an actual plan, not a plan just to have a plan.

I joined the Australian Labor Party as a teenager because we are the party of workers. After a decade of a deliberate strategy to keep wages low for Aussie workers, Labor came to government with a clear plan for Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We are pushing for another real wage rise for minimum- and award-wage workers. Cleaners, care workers, cooks, retail and hospitality workers, hospital orderlies, baristas—these are the workers who are doing some of the most important jobs in our country. They are more often women and more often young workers, and they feel the brunt of cost-of-living pressures first.

If you are on the minimum wage or an award wage, Labor is backing you to get another pay rise this year. This will benefit around three million Australian workers, and never is that more important than now, when the pressure is real. These workers who keep our country running, who care for others and who serve our communities deserve another real wage increase, and our government is asking the Fair Work Commission to deliver it. This pay rise will be responsible and sustainable and will help workers get ahead, not fall behind. We believe that a week's worth of work should pay for a week's worth of living, and we've seen the benefits that our strategy to boost wages has had on the economy. This next pay rise will make a real difference. What's clear is that it is only Labor who will make sure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn.

It being 2pm, we will move to questions.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The Easter long weekend begins in four days. It is the busiest road travel period of the year, with many Australians wanting to drive hundreds and hundreds of kilometres but worried that, if they do, the bowsers will be dry along the way. Regional communities, tourism operators and travelling families all depend on fuel being available. Treasurer Jim Chalmers is telling Australians to go ahead with their Easter holiday plans, even as more than 870 service stations have run dry or are missing at least one type of fuel. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that he will get fuel to those empty pumps before Good Friday?

As you know, President—through you to Senator Cash—the Prime Minister has held a National Cabinet today to deal with the fuel supply and supply chain issues which are impacting our economy. I will come to some of the announcements made which go to the response to Senator Cash.

I would start by saying first that the conflict in the Middle East represents an unprecedented shock to energy markets, and, the longer it goes, the more significant its impacts are here in our economy but also in the global economy. The National Cabinet today agreed to a national fuel security plan for governments to work together to keep Australia open and the economy moving. The Prime Minister went to that plan in his announcement today, and he explained that there are four levels in this plan. We are currently at level 2, which is—

Senator Cash?

I have a point of order in relation to relevance. The plan may be the plan, but I'm more interested in Good Friday—four days away.

The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue.

The ongoing supply distribution and supply chain impacts of international of the conflict in the Middle East are precisely what the plan is responding to. What I was about say is that we are currently at level 2 to keep Australia moving, but there is also the capacity to go to levels 3 and 4. I'll come to those in the future. The plan is designed to keep the community and business updated. It is designed also to ensure that there's a consistent response across the Commonwealth, states and territories. It reflects the fact—and this does go to your question, Senator Cash—

Senator Cash?

In the final 17 seconds, it is a point on direct relevance. Is the fuel going to get there by Good Friday?

Thank you, Senator Cash. Minister Wong.

I again say that responsibilities in relation to fuel go across different levels of government and also industry partners. The commitment from the Prime Minister and all first ministers is that we will work together to deliver for the community and to keep the economy moving for everyone.

Minister Cash, first supplementary?

The Prime Minister has been forced to adopt Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan's policy to halve the fuel tanks. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the fuel excise cut is passed through to motorists in full before the weekend—that is Easter—particularly in regional and outer suburban areas where families have no choice but to drive?

It should be passed on in full. I think the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were asked this very question in the press conference just now, and the Treasurer spoke about the additional powers that the ACCC has, and will and should utilise, in the event that petrol stations do not pass this reduction in excise through at the bowser.

In relation to rural and regional Australia, again, I think the Prime Minister and the Treasurer both spoke about the fact that one of the things that the Cabinet had very front of mind in making this decision was the impact on regional and rural Australia. As you say, it's correct that they often don't have the choice—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?

President, again it's relevance. I want to know about the government's plan for four days time—by Good Friday, when people are driving.

Thank you, Senator Cash. The minister is being directly relevant to your question. Minister Wong.

I'm surprised you don't want to talk about rural and regional Australia, Senator Cash, which was part of your question. That's what I was responding to. What I was trying to say before the relevance point interrupted is that we had very front of mind the impact on rural and regional— (Time expired)

Senator Cash, second supplementary.

Given that there's more fuel in the economy or circulating in the economy than prior to the war beginning, what is the Prime Minister's plan to get the fuel to those empty pumps before Good Friday?

National Cabinet met today and adopted a National Fuel Security Plan. The distribution of fuel is one of the elements, but not the only moment, that we are dealing with as the impact of this global energy shock goes throughout our economy. We are dealing with that. We are dealing with supply. We are dealing with the effect on many other supply chains in the economy. And we know that this requires a—perhaps not unprecedented, because we've seen Australia respond before—high level of coordination between state and territory governments and the Commonwealth, and that's what you are seeing.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash?

A point of order on relevance: you've had five weeks; what is your plan to get the fuel there by Friday?

Thank you, Senator Cash. The minister has just indicated that she's finished her answer.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Today the Prime Minister announced that National Cabinet agreed to the National Fuel Security Plan to coordinate a consistent response across the country in response to the energy supply shock driven by conflict in the Middle East. How is the Albanese government working with states and territories to ensure Australia's critical fuel security?

As you said, Iran's weaponisation of the Strait is causing an unprecedented shock to global oil and gas supply. I've spoken about this for some time. It is obviously impacting energy markets and fuel prices worldwide, and this is pushing up fuel prices in our economy for consumers and businesses. The difficult fact is that, as the conflict goes on and the longer it goes on, the worse the impact will be for Australian and for the world.

The global outlook remains unpredictable and volatile, and it is the responsibility of all governments across Australia to plan for every scenario. That is why today National Cabinet agreed to the National Fuel Security Plan to coordinate a consistent response across the Commonwealth, states and territories, working together through these challenges, step by step, with a comprehensive and staged approach. We recognise the importance of fuel, not only to our economy but to the Australian way of life, and we are committed to keeping Australia open and keeping the economy going. The National Fuel Security Plan will keep the community and businesses updated. It will provide early understanding of fuel security and provide early understanding of fuel security measures that may be required.

Early voluntary action, coupled with new supply measures, can reduce the need for stronger measures in the future. We encourage Australians to use only the fuel you need and to make voluntary choices to use less and avoid the impact of higher fuel prices. I note that some states have taken action to reduce public transport fares as well. Obviously the less fuel that is used in Australia's cities the more that can be directed to regional areas which are under pressure. Every Australian can play our part in making sure fuel gets to those who need it most.

Senator Ghosh, first supplementary.

Minister, you've indicated that the National Fuel Security Plan is comprehensive and involves a staged approach to ensuring that the Commonwealth and states and territories work together to secure Australia's fuel supply. What are the levels outlined in the plan? And why is a comprehensive and staged approach so important?

Thank you, Senator Ghosh, and you're right: a comprehensive and staged plan is important. It's the responsible thing to do. Our collective approach to fuel security through the National Fuel Security Plan is guided by four levels of response. The first—plan and prepare—is what the government has been doing. We are now at level 2—keeping Australia moving—and this involves the government taking precautionary action to shore up fuel supply, like our plan to underwrite the purchase of fuel by the private sector, to give private suppliers confidence to secure additional cargoes and to help boost supply into Australia. Levels 3 and 4—taking targeted action and protecting critical services—would occur due to ongoing supply disruptions and see a more targeted focus on getting fuel to where it is most needed. Australians can be confident that the government has a plan to deal with whatever comes at us at all levels.

Senator Ghosh, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has been taking immediate action, while also planning ahead, to shield Australians from the impact of global energy supply shocks. Why is it important that governments and all Australians work together to face this challenge?

Our government has taken early action on supply and continues to act to support Australians, and, today, we have announced halving the fuel excise on petrol and on diesel for three months. The halving of the excise will reduce the cost of fuel by 26.3c per litre. States and territories are also working on a proposal to ensure they will not benefit from the elevated prices that are occurring flowing through to the GST take. We are making fuel cheaper today because we understand Australians are under serious pressure. Our government will also reduce the heavy-vehicle road user charge to zero for three months, to help truckies continue their vital work for our nation. And, today, we have introduced legislation for the government to underwrite the purchase of fuel by the private actor. I want to acknowledge the constructive response from state and territory governments working as one, which is what Australians expect of their political leaders.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, a grain farmer has told the North Queensland Register that he has spent more than $1½ million just securing enough fuel to sow this season and that, if supply doesn't hold, he will halve his planting program. Minister, what is this government's plan for if grain farmers halve their planting?

Senator McGrath identifies one of the many problems that the government has been seeking to address, and that is the downstream effects, the knock-on effects, of a lack of supply in fuel to many parts of the economy but, of particular importance, to Australian agriculture, and that is correct. That is why the government has been working on additional supply not only in the work that Minister Bowen has done over a number of weeks but in the announcement that the Prime Minister and the minister made over the weekend, which will enable the underwriting of private-sector purchases of fuel. That is all about securing additional fuel for our economy. It is an additional supply measure, precisely because we recognise that we need fuel throughout our economy. We also recognise particularly, as Senator McGrath says, the impact of any lack of supply or inconsistency of supply on particular industries, including agriculture. The National Fuel Security Plan goes through how state and territory governments will work with us.

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator McGrath?

On a point of order in relation to relevance, the question was in relation to grain farmers halving their planting. I am wondering if the minister could address that.

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

You asked about the impact on agriculture of fuel security, and I answered by talking about fuel security and more supply. If you do not think that is relevant, it says something about the opposition's lack of understanding of the policy challenges—the lack of understanding of those opposite about the policy challenges that the country faces. What we are seeking to do is to secure more supply. What we are seeking to do is to secure more—

Order! Minister Wong, have you concluded?

What we are seeking to do is to secure more supply for farmers, for regional communities and for the country, and that is because we understand the consequences of not doing so. That is the announcement that we have made, and the fuel security— (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, first supplementary?

Minister, it is no longer a fuel crisis; it is now a fuel and fertiliser crisis. Urea prices have nearly doubled from $800 to $1,500 a tonne. The latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey shows farmer confidence has crashed to minus 20. Grain farmers are warning that combined fuel and fertiliser costs will markedly lower Australia's wheat production, even if the conflict is resolved tomorrow. Does the government now accept that the planting window is closing and the damage to this year's harvest may already be done?

What we would say to farmers is: we absolutely understand the importance of ensuring sufficient supply not only of fuel but of fertiliser. We understand it is not only critical for your businesses but critical for the national economy and for Australians everywhere. That is why the new Export Finance Australia underwriting powers which I have referenced, which were announced on Saturday—

It's for the big four oil companies.

Well, that just shows your lack of understanding, Senator McKenzie. Really!

Senator McKenzie, come to order!

It's precisely because of the consequences such as those to which you refer, Senator McGrath. The EFA underwriting powers are designed to de-risk additional untrialled, contracted shipments of key products directed at regions and industries suffering shortages, and we are very conscious of the importance of fertiliser— (Time expired)

Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

Minister, farmers can't get diesel, they can't afford fertiliser, and some can't even keep water pumps running for livestock because their tanks are dry. The Rabobank survey says limited access to fuel and fertiliser means some growers will simply not plant in 2026. When these crops are harvested and food prices go through the roof, will this government finally take responsibility, or will it keep telling farmers and families there's no need to panic?

We all want farmers to plant.

You can't farm without fuel.

Well, that is why we have moved to shore up those supply chains both for fuel and for fertiliser—both urea based and ammonium phosphate based fertilisers. I would just make this point: we all understand the consequences of this conflict in our economy, including in agriculture. And the government made a very conscious decision to ensure that the EFA powers were not just directed at fuel but were directed at the other lines—supply chains—including for urea, which are so critical for the Australian economy and for our food security.

My question is to Minister Wong, representing the Prime Minister. Over the weekend we saw Victoria and Tasmania announced their plans to make public transport free, as the Greens have been campaigning for for several weeks. The government supported this illegal war which has led to the fuel crisis. Free public transport would give cost-of-living relief and reduce demand in the cities and thus free up fuel for our regions, for farmers. New South Wales is saying that cost is the barrier to them also making public transport free. National Cabinet just wrapped up, and there was no announcement about public transport. Why are you refusing to reduce demand in this fuel crisis by funding the states to introduce free public transport to help families, farmers and fuel security?

On the provision of free or lower cost public transport, we welcome that, and that is a good thing. I understand that Victoria and Tasmania already have done so and that other states and territories have also looked at lower cost public transport. Obviously, the more that we, through voluntary measures and through choice, can reduce our fuel usage, particularly in the cities, then the more capacity there is to address some of those distributional challenges that we are seeing in regional Australia, which as Senator McGrath correctly points out has impacts on our economy now and also into the future. We welcome states and territories who do that.

The government has put in place a very substantial package today. There is obviously a significant cost to the budget from the fuel and diesel excise reduction and the heavy vehicle road user charge changes that we have put in place. But we believe that they are important and at a time when we see fuel prices where they are, as a consequence of this conflict.

I will just take issue, if I may, with the way in which the Australian Greens continue to run a political argument but never recognise the choice that Iran has made about how it is responding, including civilian targets. I await their condemnation of Iran attacking non-combatant nations, and I await your condemnation of Iran attacking civilian targets, and I await your condemnation of Iran holding the Strait of Hormuz and therefore the international fuel market hostage. I look forward to it.

You're a downright embarrassment.

Come to order, Senator Shoebridge! Senator Waters, first supplementary?

We clearly condemn all war crimes and this illegal war. Gas corporations continue to make windfall wartime profits, and ordinary people are paying the price while gas companies profit from their pain. A 25 per cent gas tax would generate $17 billion in revenue, and with the Greens you'd have the numbers to pass a gas export tax of at least 25 per cent. Why won't you stare down the greedy gas corporations and make them finally pay their fair share so we can fund free public transport and other cost of living— (Time expired)

President, I just ask for your direction as to how that supplementary question can be in any way relevant to the primary question.

Thank you; I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I'll inform the Senate that your first question, Senator Waters, was about public transport fees, and now your second question is largely about tax. I will invite Minister Wong to answer it in—

It's public transport and fuel; it's not rocket science.

Order! I'm making the decisions here, Senator Waters, not you. I will ask Minister Wong to answer the question in whatever way she thinks fits.

I will do so, but I would say from public transport to tax is quite a long—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Well, that has never been the rule in the Senate about supplementary questions, and I'd invite you to have a look at Odgers'but that's not up to you. I know this is a position of the Greens political party. I certainly understand that there is a focus on this. The government will consider all of the public policy implications of many of the proposals which are being put to us prior to the budget and in the context of the budget.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

If this crisis has taught us anything, it's that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuels. We could be electrifying trucks which transport our food around the country. However, your government has indicated that the Electric Vehicle Fringe Benefits Tax exemption is on the chopping block in this year's budget. In a fuel crisis, will this budget help support electrifying our transport system and helping people to buy electric vehicles?

Senator Watt?

President, again, question time is not a magical, mystery tour across the Greens platform—

It's also not a time to make statements.

But, again, I seek your direction as to whether that supplementary is relevant.

Sure. Towards the end of Senator Waters's question, she did tie it back to the fuel crisis, so the question is relevant.

We'll make decisions in the budget context.

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Global energy market supply chains remain disrupted, and, in response, National Cabinet met today to coordinate future planning and action. The Albanese Labor government recently announced new powers for Export Finance Australia to underwrite imports. Can the minister please update the Senate on these new powers and explain how they will help secure fuel supply?

Thank you, Senator Polley, for that question. The Albanese Labor government is acting to shield Australia from fuel and supply chain shocks—in this case, as the question points out, by giving Export Finance Australia the power to underwrite additional cargoes of fuel and other strategic products, including, of course, fertiliser. The bill to give EFA that power will be introduced into the House today. That additional supply will help address regional shortages and fill critical supply gaps, in particular in fuel and in fertiliser. We are squarely focused on additional supply not just for fuel but for fertiliser in particular. That is consistent with all of the other measures that this government has undertaken, including, I must say, the intervention that the government made into Glencore's copper smelter facility in Mount Isa, which meant that the Dyno Nobel Phosphate Hill facility is not closing in two days time but is continuing to operate as Australia's only current domestic producer of fertiliser products.

We are not replacing or undercutting the operation of the domestic market. We are making sure that private suppliers can secure additional shipments themselves that are otherwise too risky to order. EFA will use its deep expertise in insurance and indemnity, commercial guarantees and loans to de- risk those additional shipments and to deliver supply in fuel and fertiliser terms in particular for regional Australia.

Senator Polley, first supplementary?

Thank you for that reassuring answer, Minister. Can the minister please update the Senate on other actions agreed at National Cabinet? How will they increase our fuel security and help protect households and businesses?

Thanks again, Senator Polley. Minister Wong earlier described the national fuel security plan that was adopted by National Cabinet this morning. That is about making sure that Australia has one plan for fuel security, not nine plans for fuel security. The Albanese Labor government made additional announcements today, halving the fuel excise, which will lower the cost of fuel for households and businesses, for ordinary Australians, because we understand that Australians and Australian businesses and Australian farmers are under pressure. We're also lowering the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months and will delay the planned increase in that charge by six months. This will help trucking firms with immediate fuel costs and ensure that they continue— (Time expired)

Senator Polley, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government is coordinating with state and territory governments on fuel security and has prioritised clear, consistent planning to protect Australians from global fuel supply shocks, showing leadership. Why has the government chosen this approach?

This conflict is an unprecedented shock to global energy markets, and, the longer it goes on, the more significant its impacts on Australians. Of course, in that context, Australians are looking to the governments for reassurance. The outlook is uncertain. Fuel prices have been rising for all Australians, and some farmers, businesses and regional communities are experiencing shortages. That means governments must be clear with Australians, explain what is happening and give a measured assessment of risks. That's why we have convened National Cabinet. That's why the Prime Minister and other ministers have been explaining clearly and calmly what our approach is. All of the measures that have been undertaken in sequence over the course of the period since this conflict has started have been in the national interest, have all been about— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Ayres. Inflation is hitting Australians hard. Many households are just one or two interest rate or rent hikes away from losing their homes. Over the past four years since coming to power in 2022, Labor has wasted $53 billion on tax concessions for wealthy property investors—money that's benefited top income earners and investors while pushing up housing prices and fuelling the crisis. This is $53 billion which could have gone to building public social housing for ordinary Australians. A further $190 billion will be wasted over the next decade if Labor continues with these massive tax benefits. Minister, will you commit to scrapping the tax breaks at the May budget as a down payment on housing equality?

In relation to tax policy and the government's fiscal settings, I'm sure that you'll be waiting, as all of us will be, for announcements that the government makes in the budget in the normal way. But our approach on these issues hasn't changed. Our focus is on delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer. The Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing have acknowledged that there are intergenerational issues in housing and tax, and we've got a big agenda to deal with those issues. Intergenerational equity was, indeed, one of the big reasons behind our tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer—tax cuts that the Liberals and Nationals said, when they went with their big-taxing approach to the last election, they would reverse. That was the position of the Liberal and National parties on intergenerational equity. They wanted to lift taxes for working Australians and lift taxes for ordinary Australians. That was Mr Taylor's proposition, that was Senator Canavan's proposition, to lift taxes for—

Senator Pocock?

I have a point of order on relevance. I made no inquiry about what the opposition were up to. I was asking about your policy.

Thank you, Senator Pocock. I will direct the minister back to your question.

I will just say that the Labor Party is the only party in this place that's capable of delivering a fairer, simpler and more sustainable tax system that deals with those issues that you have included in your question. Our approach on housing more broadly is, as you know, squarely focused on the questions and challenges of supply—that is the question of making sure that the private market and the Australian government's investments, through the housing affordability future fund and the raft of other measures that we've undertaken are directed towards building more houses. (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Anyone watching the HAFF closely knows it is not touching the sides of the housing crisis we face. Many Australians are feeling anxious, and no wonder—an illegal war is causing inflation. We're seeing interest rate hikes instead of cuts, and we're seeing house prices spike, rents skyrocket and groceries upwards. Big corporations, fossil fuel companies, arms companies, the Coles-Woolworths duopoly and wealthy property investors are raking in huge profits. Minister, why is the government prioritising the one per cent over ordinary people struggling to make ends meet and hold a roof over their heads? (Time expired)

This government is a government that came to office in our second term with a plan to deliver tax cuts for every single Australian. Having delivered tax cuts for every single Australian and done the work that was led formerly by Minister Watt and now by Minister Rishworth in the employment relations portfolio to lift wages and make sure that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, it's this government that has a very large agenda in housing and construction, driven by Minister O'Neil, to put public effort in to support the private sector to build more homes in a more aggressive way than any previous government.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Your policies are making things worse. The five per cent home deposit scheme has pushed prices up and made it much tougher for those out there looking for a home. Renters and first home buyers are being pushed into housing stress as interest rates keep going up. While they struggle to keep their one home, they watch the wealthy one per cent buy their fourth, their fifth or their 20th. Minister, how do you think Australians feel when they see people like the Reserve Bank governor buy a fourth house worth more than $2 million on the same day as the last rate increase, as they struggle to fund their own housing? (Time expired)

The senator asks about our plan that we've delivered to make sure that Australians, first home buyers, can secure a home with a smaller deposit. You ask about that. You indicate that you're opposed to it. Our friends across the chamber here—in the Liberals, the Nationals and, I think, One Nation—all wanted to vote against it. You've all opposed it, but I can tell you—

Come to order!

that for first home buyers, and only that cohort—

Minister Ayres, I'm very sorry. I've called for order. When I was calling for order, Senator McKenzie, you just continued to yell over the top of me, which is extremely disrespectful—as did you, Senator McKim. Minister Ayres, please continue.

The five per cent off home deposit scheme may be a talking point for the Greens political party and the Liberals and Nationals, and something to oppose. But I tell you what: for the first home buyers who are eligible for it, it means a lot. It's delivering for thousands of ordinary Australians now. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The cost of jet fuel has increased in the past 14 days, up by 90c per litre. For bulk suppliers, this means about a 70 per cent increase in fuel price. Prices vary, but bulk fuel is about $1.70 per litre nearer major depots and up to $2.40 in remote areas. What is the Prime Minister's plan for managing a jet fuel, or AVGAS, shortage, and how is this to be communicated?

Jet fuel is, obviously, one of the areas that we have been focused on. I think Minister Bowen has spoken about this previously. We have an effect on Australian markets as a consequence of the effect on global markets. It's probably the largest energy shock in many decades, and that conflict is placing pressure on supply chains across the economy. It is placing pressure on a number of liquid fuels. The government is doing a number of things. The first is, obviously, to continue to engage with international partners, continue to engage with industry and continue to look to secure alternative supplies. I refer you to my earlier answers, in response to your colleagues, about the announcements the government has made over the last few days.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

That's a very disappointing answer. The fire season has abruptly stopped in many places but aviation fuels are a key part of responding to floods, such as the impact of Cyclone Narelle. Is there sufficient aviation fuel in the system to manage Australia's response to emergencies like Cyclone Narelle without stopping supply to agriculture or to transport aviation?

I, again, indicate to you that we are working to secure supply in global markets and through our engagement with partners. You have seen that occur over these last weeks, with both myself and the Prime Minister, with international partners who are our major suppliers of a range of liquid fuels.

A point of order on direct relevance. In the previous answer I allowed the minister a lot of leeway.

Senator McKenzie, we've moved on.

They either have the supply onshore, and know where it is, or they don't.

Senator McKenzie, resume your seat. It's not a time for a very long point of order.

You're not in a debate with me. You've asked about a point of order. The minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully. Minister Wong.

The senator would be aware, I would hope, that jet fuel is one of the liquid fuels subject to the minimum stockholding obligation and that, at the moment, as I understand it—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! The question has been asked. I am listening carefully to the answer. Minister Wong, do you wish to continue?

As I was trying to explain—and I think you were part of a government that said it was moving to the MSO—the minimum stockholding obligation is the mechanism by which we ensure fuel is held, to deal with the supply constraint concerns that you are raising. The advice I have, and I'll come back and add further information if I'm wrong, is that we have in excess— (Time expired)

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Winter planting for crops in many areas is about to start, which would usually mean an increase in aerial work. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that the agriculture sector will be supported and that there will be no disruption to critical aerial operations due to aviation fuel shortages during peak planting season?

As I was trying to respond when I ran out of time, jet fuel is one of the liquid fuels subject to the minimum stockholding obligation, and the government continues to work to ensure that more supply arrives in Australia, including through engagement with global partners. The fuel plan that the Prime Minister announced earlier goes to the ways in which we will work with states and territories to address this, including in relation to jet fuel.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Your government's response to Australia's fuel supply problem is temporary and inadequate, and does not address the fundamental problem of Australia's lack of long-term fuel security. Will your government commit to resuming full-time oil and gas exploration to ensure Australia has the necessary long-term supplies of these essential fuels?

I think Senator Ayres went to this last week, where, in response to Senator Canavan, he pointed out that some of the exploration Senator Canavan had been advocating in government was not commercially viable. I would make the point that since 2022 the government has released 10 areas in Northern Carnarvon, Browse and other basins for offshore exploration, in August 2022; released areas in the Otway and Sorell basins for offshore exploration, in December 2025; and granted five offshore exploration permits.

Senator Hanson, first supplementary?

This fuel supply crisis has served to expose Australia's extreme dependency on fuel from overseas and our vulnerability to global economic shocks like that caused by the war in the Middle East. Will your government help secure Australia's future by establishing and supporting a sovereign oil and petroleum manufacturing industry which meets all of our fuel needs?

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, this is not your question and you will listen in silence.

Senator Whish-Wilson, I've just called you to order. Either listen in silence or leave the chamber; that's the choice.

Get Gina to fly you over!

Senator Shoebridge, it is not an invitation for you to start up. Order applies across the chamber. It's disrespectful, when I've called for order, to continue to shout out.

To the first part of your question, there were a couple of points which the government itself has made. We are at the end of global supply chains and we need to increase our national resilience, including in energy. As you would be aware, four out of six refineries closed under a coalition government, and, as I've previously said—

And Labor!

I'm not sure you criticised them at the time; maybe you did. My observation would be that the parties of the right, the grand coalition of One Nation, the National Party and Liberal Party—you're not very hard on them sometimes.

Can I make this point: drilling in the Great Australian Bight was abandoned when Senator Canavan was in government. Coal-to-liquid is rare but expensive. I would make the point that it is— (Time expired)

Senator Hanson, second supplementary?

Minister, Labor and the Greens have routinely demonised fossil fuels, despite the fact that Australia relies on them now—and will into the future. Does the government acknowledge it got this wrong, and will it take the necessary steps to support fossil fuels by scrapping net zero and the national self-harm it is causing?

You've destroyed this country. You have been so—

Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, once again—seriously. Minister Wong will be heard in silence.

Ensuring the country is resilient to international shocks—whether it's conflict in the Middle East, the Ukraine war or the other geopolitical uncertainty—to ensure supply resilience requires us to ensure that we have diverse options. So, Senator, I disagree with you if your lesson out of this global energy crisis is that we should not be transitioning to renewables, which of themselves, obviously, are sovereign capability. But, at the same time, Senator, it is the case that making—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Watt and Senator Canavan!

Senator Canavan, I've called you, and yet you call out again. Minister Wong, did you have anything further to add?

Thank you. We want Australia to be energy secure. What we will do and what we are doing, Senator, is—unlike you, we don't have an ideological view, but we will look at all— (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, can you confirm whether Australia has imported, in recent years, refined fuel products from countries that process Russian crude oil?

Thank you, Senator. I've answered this question before, and I've probably got a brief on it here, so I'll see how I go. What I've indicated previously is that both under our government and also under the coalition government, obviously, substantial bans were put in place in respect of the importation of Russian fuel. I know you have a different view about Ukraine and a different view about President Putin, and I fundamentally and substantially disagree with your position. We have sanctioned the importation of Russian fuel because we don't believe that it is a good thing to fuel the Russian war machine so they can kill more Ukrainian citizens in their attempt to take territory. I know you have a different view, Senator.

In terms of substantially transformed oil products, I indicated previously to the Senate on this that it is very difficult for countries to ascertain the original crude oil origin of all of the substantially transformed products that we import. We have encouraged supply chain disclosure and supply chain assurance from those who are importing from countries overseas where those products are refined.

Senator Babet, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. According to a report released last year by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Australia is the biggest buyer of Russian oil via Turkish and Indian refineries. Did your government grant a permit for these imports, or did you just look the other way?

Senator, I think I've just explained the policy technical problem to you. I've been upfront about that. I know, including with the Ukrainian community, you have raised this with me. There isn't a system of assurance in terms of what happens after Russian oil may have gone to different refineries and the products which might then come out of it in whatever proportion, but what we have done is engage with industry and encourage them to be transparent and to assure their supply chains, as much as they are able, to avoid contributing to Mr Putin's war machine.

Senator Babet, second supplementary?

Minister, is it time to admit that Australia, whether we like it or not, needs Russian oil? Is it in the national interest to permit the importation of all fuels even if the products originate from Russian crude that's processed in other countries? At the end of the day, it's about Australia's national interest first.

With respect, Senator Babet, your support for President Putin's regime is a disgrace.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, Bruce Boss is a 72-year-old man in regional South Australia with kidney failure who must travel up to three times a week for dialysis. He says he has been forced to cut his budget to survival rations just to cope. With fuel scarce in parts of regional Australia, how is the government guaranteeing that Australians who rely on their cars for life-saving medical treatment can access fuel when and where they need it?

My thoughts are with Mr Boss and his management of his medical condition. It's a very difficult situation for him and for his family. I hope that the announcements that we have made today in relation to fuel excise and diesel excise will be of assistance to Mr Boss. I was trying to say in response to one of your colleagues that the cabinet did have the impact of elevated fuel prices on rural and regional Australia very front of mind, because, as you correctly point out, there are issues of price and supply. Fuel prices are elevated as a consequence of the impact on global energy markets.

What I'd also say in terms of supply is that we have done a number of things. Firstly, the government has begun releasing 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligations with a focus on regional Australia because of the supply issues that you identify. Secondly, we announced on Saturday that the EFA is underwriting the obtaining of additional supply. Finally, we will work with states, territories and also the distributors to try and deal with the distribution problems, which we absolutely understand are affecting Australians, particularly in regions.

Senator Liddle, first supplementary?

Minister, Belinda Menzies from Beaudesert, Queensland and her family all live with significant health issues and are now cutting back on driving to medical appointments, because of the fuel crisis, saying that they fear a decline in their health. What immediate steps has the government taken to ensure that Australians are not forced to ration essential medical travel because fuel is either unaffordable or unavailable?

The government wants Ms Menzies and her family, just as we do with Mr Boss, to be able to access medical support. This is a Labor government. This is a government that has put more money and funding into Medicare than any previous government because health is such a priority for us and for the country. In terms of supply and price, I'd refer you to my earlier answer. We've sought to put more fuel into regional Australia through the release from the minimum stockholding obligations. We are seeking to obtain more fuel through underwriting private sector purchases of more fuel on the open market, and we are working with the private sector and states and territories to deal with distribution issues.

Senator Liddle, second supplementary?

I know that hope and wanting don't necessarily do it, but can the government guarantee that, before Easter, Australians in regional communities will be able to both access fuel and rely on it being there when they need to get to critical medical appointments?

Again, the government is seeking to obtain more supply for regional areas, including through the releasing of 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligations. The government is seeking more fuel from overseas through underwriting private purchase, and we will work with states and territories on distribution. That is what we are doing. In addition to that, there's been a reduction in the excise, which I referred to earlier.

My question is to the Minister for Finance. Today at National Cabinet, the Albanese Labor government brought together state and territory leaders to further respond to the fuel crisis stemming from the conflict in the Middle East. Can the Minister please update the chamber on the announcements made following the National Cabinet. Further, what is the government doing to ensure that we are set up to respond to a rapidly changing geopolitical and economic environment?

I thank Senator Darmanin for the question and the opportunity to update the Senate, in addition to Senator Wong's contributions during question time today, about the important meeting that was held this morning—the second meeting of National Cabinet since this conflict began—and the decisions and actions that have been taken as a result of it.

There are a number of things that have happened since the conflict began. Obviously, we've passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies that engage in price gouging, misleading conduct or cartel behaviour. We've released 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves, targeted to ease pressure—particularly in regional markets—and to protect supply for critical users. We've temporarily adjusted petrol and diesel standards to increase available supply and to keep fuel moving through the system. Importantly, we've engaged with international partners and suppliers to support continued shipments and strengthen supply-chain resilience. That's an important part of our response, and, of course, it has been supported by the work that we've done in strengthening relationships with international partners since coming to government, led by Senator Wong and Senator Farrell, in addition to other ministers.

We've appointed Anthea Harris as the national Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator to drive whole-of-government coordination with states and territories, industries and key stakeholders. We've provided some additional support in financial counselling support for impacted farmers because we know that there are certainly pressures that land very hard in the regions.

Today, the Albanese government has taken further action by cutting the fuel excise by half and reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months. We've also introduced bills to ensure the government can respond quickly to urgent and unforeseen fuel security challenges that may arise between now and when the parliament resumes.

Senator Darmanin—first supplementary?

Today the Albanese Labor government introduced bills to ensure that the government can take action if needed to source fuel from around the globe for use at home here in Australia. How will this ensure fuel supplies arrive in Australia?

Guaranteeing supply and doing everything we can, using every possible avenue, to ensure fuel supply across the country has been central to the work that the Prime Minister has been leading, along with other ministers, over the last five weeks.

In terms of the bills that have been introduced, there are amendments to enable EFA to support industry to source cargoes overseas. There are also, through the EFIC Act being introduced today, measures that will ensure a joined-up approach to scaling production and distribution at home and sourcing fuel from overseas. In addition to that, we have introduced a bill to increase the advance to the finance minister by an additional $2 billion to provide flexibility to support fuel security response measures and related expenditure where funding needs cannot be met through existing appropriations up to 30 June.

Senator Darmanin—second supplementary?

The National Fuel Security Plan agreed at National Cabinet today sets out clear stages to manage access to fuel as this international conflict continues. How has today's National Cabinet ensured that leaders across the country are working together to provide cost-of-living assistance and planning for the future?

Today, National Cabinet brought all of our governments' first ministers together to drive a coordinated response led by the Prime Minister to manage demand and prioritise supply. National Cabinet agreed to: encourage Australians to only use the fuel they need—and I think it would be great if other political leaders supported that approach; create a four-stage plan to manage domestic fuel security; continue to monitor demand and supply nationally; track shipments in transit and watch for emerging regional pinch points; continue engagement with international partners in working with industry so additional cargoes can be secured and directed to critical gaps if needed; continue contingency planning with states and territories; and stand ready to take further action to safeguard Australia's fuel security. Any shift in level will be signalled by the National Cabinet, including through consultation with relevant industries and sectors to ensure these measures work efficiently. (Time expired)

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

I move:

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

I think it's fair to say that there are a lot of Australians out there who are doing it tough. We heard from our leader Senator Cash today, asking questions on behalf of many of those families out there who were planning an Easter trip, an Australian tradition, and are worrying about whether they are going to have fuel for their road trips. I certainly count my family as one of those families as my three children, my husband and I consider what we're going to do over the Easter long weekend. Can we take out the caravan? Is there going to be fuel for us, for our holiday, or are we going to be stuck somewhere with no fuel?

It is very unfortunate that the Labor government haven't been able to provide any particular answers or any particular plan. All we keep being told by this government is that there is no issue with supply. When we look at quotes from them over the last few weeks, it has been said by various senior members of their cabinet that fuel supply is actually greater than it was before the conflict in the Middle East commenced. In fact, we've got some 800 petrol stations across the country that either don't have diesel or don't have petrol. What this government is telling us and what the reality is on the ground are two very, very different things. Families out there are the ones who are paying the price for that confusion and this government's inability to get the fuel. If the supply is stronger—and that's what they tell us—than it was before the conflict, then why is that fuel not at petrol stations? Why is that fuel not available for Australian people to fill up their cars or even to plan for an Easter long-weekend holiday? It does not make sense. Either there is an issue with supply and the government is not being honest with us or they're just completely incompetent and cannot get the supply where it needs to be. They're the only two explanations for that.

We've also seen today that the Prime Minister has announced a cut in the fuel excise for three months. They have adopted the coalition's call to cut the fuel excise for three months. It took them days to consider this. They came up with no solutions of their own—zero solutions. Instead, they've had plans of meetings for plans, and they've got a fuel tsar who's helping to coordinate the supply, and that's not working out well because, every day, there are more petrol stations with no fuel. So we are delighted to see that the government has followed what we asked them to do.

It is disappointing that they have come up with no plan of their own and, instead, seem to be following the advice of the opposition. We don't have the resources that the government does. But I will say that there seems to be no discussion about what will happen to the GST windfall that the states are getting from the increased fuel prices. Fuel prices are well into the high $2 range and even the $3 mark. That means that our states are going to get a significant GST windfall, and I wonder what this Labor government is going to do with its Labor mates in state governments to make sure that that money goes back into the pockets of hardworking Australians who are being squeezed right now.

After that extraordinary contribution, which is seeking to set one Australian against another in the way we've just come to expect from those opposite, I want to put on the record a little bit of the Liberal legacy and the situation that they got us into. Angus Taylor, now the star leader of the Liberal-National coalition, put Australia's fuel reserves in Texas, and he watched domestic gas prices go up and up. These are not the guys you want in control right now. They were also in government when they saw four of the six petroleum refineries closed, and two of the four that went down went down while Angus Taylor was the minister for energy. Let's be clear: the answers to the challenges that Australia faces right now are not coming from Mr Angus Taylor and his team.

So what is the reality? Australians have, delightfully, lived in peace for a very, very long time. We've not seen the impacts of war hit us ever before in the life experience of so many Australians. That is the reality we face. Right now, in this piece of land that nobody ever knew about—or many Australians wouldn't have known about—until just recently, called the Strait of Hormuz, there is a pinch point. There is a war that's happening in that region, and we are not getting the fuel that we were used to getting to the whole of the global economy. Everybody who made decisions to scale up their business, to advance their economic risk for reward, are all under the pump now because they could not foresee this in their business plans. They don't need whingeing and carping, which is what we're seeing from the other side here. They need a strategic plan, and they need the confidence that that plan is going to deliver them the fuel supplies that they need to continue to do their business and get through this incredible challenge that we're all facing.

In Australia, the fact is that everybody knows that there are fuels of all types that we rely on for our economy. We need to make sure that we have correct supply, we need to ensure that we have proper distribution of that and we also need to be mindful of the supply chain impacts that are a part of that whole ecosystem. We're also very mindful of fertiliser. But it's not just fertilisers, and it's not just the farm sector that is being impacted; it is everybody in heavy industries—people driving trucks, people picking up our garbage and people who advancing the nation by providing the infrastructure. I know that people talk about the Bruce Highway. Of course, we can't let that stop. We've got to manage fuel in to allow the continuation of housing building, PVC piping, proper infrastructure development, fertiliser and fuel. We know this.

Instead of sitting back and having a big old whinge, as we see from everybody on the other side, we're getting on with the job. Today was a very, very important day because the Prime Minister has activated a critical part of what we're doing, which is the National Fuel Security Plan. There are four phases. The first bit is 'plan and prepare'. We're pretty well through that now. We are now in 'keeping Australia moving'. That is what we have to do. Further down the track, if necessary, we'll take 'targeted action'. The fourth stage is 'protecting critical services for all Australians', including access to health care. Cities; peri-urban areas, where I live, on the edge of a city; regional and rural—every Australian is in it together with this government. We are not going to set one Australian against another. Nothing good comes of breaking us apart. We're all in this together. We can do the heavy lifting, as a government, with the support of great Australians, to make sure our National Fuel Security Plan is properly enacted and that we get the supplies in that we need to keep Australia moving.

I want to refer the Senate to a quote from Senator Ayres. On Tuesday 3 March 2026 Senator Ayres said, 'We have larger reserves on hand today than there have been at any time over the last 15 years as a result of the action, not words, that this government has taken.' That was a month ago. But the reality is that that's not what's happening out there in the real world. We have a Labor government here who sort of go between the bubble of their electric vehicle Comcar and the bubble of this building, and they actually don't understand what's happening there.

This morning while I was having my morning coffee, at about six o'clock, I was planning what I was going to do on the weekend, and I looked up Bunnings. While I was searching for some things, what was really interesting was that searches for jerry cans, fuel cans and diesel cans came up automatically, because the mob out there—our people, the Australian people—don't believe the Labor government that the fuel is there, because for four years they've had a prime minister who is rarely in the same room as when truth is being told. The mob out there, the people of Australia, can see through this prime minister and see through these cabinet ministers, who have stood up here for four or five weeks now and used a form of words to say to everybody, 'Don't panic, don't panic,' when the mob out there know there is an issue with our fuel supply.

Four weeks ago I was in a little town in the Darling Downs called Allora, if you happen to know it. My parents lived there; my mum lives there now. Its fuel ran out about four weeks ago now—ran out. At the same time, Labor ministers were in this chamber saying there was no issue in Queensland. Indeed, one Labor minister said the fuel supply issue in Queensland was because of the flooding. Apart from a lack of understanding of the geographical situation in Queensland—fuel stations on the Downs were running out a month ago, and the flooding was taking place up in the north-west and in Wide Bay-Burnett—it just shows that when the government ministers come into this place they're not prepared to tell the Australian people the truth; they're not prepared to look Australians in the eye and say, 'Look, we do have an issue with fuel supply.' They're not prepared to give the advice. They're not prepared to take the appropriate action. They take action only when the opposition—Angus Taylor, Dan Tehan, Jane Hume and Matt Canavan—have called them out, for example on the halving of the fuel excise, which is something the opposition has been calling for, for a number of days now. It's only now that Prime Minister Albanese has done one of his backflips and agreed with what the opposition had been calling for.

What is also interesting is the tone of the ministers. This week they've realised that they've created a problem through their lack of leadership. In previous weeks in here we had the frontbench all cock-a-hoop and trying to rub noses in it, blaming the Right Wing media, blaming Arthur Fadden—blaming everybody for the fuel crisis. You could bottle the arrogance and sell it at a country fair.

This week their tone is different, because they know there was a problem out there and they know that the mob has seen through them, and they've being held to account for their failures to ensure that we have fuel security in this country. They have failed Australians. (Time expired)

As usual, we have the continuation of misinformation and disinformation which is a speciality from those opposite. We've heard a contribution in the chamber today about how the confusion that's been caused in the community was because there wasn't enough information from the government in relation to the supply and security of fuel, which is completely wrong. But I have to say that those opposite specialise, as I said, in misinformation and disinformation. They never miss an opportunity to make political points, no matter whether it's this crisis we're in now, with the increasing price of fuel, which is being caused by a war in the Middle East, or whether it's a visiting dignitary. The Liberals will never miss an opportunity to play politics. That's the reality of it.

We have been listening—and we know because we're in the community all the time—in relation to the concerns in the community about whether or not they've got access, the price of fuel that has been increasing and the impact that it's having on farmers. Of course we want to assist farmers. The reality is that, without the farmers' being able to put in and grow the crops that they need to keep the supply train moving along—but then today, when we spoke about legislation that is assisting truckies, none of them actually talked about truckies and what they do for this country.

We introduced the ACCC legislation to crack down on price gouging. They wanted that brought in urgently within the House of Reps, and what did they do? They did what they normally do and they said no. They voted against it. Talk about hypocrites! I do appreciate Senator O'Neill's contribution for reminding us all that it was Mr Angus Taylor that was the energy minister at the time when two of those refineries, of the four, closed down. It was him! Then, 'Oh, yes, where are we going to have the fuel?'—Texas of all places. I just wonder what Mr Hastie would say about that. How long is it going to be before he takes over? One might say, after Sunday's contribution on Insiders, when is he going to make his move against Mr Taylor?

Let's get the facts on the record, because they don't like the facts. It is the Prime Minister who has called now two National Cabinet meetings—today and the second one was held. What they've done in consultation with states and territories is halve the fuel excise on petrol and diesel for three months. That's what they've done in consultation, because this is impacting the entire country. So we do it in a very considered way after consulting not only the premiers and first ministers but also the industry. We are putting things in place, as I said.

Now, 29 c a litre of that cost when you go and fill up your car is going to have a big impact on families. It will save you $19. That's a very good first step, but let me just remind people that what is happening now is because of what is happening in the Middle East. We have been impacted. That's not our doing, but what we have done is take the steps that were needed to support Australians, and we will continue to do that. I've seen that in Tasmania. They've actually given free public transport to Tasmanians for three months—a very good thing to do, unusual for a Liberal government. Nevertheless, what I'd like them to do is remember the taxi industry—those taxis who are supporting people with disabilities in my home state to make sure they're not left high and dry. So I will give credit where credit is due. (Time expired)

Here we are yet again standing before the government and seeking answers to questions on where the fuel is. We hear again that we have more supply than ever, but we know—we Australians know—that there are 870 fuel stations out there that have run out of supply. But, no—'There is more fuel supply than ever.' We are five weeks into this fuel crisis, and finally the government has admitted that they've got to do something about it. So let's just run over what the plan is that they've got—the plan for the plan that they've got—for this fuel crisis. I tell you what: you could not make this stuff up.

Four stages—they come in four stages. The first is 'plan and prepare'. The government in charge is now saying today they've got to plan and prepare for this fuel crisis. Stage No. 2—we've got to 'keep Australia moving'. Well, let's just hope that they do that by Good Friday, so that all the good Australians can go off on their holiday with their families and get the fuel that they need to take their kids away for the weekend. Stage No. 3 is 'taking targeted action' because obviously it's not clear enough to the government that there are people—farmers, truckies—out in the regions that can't get their fuel. Twenty-five per cent of Australian farmers are saying that they are either reducing or not planting this season. They already made that decision weeks ago, and here we have the government of the day saying that phase No. 3 is taking targeted action. Then No. 4 is 'protecting critical services for all Australians'.

Well, let me just walk you through the questions that we asked of this government today. Before I do that, I want to ask a question of this government—perhaps a better reflection on this. Why has it all taken today—to come up with this plan for a plan? And why can't they do it all at once? Why does it have to be staged across four different phases? It makes no sense to me. Meanwhile, the good Australian people out there are hurting. They can't get access to the fuel, and they're staring down the barrel of not being able to take their families away this Easter.

Let me just talk you through the reality of what's happening out there. We asked questions of the government about whether they could guarantee that, by Good Friday, those 870 bowsers that have run dry will be refilled. There was no guarantee—none.

We asked them about harvesting, whether our farmers would be able to get the diesel that they need during a time at which they need more diesel than at any other time during the year, whether they could get the fertiliser that they need—for which, by the way, prices have doubled over the past few weeks. No answer—but, remember, there's no need to panic. That's what the government says—'Don't panic; we'll get through this with our plan for a plan.'

We asked about the jet fuel prices, which have increased by 70 per cent over the past few weeks—no answer. We asked about health care. By the way, the Rural Doctors Association are saying that everyday Australians are having to make life-or-death decisions because they can't get access to fuel. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to my questions regarding the housing crisis and the illegal war in Iran.

Australians are in the grip of a housing crisis, and Labor's policies are making it worse. This crisis has been decades in the making, and, thanks to successive Liberal and Labor governments, it's become the worst crisis in the postwar period. Households across the nation are just one or two interest rate hikes or rent increases away from losing their home. Eighty-nine per cent of Australians know this is a crisis, agree that it's a crisis, and yet Labor's priorities seem to lie firmly with wealthy property investors.

In the four years since coming to power, Labor has wasted $53 billion on tax concessions for wealthy property investors. That $53 billion has benefited the wealthiest income earners and property investors in our nation and has actively contributed to pushing up house prices, fuelling that crisis even more. Meanwhile, it's done nothing for the millions of Australians suffering under the conditions of the housing crisis. Labor have prioritised, in effect—as the Liberals did before them—wealthy property investors, multiple-property owners, over regular mortgage holders and renters struggling under relentless interest rate and rent increases. The PBO analysis shows that, if Labor continues to delay action on winding back the capital gains tax discount and negative gearing, a further $190 billion will be wasted over the next decade. This foregone revenue should instead be used to build public housing and to build the affordable housing that we know we need to get us back to the levels of public housing that we had 10 or 20 years ago. Housing affordability is a political choice, and we can choose better.

In his answers, the minister referred to the five per cent deposit scheme and the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund. These policies are not working. Indeed, you can't find an economist in this country who thinks the five per cent deposit scheme is a good idea. It pushed up demand, especially around the point of entry, for first time buyers, and it made it increasingly difficult, even harder, for those first time buyers to win at an auction on a Saturday morning.

And, when we look at the HAFF, it's too slow, it's too small and it's too complicated. It is not even touching the sides of the level of house building that we need. When I look at all those photo opportunities I see on social media with the minister holding a shovel at a HAFF site, I think she'd be better off trying to build them herself. The pace of building that we see in the HAFF is way too slow for the number of houses that we know we need. We need to be moving much more effectively and faster. Labor has the funds here that it's giving, at the moment, to wealthy property investors. They could be used immediately for direct spending on the social housing we know we need.

Labor needs to deliver bold, ambitious tax reform that puts homebuyers and renters first. Instead, they're making things worse. The capital gains discount is the most unfair tax break on the books, and the government should do away with it for those who need it least. Most of the tax breaks and benefits flow to older Australians, and they make it harder and harder for young people to get into the housing market. Talk about intergenerational inequality. This is the founding stone of intergenerational inequality, and it's desperate for renovation. Get on with it, Labor. We need to end the waste in this May budget, and we call on Labor to work with us in the Senate. We are ready to go to pass progressive and ambitious tax reform. It's a once-in-a-generation opportunity for genuine progressive tax reform to pass in the parliament.

We know that inflation is hitting Australians incredibly hard, and the illegal war in the Middle East is making it even worse. We are seeing interest rate hikes instead of cuts, house price spikes, rents skyrocketing and grocery prices on the rise. Big corporations are raking in huge profits. The Coles-and-Woolworths duopoly controls two-thirds of the $135 billion supermarket sector, and they are on the job, gouging prices. The ACCC is suing both of them, alleging the supermarkets misled customers by offering hundreds of products on sale when the price actually rose. But grocery prices are only going to get worse the longer the war drags on, and this government continues to prioritise the one per cent over ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet.

We know that the impact of this illegal war on inflation, on interest rates, on energy and on food prices means that ordinary Australians are really suffering the costs. Its greatest damage is in the long-term effect on housing for young Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I'd like to take note of the answers given by Minister Wong to questions asked by me previously. Russia bad! Russia bad! We keep hearing it. Russian oil, though, is not so bad—that seems, in my opinion, to be the position of this government. Many here in this chamber—and I've heard it—like to condemn Russia. The minister boasted before that we've imposed many sanctions on Russia. Whatever. Fair enough. But this government then goes on to send aid to Ukraine, and then the government gives speeches about morality, international law et cetera. Yet—quietly, indirectly and conveniently—we buy the oil that funds the very regime that we claim that we oppose. Of course, not directly—that would be far too obvious.

Instead what we do is import the oil from India, from Turkiye and from other foreign countries that refine Russian crude. They just sell it to us with a different label. That's what they do—clean hands, I guess. But it's the same oil, the same money and the same outcome. Since 2022, we've imported roughly $24 billion worth of fuel tied to Russian crude. That's delivered billions of dollars to Moscow. Then we pat ourselves on the back for sending aid to Ukraine. We've indirectly given more tax revenue to Russia than we've provided to Ukraine in military aid. Let's stop pretending for a second. Let's just stop pretending.

We desperately need to increase our supply of oil and fuel to underpin our domestic demand. We need shiploads of fuel, and we need them urgently, so let's be honest about what this is. What is this? Either we are an Australia-first nation or we are not. Either we put our own interests first or we do not. If we are to put our interests first, we need to secure fuel that we need and we need to secure the supply chains that we rely on, of course. We do not need to apologise for it. We don't need to apologise to the activists, bureaucrats or any foreign government, because, without fuel, nothing is going to move—no trucks, no industry, no defence. You know what? We should have an Australia-first policy, which would mean putting our interests first. It would mean we have energy security, it would mean realism, it would mean strength, and it would mean we stop pretending and once again act like a sovereign nation. Let's not worry what they demand from us overseas. Let's worry about us. Let's worry about our people. Let's buy the oil from wherever it's available, and let's look after Australians. Cheers!

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 March 2026 of Dr Wylie Talbot Gibbs, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bowman, Queensland, from 1963 to 1969.

I move:

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

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation—Upgrade and fitout of Building 302 Research Way, Clayton, Victoria.

I table a statement in relation to the work.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 464 in the terms circulated in the chamber before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) the tax treatment of Australian oil and gas resources, including any proposals for changes to the tax treatment of gas production and export;

(b) the expected outlook for gas and oil prices in response to the conflict in the Middle East, including impact on Australia, Australia's regional trading partners, and the Pacific;

(c) the impact of this outlook on the profitability of Australian liquefied natural gas exporters and on the stability and reliability of global energy markets;

(d) the impact of this outlook on households, businesses and government revenue;

(e) alternative tax arrangements for oil and gas production and export that other countries have put in place, and the revenue implications if those arrangements were adopted in Australia;

(f) how any additional revenue generated could be used to provide cost of living relief for households and businesses and reduce our dependence on imported fuel; and

(g) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its final report by 7 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;

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

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

(4) That:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 464, moved by Senator Hodgins-May, be agreed to.

I move:

That there be laid on the table, by the Minister for Science, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, any report and ministerial briefing papers delivered by the Chief Scientist or the Australian Academy of Science to the minister or the Government relating to an analysis of the integrity of the Australian information environment and/or the impacts of disinformation and misinformation on the Australian public and/or our scientific sector.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 465, moved by Senator Whish-Wilson, be agreed to.

Senator Cash has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today. It has been circulated and is shown on item 13 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need to axe the fuel tax and move the fuel to where it is needed, as Australians are being slugged at the bowser while service stations run dry.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

I move:

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

The need to axe the fuel tax and move the fuel to where it is needed, as Australians are being slugged at the bowser while service stations run dry.

We now know that Mr Albanese has been dragged kicking and screaming to an announcement that the coalition, days and days, ago told the government it needed to do. But the government had its head buried in the sand. We were told that, if we were to ask for government to halve the fuel tax, we were 'hyperventilating'. Well, guess what. We were hyperventilating on behalf of the Australian people who, when they were going to the bowser, if they could find fuel, were actually paying in excess of $3 a litre for it. We were also told that apparently telling the government that Australians are in pain and that they need relief at the bowser by way of a halving of the fuel tax was 'hyperpartisan'. Again, I don't know what hyperventilating or hyperpartisanship are when it comes to standing up on behalf of the Australian people and saying to the government, 'They are experiencing what you are denying on a daily basis.'

For the last five week, this government sadly has had its head in the sand. They are denying what Australians have known now for going on five weeks is their reality. They drive into a servo—870 servos across this country have now run dry. The government doesn't seem to understand what that means. It means they have run out of fuel. If they do find a servo that has fuel, they have to think twice about whether or not they top up their tank. Why? Because the price of fuel in Australia now is absolutely exorbitant. This is what we've seen from the government for almost five weeks now.

First they denied there was a problem, despite the Australian people and the coalition saying to them, 'There is a fuel crisis in this country.' What's worse is that they then had the audacity to blame the Australian people. They said to the farmers, who were actually topping up their tanks: 'You're taking one too many. There's a demand problem in Australia. It's your fault.' They said to mums and dads who were topping up again because they'd lost confidence in this government that it was their fault that bowsers were running dry. When does this government actually have a good look at itself and take responsibility and say: 'We have actually failed the Australian people. We put our head in the sand. We denied there was a crisis. We told the Australian people everything was okay. When we started realising it possibly wasn't okay, we blamed the Australian people'?

We are now in a full blown fuel crisis across Australia. We are now paying record prices for fuel. In other words, mum-and-dad Australia are being smashed at the bowser. You've got doctors saying people are now not going in for medical treatment because (a) they can't afford the fuel and, worse than that, (b) if you're in rural regional Australia, you can't find the fuel. You've got the waste management industry in Australia saying, 'If we don't get access to diesel soon, we aren't going to be able to pick up the rubbish.' Do you know what happens when you can't pick up the rubbish? Within 48 hours, in the health industry, you have what the waste industry themselves have said is 'potentially catastrophic'.

Then what do we have today? Mr Albanese calls a National Cabinet meeting, and they announce a plan. The problem with the plan is this, though: it does nothing to address what Australians are experiencing today—870 servos across Australia are running dry. That means that, when you go there, there is no fuel to take. You have now got farmers pleading with the government, 'We are not going to be able to seed our crops.' The government doesn't seem to understand what that means. If the farmers can't plant their crops, it means the crops can't grow. Do you know what happens when crops can't grow? You end up with a food security issue in Australia, which ultimately means Australians pay more at the bowser. Axe the tax, but, more than that now, get the fuel to where it needs to be because, without the fuel, Australia can't move, and we need to keep Australia moving.

We are in the midst of a global oil shock that is not of our making. It is having wide-reaching impacts right through our economy. The people it's perhaps hurting the greatest are those in regional communities, in our industries—particular mining and agriculture—and in logistics companies. We have adopted a multifaceted response which is targeting supply, distribution and, of course—announced through National Cabinet—price.

I'll go to price first, because price is perhaps what most Australian motorists and industries are most sensitive to. Today, through National Cabinet, the Prime Minister announced that we will be halving the fuel excise, so roughly 26c will be coming off the price of fuel at the bowser. In addition to that, we are suspending for a period of three months, along with the fuel excise, the heavy-vehicle road user charge. This will give companies, particularly our logistics and transport companies, the kind of breathing space that they need right now. It will release some of the pressure in the system. In terms of supply, we released 20 per cent of our fuel reserves—reserves that are now positioned right here in Australia, not in Louisiana and Texas, which are where they were under the previous government—and that fuel has been prioritised for regional Australia, for regional communities, for our primary producers, for our miners and for our big and small industries that are positioned in regional Australia. We also changed our fuel standards to ensure that we can supply a greater amount of diesel and petrol, refined in Australia, to the Australian domestic market. So we're not exporting any fuel; we are retaining it right here in Australia. We have doubled the penalty that can be imposed by the ACCC for price gouging from $50 million to $100 million. We've also appointed a fuel tsar; Ms Anthea Harris has been appointed to help coordinate this national response. In addition to that, we have put aside $2 million for financial counselling to help, particularly, our farmers during this difficult time.

The most important thing, though, is that the Prime Minister has emphasised from the very beginning that he wants a nationally consistent approach, because, obviously, our economy relies on fuel to move goods and services around. We do not want to return to the days of COVID, when there was a confused, fairly incoherent response throughout the country. That only exacerbated the pressure and stress on ordinary Australians and businesses.

But this is not all we're doing. These are some temporary measures that I've talked about, but we also need to look into the long term, into the future, as to how we make Australia more energy resilient, and that means that we need, as much as possible, to decouple ourselves from the crazy volatility of Middle Eastern oil. To that end, we are pumping $1.1 billion into developing cleaner liquid fuels, low-carbon fuels, like sustainable aviation fuel, synthetic fuels and biodiesel. These will be developed through products that are grown right here in Australia by our farmers. Our farmers and our regions will be the beneficiaries. We will be using canola and sorghum and sugarcane as well as tallow. These are waste products which can be repurposed and redeveloped into low-carbon fuels. But that's not all we're doing. As of today, along with previous announcements, we have announced $25 million from ARENA that will be going towards developing heavy trucking electrification. That money is being put into three hubs in Victoria. Just this morning, I had the privilege of seeing an electric prime mover roll into Parliament House. It was parked outside the front.

Opposition senators interjecting—

It would have been good if those interjecting had actually gone out and had a look at this thing. It did the journey from Sydney to Canberra on a $50 charge. Heavy vehicle electrification is not science fiction; it is a reality. It is something that we need to scale up in order to reduce our reliance on volatile international oil markets. That is something we in the Albanese government are committed to doing.

One Nation was the first party to call this fuel shortage a crisis. We asked how much fuel we had on hand and we were all told there wasn't a problem. The government is playing catch-up. Our policy will cut through the fuel excise completely. Labor's cuts don't do enough. Our policy will also cut the GST paid on fuel. Currently, the Albanese government is profiting $300 million a month from the soaring spike in fuel prices while Australians are struggling. As the pain at the pump increases, so does the government's GST take on every litre. The government halved the fuel tax, but they are still applying 10 per cent GST on top of the total sale. It's an absolute disgrace.

We've seen the price of diesel double over the past few weeks, and that's if you can get it. Our families are hurting, our farmers are hurting and small business is hurting. WA farmers are seeding soon, putting a crop in at much greater cost. It's a double hit; due to the availability and cost, they can't access enough fertiliser. If our farmers aren't getting the fuel and support they need, where is our food going to come from? Australia has got to have a better plan.

One Nation's plan is clear: trigger the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. Force supply to be delivered to regional areas and independent distributors. Prioritise defence and essential services. Drop the fuel excise completely. Provide GST relief on fuel for three months. Develop policies that allow Australia to find, process and distribute fuel. Refine our own fuel, build new refineries and increase our fuel storage capacity. Strategic fuel storage must be controlled by Australia on Australian shores. Consider a national reserve, with crude oil companies to prioritise the supply to Australia. The needs of Australia must be catered to first. Remove the impediments to using domestically produced fuel. The fuel crisis has been created by decades of net zero destroying our ability to use our own resources. One Nation will abolish net zero and stop the billions in subsidies that Australians are paying for wind turbines. This will put $30 billion back into the pockets of Australian by abolishing the department of climate change.

One Nation has been saying for decades that we need to be self-reliant. We need to regain our sovereignty. We must take control of our country back.

I rise to speak to the urgency motion—and not for the first time. This chamber has debated day in, day out since this crisis began, asking the government to step up to the plate and act. We've talked about the crisis in our trucking industry. That is why the opposition called for a slashing of the fuel excise and the road user charge so that our trucking industry, which keeps our country moving, gets the support it needs right now. Truckies are parked up, not filling their tanks, because of the cost of putting it in the tank. And they can't pass that additional cost on to the consumer, but, when they do, watch inflation rise.

From listening to the government, you'd think they'd had it all under control since day one. We are heading into week 5. We are the most diesel dependent country in the world. It is not just our mining industry and agriculture, which pay the bills. Those of us that don't live in capital cities don't have a lot of choice. To hear the ridiculous contributions from the Labor Party senators, who somehow think you can hook up a B-double full of cattle, coming down from Rockhampton to Brisbane, and actually use an electric truck? Seriously! I'm all for electric where it makes sense; that's usually in suburbs and capital cities, where you can plug it in at night. The problem with electric heavy vehicles is you need to fund bridge and road upgrades right across the country because these trucks are too heavy to be in line with regulations—but they don't worry about safety when it suits them.

It's not just the trucking industry being smashed here; our construction industry—every digger, every grader, every crane and every cement mixer—uses diesel. They can't afford to keep adding this to the construction not just of our housing supply but of our essential road and transport infrastructure. The rail industry is screaming for help. Bus operators, particularly school bus operators in rural and regional Australia, cannot afford this cost increase. Our ports are all screaming to know whether or not they are going to be considered essential services if this crisis rolls on.

The anxiety that is out there in business and in the community is a result of this government never taking responsibility. It's always someone else's fault—the state premiers, Donald Trump, Iran. Guess what, guys? You won the election—two in a row. It's all yours, and the great privilege of holding the government benches means you are also responsible for the solutions. Australians are finding you in a dearth of courage in this challenge. Leadership is about courage and stepping into the fray, standing with people and giving them the confidence that you, the government, are going to do whatever you can to help them.

We've seen day in and day out from this government that they don't know what to do. They refused to use the powers they have available to them under current legislation to direct the big oil companies to send fuel where it is needed so that our farmers who are wanting to put crops in, so we don't have a food security issue next season, can get them in. But Minister Bowen refuses to use those powers—and that's because this is a minister who's afraid to be responsible.

I want to put biofuels on the table. It is crazy that we are sending feedstock for clean fuel to Europe so they can secure their own fuel supply domestically, instead of processing that here onshore. We could have done that for a fraction of the cost we've given to Twiggy Forest over the years for his green hydrogen projects. Domestic ethanol capacity sits largely idle despite this global crisis. We've got capacity to produce 360 million litres of ethanol and 100 million litres of biodiesel. That is immediate assistance into the supply problem. Instead, this minister just increases dirty fuel—and we still don't know if it's hit the bowser. Labor needs to do more. (Time expired)

It's fair to say everyone in this building is committed to making sure the current crisis we are facing with respect to fuel is addressed. I find it ironic that those opposite and the crossbench want to blame everyone, such as the government, for their problems. It is worth acknowledging that unlike members across the aisle, who are more interested in stunts—and that's what they did on Friday, rocking up to a fuel station and pretending they had a policy to slash the excise. Something they could have done when they were in government was reform the fuel sector, but instead we went from six refineries to two. Then we've got the Greens going on about the craziness of the war, calling it 'illegal' and 'Trump's war' and wanting to blame the US President, saying that somehow he is at fault, but they fail to acknowledge the Iranian Islamic regime's fault in terms of why we are in the middle of this conflict—it sponsors terrorism around the world, but let's forget about that; let's also blame the government for that problem.

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East is one that the government has taken seriously from day one. We have quietly worked in the background to address the concerns and issues that came before it. We have listened to all people—experts and academics. We have acknowledged the work from those in this place. That's why the government has made the announcement today, talking to premiers, to state leaders, about what federal and state governments can do collectively to address the cost-of-living pressures. That's why, today, the government has announced a temporary halving of the fuel excise for all drivers over the next three months. We've also announced the elimination of the heavy vehicle road user charge for the next three months.

I must say that I took issue with the contribution from Senator McKenzie earlier, around the heavy vehicles and road charges, trying to somehow slander those in the trucking industry. If I recall, for many, many years members of the Transport Workers' Union have been calling on government, particularly the conservative coalition government, to reform the trucking industry. All we got from those opposite was a trucking industry made less safe, less productive and less transparent.

Senator Sheldon will no doubt recall those opposite wanting to shut down the transport remuneration tribunal and successfully doing so. The tribunal would have ensured that the trucking industry in this place were a lot safer, paid trucking folks in the industry the right remuneration and, in doing so, been able to get fuel around the country in a much more efficient manner, supporting the refineries that make our fuel—which we all take for granted. It's worth acknowledging the two refineries that we have left, because, again, we had six, and now we only have two, thanks to the coalition government back then.

You tried to shut it down.

Thank you, Senator. It's worth acknowledging, on the record—when we talk about the hypocrisy of those opposite, who come into this place and want to blame the government for the current crisis—that there are a lot of levers that governments have. I acknowledge that. But there are also international things that we, like every other country around the world, are managing. It is a conflict that none of us want to see, but it's one that we have to acknowledge exists.

And it is one where we need to back our friends and allies, like the United States and Israel, because, without a government in Tehran that is sponsoring terrorism around the world—let's not forget that there were at least two terrorist attacks that occurred on Australian soil, and they continue to funnel funds to terrorist organisations not just here in Australia but around the world, exporting this terror and hate. This is the real, core reason why we are dealing with this crisis before us. It is good to see Australia siding with our friends, with our partners, like the United Arab Emirates, and sending military assistance to help our friends when they need it most. I am not going to remain silent in this place and allow those on the crossbench in particular to criticise this government for its actions in defending that crisis. Let's also remember the work we are doing— (Time expired)

I start by associating myself with the remarks of Senator Ciccone in relation to Dom Giannini, a journalist who is leaving the press gallery—a great bloke and a very good journalist who will be sorely missed.

I'm really concerned by this move from the Albanese government—after not acting earlier, just capitulating to demands from the coalition. You have to acknowledge that this will bring the price of fuel down for Australians for the next three months, but I think this is poor policy and, ultimately, will not serve us well as a country. We're going to create more demand in the cities at the exact same time that we want to ensure that people in regional areas and farmers have the fuel they need.

Richard Holden, an emeritus professor of economics, has said that this is a 'very bad idea'. He says that removing the fuel excise 'is simply going to make demand higher than it otherwise would be, which is going to make the fuel shortages we've already experienced worse'. Research from the e61 Institute shows that this kind of measure would disproportionately benefit high-income earners. This is short-term policymaking that will result in long-term pain. Independent economist Saul Eslake said that the move increases the chance of a rate hike. This morning, my office met with representatives of the transport industry, who said, 'Clearly, this will hurt the industry.'

So it's bizarre that you have the coalition saying: 'We need fuel in the regions. We need fuel for farmers'—things I strongly agree with. But, at the same time, they're pushing a policy that is going to increase demand in metropolitan areas. It doesn't make sense. Surely, we can do better than this when it comes to dealing with what is a crisis at a time when Australians are genuinely feeling the pinch.

What we've heard from the government today is nothing short of a failure in leadership. It's not leadership; it's entirely been deflection. We're told first by the minister that the coalition has engaged in what he referred to as 'hyperventilating' and 'hyperpartisanship' by pointing out that there was a crisis going on under the government's nose that they were refusing to acknowledge let alone address. You'll recall—it was some weeks ago now—that the coalition said, 'Hey, this Iran crisis is going to cause a problem with fuel.' Do you know what the government did? They said, 'Stop dramatising.' What was the phrase Senator Ayres used? I thought that this was fantastic. He called it 'far-right, extremist scaremongering that had people lining up at petrol stations when there was no need'.

Well, I don't know what Senator Ayres does when he's not in this building, but clearly it's not passing a petrol station, because it had nothing to do with the coalition hyperventilating or overdramatising or being hyperpartisan. There was a crisis going on outside the walls of this building, and the government refused to acknowledge it. The problem is: that crisis continues on today. While the government has been talking, getting the next announceable and making sure that Minister Bowen has something to say every single day, the problem has continued. Australians are still lining up at empty bowsers. Eight hundred and seventy petrol stations today are out of one or both fuels. No wonder Australians are beginning to panic. While this government has been accusing others of student politics, families are being smashed every day at the pump.

We were very pleased to see that the government has finally adopted the coalition's policy of slashing the fuel excise. Every day that the government delayed in this decision cost Australians around $16 million from their hip pockets. The coalition announced this policy with the understanding that Australians were doing it tough, that this was on top of the cost-of-living crisis that already existed, and that Michele Bullock, the RBA governor, had said that inflation was out of control before the war in Iran, which was why they needed to raise interest rates. While this was all going on, the coalition were coming up with a genuine plan, whereas the government were simply coming up with excuses. Now they've adopted the coalition's policy, and we're very pleased to see that.

However, they have missed one crucial element. How are they going to pay for it? This is going to cost $2.5 billion. That's the impact on the budget. Annualise that, and you can estimate it at $10 billion a year. That's an enormous stimulus package. There is no plan to save money to pay for the cut in fuel excise. When the coalition announced its policy, it had a plan on how to pay for it to make sure that the impact wasn't inflationary. Clearly, this government has given up on the war with inflation. It has no idea how to get inflation down. Now it's planning on the equivalent of spending an extra $2.5 billion.

When fuel excise is cut, it's good for inflation. It artificially brings down that headline inflation. That's a good thing. Don't get me wrong. It has secondary effects too. It'll bring down the cost of transport, which hopefully will mean that the items that eventually end up on our grocery shelves will be less expensive than they would otherwise have been. However, when the fuel excise cut comes off, that headline inflation will go back up, and, on the way through, we'll have spent $2.5 billion because the government has no idea how to manage a budget. It has made an enormous decision today and has no idea how to pay for it.

Australians will end up paying the price. They'll end up paying the price with higher inflation. They'll end up paying the price with higher interest rates. This is a government that has simply washed its hands of that and said, 'It's a problem with the Middle East.' That's not surprising, because they have blamed everybody else for their problems and their crises. They've blamed the previous government. They've blamed Donald Trump. They've blamed Iran. They've blamed everybody. They've blamed the states. Just last week they were blaming consumers for rushing on petrol, doing the most logical and rational thing: filling up your car with petrol when the prices were lower than they were going to be the following week. Somehow that's un-Australian. How dare the government accuse you of being un-Australian for doing what is entirely rational.

We're very pleased today to see the government finally adopting coalition policy. Hopefully we'll see so much more of it, but here's the problem: How will you get the fuel to the bowsers? There is still no plan for that. Eight-hundred and seventy fuel stations have no fuel. Prime Minister, what will you do about it? (Time expired)

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

I move:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Albanese Government to provide urgent Commonwealth funding for the states and territories to provide free and more frequent public transport, paid for by a tax on gas exports."

Yesterday Victoria and Tasmania announced plans to make public transport free, like the Greens have been campaigning for for weeks. It turns out everything is impossible until it's not. The Prime Minister could have used National Cabinet this morning to make it happen elsewhere. Free public transport in a fuel crisis just makes sense. It's immediate cost-of-living relief for people in our cities, it takes the pressure off fuel supplies so that farmers can fill up and regional servos aren't running dry. Since the federal government continues to back Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war, they should pick up the tab and make public transport free.

That's just one piece of the puzzle. We also need to reduce our reliance on imported oil, and that means investing in our own renewable independence in the long term. We know that, in the mean time, making public transport cheaper makes more people use it. After years of campaigning in my home state of Queensland, the government picked up a Greens policy and introduced a 50c temporary fare in September of 2024. The uptake was so significant, they made it permanent. And it's not just Brisbane. There's increased public transport usage in Gympie, on the Sunny Coast and right across regional centres. Dropping public transport to 50c in Queensland made more people use it, and it provided immediate cost-of-living relief.

While people are paying the price of this illegal war, fossil fuel companies and weapons corporations are making eye-watering wartime profits. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports would generate around $17 billion annually, and that $17 billion of revenue could be used to fund public transport or any other cost-of-living relief to help people. If Labor had the guts to stare down the greedy gas companies, we'd have more than enough to help people through the fuel crisis. (Time expired)

It is an enormous responsibility to come to this parliament, the federal parliament of Australia, and it behoves us to act in a way that is at all times responsible, particularly economically. It is the decisions we make today that chart the course of Australia for our children and grandchildren.

We've seen, under Labor, some of the most reckless decision-making over the last four years—things that have turned the ship of Australia away from the prosperity we've enjoyed in past generations, that have turned it away from our children believing they would have the same or a better quality of life than we have had. This is the first time in generations that young people feel they will be worse off than previous generations. The last four years under the Labor government have seen those opportunities squandered. We've seen the war on fossil fuels. We've seen them turn their back on the energy sources that would mean Australians would continue to be the First World country we've enjoyed being.

I've been disappointed to see the Greens embrace this same kind of economic nihilism, and this urgency motion to expand public transport around Australia, whilst well meaning, is incredibly poorly thought through. Senator Waters proposed the expansion of public transport across the country but then went on to use examples in Queensland, where there is no public transport in the vast amount of the state. Sure, there's a bit of public transport in Gympie and on the Sunshine Coast, and Brisbane and the Gold Coast. But the rest of the state does not enjoy public transport. Once again, we're cementing the disadvantage. You come to Townsville, Senator Waters, and find out just how little public transport there is.

Anyway, it's my turn now, Senator Waters. I didn't interrupt your input.

Senators, I think it's fair to say that everyone listened to Senator Waters in her contribution. I remind senators that interjections are disorderly. Senator McDonald, you have the call.

Thank you. So, we further cement this disadvantage between our regions and rural parts of the state and the cities, where we continue to subsidise those public transport arrangements. But I am pleased that the Crisafulli government has embedded 50c fares in Queensland for those people who are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy it.

I want to continue, though. The Greens, with this urgency motion, have continued to somehow think that they can hypothecate gas taxes with public transport. Given that the government doesn't hypothecate fuel excises to road maintenance—to a whole lot of things that you would normally think would be linked—I think it would be reasonable to think this is a complete fantasy. The Greens are continuing to ignore the fact that gas is so important to our energy security, particularly at a time when we rely on the countries that we export to for liquid fuels. The Greens are proposing that we tell those countries that we're going to increase the cost to them of gas—something that's critical for their energy needs—at the same time as we are begging them for fuel; the Prime Minister is out there negotiating with those countries to maintain liquid fuel supplies to Australians.

We've heard today just how desperate Australians are to receive fuel. It is more than $4 a litre for diesel in parts of Queensland now, if you can get it. So this idea that we are going to damage those relationships by increasing gas taxes—future investment will be frozen and damaged. It is extraordinary. It is a dismal state that our economy exists in now under Labor. Inflation is high. Interest rates are high. Real wages are lower. We have a high cost of living because of this government's out-of-control spending. All of this happened prior to the conflict in the Middle East. This is not new. So we want to see reduced red tape and streamlined approval processes so that we can get more investment into Australia and more prosperity, not less.

The government is under no illusion that the spike in fuel prices as a result of the war in the Middle East is causing financial stress and placing serious pressure on Australian households and businesses. But there is not one single solution, and responding effectively requires actions and coordination at every level of government. Families are feeling it at the bowser, and businesses—particularly transport, agriculture and those in regional communities—are feeling it. That is, of course, the driver of this urgency motion.

This is a global crisis driven by instability well beyond Australia's control. Nonetheless, this global crisis requires a national response, and that is exactly what this government is delivering. This morning, the Prime Minister convened National Cabinet to ensure national coordination and a unified approach that ensures we are prepared for any circumstance. In this period of instability, the federal government's immediate priority is fuel security. We are securing the supply, keeping distribution moving and ensuring essential services can continue.

I think it is also important to be clear about roles and responsibilities. Public transport is a responsibility of state and federal governments. They set services and fares. Where states have the capacity to act, we are already seeing them step up. It's pleasing to see, in my own state of Victoria, that the Allan Labor government has announced that all metropolitan and V-line public transport will be free from this Tuesday, tomorrow, until 30 April. I congratulate the state Labor government for that. And Tasmania has announced that public transport, including buses and ferries, will be free statewide starting today and going through to 1 July 2026. These are sensible temporary measures that can help take the pressure off families now, and we also welcome the other states that are looking at what they can do in the circumstances that they see themselves in.

However, we know that this won't solve every problem, because we know public transport is not the answer for everyone, particularly in regional areas and for workers in the cities and suburbs who need to drive—blue-collar workers, in-home aged-care workers, even hairdressers. But free public transport and reduced public transport costs will make a difference in the immediate term for those who rely on public transport and those who can take the train or the bus instead of using their cars. When those of us who are able in the cities and suburbs to reduce our fuel consumption do so, we are freeing up supply for those in regional and remote communities and for workers who cannot use public transport in their daily jobs. This is the Australian way—all of us doing our bit in the way that we can to support our communities as a whole.

Whilst this motion sparks an interesting debate, let's look at the extensive action taken by this government to address the immediate challenges facing us right now as a nation. As the Treasurer said this morning, while we cannot choose what is happening in the Middle East, we can choose how we respond as a federal government here at home. That is why the government announced today that we are halving the fuel excise for three months, starting on Wednesday. This will reduce petrol and diesel prices by 26.3c per litre, providing immediate relief to households and businesses. We are also reducing the heavy-vehicle user charge to zero for the same three-month period to ease pressure on freight, food supply chains and essential transport. And of course these announcements are in addition to the measures that we have already announced.

The government has already released 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, with a focus on getting fuel to regional communities where it is needed. And we have appointed a fuel supply taskforce coordinator to work directly with industry to help keep fuel flowing where it is needed. We have amended fuel standards to bring more supply onto the market and we have passed legislation to strengthen the ACCC's powers, doubling penalties for companies that unfairly jack up fuel prices. This is in addition to the other things that have already been spoken about many times in this chamber today. All of this is about taking the sting out of a very difficult period. So while free public transport can play a role where states choose to implement it, the national task before us is bigger than any single measure. Our job is to ensure fuel security, protect essential services, support households and businesses and respond to this global crisis with a coordinated national approach—and that is exactly what this government is doing.

The Albanese Labor government understands that Australians need reliable and accessible public transport. We know that families are feeling the pinch at the petrol pump and the supermarket checkout. We know that regional communities are feeling this pinch the hardest right now. While the Greens are chasing likes, we are building public transport and transport links that get people to work and to school every day, every night, across the country. While they're picking fights, we are building.

Let's look at the facts here. The Albanese government is currently delivering a record investment of over $120 billion in the roads and rail that Australia needs over the next 10 years. We are putting real money on the table to ensure that these projects are actually getting built. Our commitments across the country include $5.6 billion for the METRONET in Perth, $5.19 billion for the Sydney Metro to Western Sydney Airport, $2.2 billion for the Suburban Rail Loop in my home state of Victoria—with more to come—and $1 billion to extend the rail network in Sydney's south-west. We are also looking to the future of transport, with $659.6 million for the next stage of high-speed rail and $100 million through the Active Transport Fund to support walking and cycling.

While the state and territory governments are responsible for operating these networks and setting fares, it is the Commonwealth that is doing the heavy lifting on infrastructure that makes those services possible. This motion suggests we pay for their plans with a tax on gas exports. The reality is that this government has already taken decisive action to ensure that gas companies pay their fair share.

In the first term, we made the tough changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax that the previous government ignored. Because of our reforms, offshore gas companies are paying more tax and they are paying it sooner. The latest budget update forecasts we will collect $5.4 billion in PRRT over the four years to 2028-29. In 2023-24 alone, oil and gas companies paid almost $12 billion in PRRT and company tax. The company tax from this sector alone has jumped by an average of $1.1 billion to over $10.4 billion under Labor. We've also legislated new integrity rules to stop multinationals from using excessive debt deductions to wipe out their tax bills in Australia.

Holding these companies to account ensures that they pay their fair share to support the essential services that Australians rely on. This revenue is exactly what allows us to deliver meaningful cost-of-living relief and put more money back in the pockets of every taxpayer.

We also know that fuel prices are a massive burden right now. The Albanese government is acting. We've released 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, doubled penalties for companies found guilty of unfairly raising fuel prices and amended fuel standards to allow more supply onto the market. We are working with international partners like Singapore and Korea to shore up our supply chains.

We don't wait for crises—like the one we currently have as a result of the war in the Middle East—to act. We have consistently invested in infrastructure that keeps Australia and Australians moving. The Greens want to talk about urgency, but their actions tell a very different story. They spend more time fighting than they do working in the national interest. They would rather turn their backs on constructive policy to play political games with the coalition, working against the best interests of the Australian people.

The government has a plan. We are delivering record infrastructure, we are making multinationals pay their fair share and we are easing the cost of living for every Australian. That is the choice: Labor's plan to build Australia's future or the Greens' plan to keep picking the same old fights.

Today is a bad day for those greedy gas corporations but a great day for those people who have been demanding that they finally pay what they owe. The Greens have today secured an inquiry into the taxation of Australia's gas.

I'll chair it. Our inquiry will put the rich, tax-dodging gas industry under the microscope. It will dismantle their excuses for paying no tax, and it will build momentum for fairer tax in the upcoming budget.

This is crunch time. Australians are being smashed by rising costs while the gas industry is poised to cash in on global conflict and walk away with billions. And every day that this government delays action, it costs Australians nearly $50 million in lost revenue. Almost $250 million a week is being handed to gas corporations instead of being used to support people through a fair tax on our gas exports. People are struggling to fill their cars and to pay their bills, and they are rightly asking why—why multinational gas companies are profiting from resources that belong to us all. For far too long, gas corporations have extracted our resources, shipped them offshore, made a motza and paid next to nothing in return—next to nothing! And, when disaster strikes, when conflict is egged on by the war parties, it is everyday Australians who are left to pick up the bill.

We have, just this weekend, seen the devastation of Cyclone Narelle in Exmouth, with infrastructure decimated, communities isolated and marine life devastated, and the costs are absolutely enormous. This is exactly why polluters like Woodside Energy and Chevron should be paying for the climate damage that they contribute to. A minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports could raise at least $17 billion per year. That is revenue that we could be using right now to support people and to invest in our futures. It could slash household energy bills and provide direct cost-of-living relief. It could fund free public transport, just like in my home state of Victoria. It could accelerate electrification so we can finally break our dependence on expensive, polluting gas.

When this committee reports, Labor will have a choice. Will they keep allowing the gas giants to call the shots, or will they stand up to the vested interests and make them pay what Australians are owed? This inquiry will lay out evidence, dismantle the spin and lies and provide a solution. There has never been stronger public support for taxing gas exports. The case is clear, and the time is now.

I rise in support of this motion. Clearly, it is time for Australians to get a fair return on our gas exports. We're seeing the gas industry's propaganda machine go into overdrive. They know that they are losing this battle. They know that Australians have had enough. Australians are saying: 'You've had it very good for a long time. Now is the time we're going to get our fair share.' And that is through a 25 per cent tax on gas exports.

Beware of what you watch on social media, where the gas industry is pushing ads. At Canberra Airport, they seem to have every second billboard, telling you all sorts of things about how much tax they pay. Let's go straight to the horse's mouth. This is not the crossbench saying these things; Treasury itself has told us that the PRRT gives us $1.5 billion a year, and we know that a big chunk of that is actually from oil, not gas. Gas is probably a tiny bit of it, so small that Treasury couldn't even tell us what the split is. The beer excise gives us $2.7 billion a year. This is an industry that the ATO says are systemic nonpayers of tax, so they really have no credibility when it comes to this space. They are trying to tell us that they are such great corporate citizens and that they pay so much tax. Australians are seeing straight through that. They're seeing the great gas scam for what it is.

This is not demonising an industry. This is saying, 'You pay us what you owe us, and you owe us for the Australian gas that you export from this country.' So now is the time for a 25 per cent tax on gas exports to give Australians their fair share.

The ongoing debate about a tax on gas exports represents what could have been—a missed opportunity for Australians to have gained incredible revenue since the oil spike in 2022. In just those three years, the Australia Institute has modelled that we've foregone about $63 billion in revenue. That could have been used to build hospitals, to fund education and to fund income tax cuts. The revenue could have been used to slash the fuel excise tax to make fuel cheaper for ordinary Australians at the fuel pump.

Tasmania and Victoria providing free public transport is also great news. It's an immediate cost-of-living relief measure for people to save money in the cities and for those well connected to transport. We should make public transport free or at least supercheap. The cost isn't actually that high when you consider the significant budget relief it gives commuters every single day. But public transport is a responsibility for state governments, not the federal government. That's in the Constitution.

What the federal government can do is fix GST and make sure the GST money is actually split up between the states fairly. The GST deal is currently under review, and we're at risk of WA once again taking everyone for a ride and getting an unfair share of money. Doing GST fairly gives the state governments the revenue they need to make decisions, like if they can make public transport free. If we had a tax on gas exports, we could give Rockliff more money to pay for free public transport for those that have access to it. At the broader level, Albo could use the gas tax money to cut fuel prices. That would help people that don't have access to public transport and only use their car. That way, everyone could win.

Prime Minister Albanese was quick to jump and support Trump and Netanyahu's war on Iran but is slow to tackle the consequences of this war. People here are now paying the price of Trump's imperialism and our prime minister being a 'yes' man to war. In times of crisis, big and bold decisions must be made with urgency and decisiveness. But sadly Labor's commanding majority at the last election has meant nothing for fixing the rotten system that is driving inequality, poverty, war, genocide and the climate crisis. We are seeing a rot as gas and oil companies make a killing on the back of ordinary people.

The extractive fossil fuel economy is completely failing us. The volatility and the obscene corporate profits should be a clear indication of the scale of change needed to decarbonise and move to renewable energy, because no-one can block sun, wind and the sea. I fear that Labor is not up to the task. They have refused to make even public transport free, which would give households breathing room and eased pressure on the strained fuel supplies. Victoria and Tasmania have heeded the Greens's calls and done it. Premier Chris Minns's rejecting calls to make public transport free in New South Wales shows how out of touch he is with the struggles of our people in New South Wales. The New South Wales and Queensland premiers are too preoccupied with passing laws to criminalise the truth about Israel, the very country responsible for the predicament that we are in right now. If Labor can't find the courage to deliver the change that we need right now, then you deserve to be cast into the dustbin of history.

I'm disappointed that the South Australian government hasn't joined the Victorian and Tasmanian governments today by giving our community back in South Australia access to free public transport. At a time when people are struggling because of Trump's bloody and illegal war—backed by One Nation, backed by the Liberal Party and of course facilitated by the Albanese government—it is simply unfair that South Australians are paying the price. It is unfair that South Australians are having to pay through the nose because Donald Trump can't keep his emotions in check. It's unfair that South Australians have to pay because of this illegal and bloody war.

I'm disappointed that the South Australian government hasn't seen fit to help our local community back in Adelaide. Ensuring that people can get to work, get to school and get around while the cost of petrol is so expensive—and relieving stress and demand on fuel for the regions—would make a lot of sense, as would catching the bus, the tram or the train for free. I urge the Malinauskas government to do the right thing here: give people free access to public transport and do it today.

To the Albanese government, I say: it's not good enough, after backing this illegal war, to wring your hands and not do anything to support people going forward. Australians need help, South Australians need help, and they should be given help with free public transport.

Right now, fossil fuel corporations are literally raking in the profits, profiting from this bloody war. They're taking resources that belong to all Australians and then shipping it offshore for record profits, and we should have been taxing that yesterday. Free public transport would be an immediate cost-of-living relief measure that people need right now. It would allow people in cities and suburbs to see their loved ones, get to work and do the essential travel without the cost they face every time they go to the petrol bowser, and it would also free up fuel so that people in regional Australia—farmers—have enough supply to do what they need to do, to go to the doctor and to put food on the table. With the money we get from taxing fossil fuel corporations, we could be doing a whole lot more to help people—public transport, free; public education, amazing; and public health as amazing as it should be in this country.

I've got to tell you this: Australians want nothing to do with Trump's and Netanyahu's illegal war. We're being fleeced by corporations profiting from death and destruction, and the war parties here back in those corporations, not you. When push comes to shove, the war parties always pick the interests of Donald Trump and big corporations over the interests of people. The Greens are the only party in this place committed to peace. Australians don't get richer off war; they get poorer. They don't see the deaths of people in the Middle East as a business opportunity; they see it as a tragedy. Here, we're asking what it will take for the war parties, who are paid for by Gina Rinehart and the fossil fuel corporations, to tax big gas so that ordinary people have the life they need.

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

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

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

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

And I move:

That the question be now put.

The question is that the question be put.

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

I move that a motion relating to the consideration of legislation may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. I move that the question be now put.

Honourable senators: Shame!

The question is that the question be put.

I move:

That:

(1) On Monday, 30 March 2026:

(a) the hours of meeting be 10 am till adjournment;

(b) the following bills be called on immediately and the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put as follows:

(i) Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026—immediately,

(ii) Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025

Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025—after 60 minutes of consideration, and

(iii) Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025—after

60 minutes of consideration;

(c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills; and

(d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate be proposed at 8 pm or following consideration of the bills, whichever is later, and be considered for not more than 30 minutes.

(2) On Tuesday, 31 March 2026:

(a) government business have precedence over all other business at the following times:

(i) midday to 1.30 pm, and

(ii) immediately following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75;

(b) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put as follows:

(i) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025—after 60 minutes of consideration,

(ii) Copyright Amendment Bill 2026—after 60 minutes of consideration,

(iii) Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026—after 90 minutes of consideration, and

(iv) Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026—after 90 minutes of consideration;

(c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm and after 6.30 pm for the purposes of the bills; and

(d) the Senate adjourn without debate at 7.30 pm or following consideration of the bills, whichever is later.

(3) On Wednesday, 1 April 2026:

(a) following the conclusion of the consideration of private senators' bills, the questions be put on all remaining stages of the following bills:

(i) Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026,

(ii) Appropriation (Fuel Security Response) Bill (No. 1) 2025-2026 Appropriation (Fuel Security Response) Bill (No. 2) 2025-2026,

(iii) Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures No. 2) Bill 2026,

(iv) Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025

Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025,

(v) Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025,

(vi) National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026,

(vii) Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025 Customs Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025,

(viii) Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025,

(ix) Translating and Interpreting Services Bill 2025, and

(x) Migration Amendment (Combatting Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025;

(b) divisions may take place between 12.15 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of the bills;

(c) consideration of a report by the Selection of Bills Committee take place immediately following motions to take note of answers; and

(d) divisions may not take place after 4.30 pm.

(4) Contributions on the bills listed in paragraphs (1)(b) and (2)(b) be limited to no more than 5 minutes per speaker.

(5) Paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(a) operate as limitations of debate under standing order 142.

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

I seek leave for a short statement of no more than five minutes.

Leave granted.

Colleagues, do you know what we've just seen? It's the total, complete and utter hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party. When we were in government, what we'd we say to the Labor Party was: 'We need to sit all night in order to get through this bill. Are you happy that we sit till four or five in the morning?' Do you know what used to happen then? Senators Wong and Gallagher would go off their brains. They would say, 'How dare you guillotine a bill through?' even though we were going to sit through the night to allow you to debate it and to allow you to ask questions on it. But guess what. Now that they are in government, there is no more pretence. They do not care about transparency, they do not care about democracy, and the last thing they care about is the Australian people.

For the benefit of those in the gallery, let me tell you what just happened. The government just put forward 22 bills that are going to go through this chamber with little or no debate. Twenty-two pieces of legislation that will fundamentally affect the lives of the Australian people are now going to be guillotined through without debate. That is the height of hypocrisy—when a government continues to tell the people that they actually believe in transparency.

Colleagues, do you know what's worse? Do you want to know how they got the numbers? They did a dirty deal with the Australian Greens. Guess what, the deal is this: it's the committee that basically states, 'We hate gas in Australia, we want to destroy gas in Australia, and the last thing we want is the Australian people having gas as a form of energy.' That is the committee that they basically got up this afternoon. The Australian Labor Party have basically sided with the Australian Greens to say, 'Yes, let's have a select committee into the killing of gas in Australia.'

We would have been happy to actually guillotine the fuel bills through today after a period of time in which we, on behalf of the Australian public, were able to interrogate them. Any suggestion that we were not prepared to work with the government to ensure the timely passage of the fuel bills today is complete, total and utter untruth. Instead the Labor Party have sided—gosh, they love to talk about us siding with people! Yet again what we do see is the two parties of the left—the left and then the so far left they're actually lying down—teaming up to put forward a select committee into the one vital fuel in Australia: gas. 'We hate gas, we want to tax gas more, but, worse than that, we never want to see gas as a form of energy in this country.'

As I said—22 bills. Colleagues, just remember, though, that this is the party that went to both the 2022 election and the 2025 election saying that they will be the most transparent government in the history of Australia. Sadly, as we know, this place is now run like a shop floor—nothing more and nothing less. You tell the little unionists that you don't want to hear from to shut up. The big union over there—they dictate the terms of what goes on in this place. Well, guess what. You might think you dictate the terms, but that will never stop us coming into this place and standing up, day after day, on behalf of the Australian people. Guess what. After the last five weeks, the Australian people, quite frankly, know that they have now been let down by this government—a government that has had its head in the sand when it comes to the fuel crisis we now see in Australia, a government that had the audacity to blame the Australian people for topping up one or two times too many.

What's worse, colleagues, is a prime minister today that said that Bunnings had run out of jerry cans. Do you know what? Bunnings issued a statement saying, 'That was actually not true, Prime Minister, we haven't run out of jerry cans.' The misinformation and the disinformation, frankly, and the misleading of the Australian people—this government know no bounds. Again, shame on you for guillotining through this parliament, with little to no debate, 22 bills that are going to affect the lives of the Australian people. Sadly, this Senate will not have time to interrogate the effect on them. Quite frankly, God help the Australian people because, after the last five weeks, I think the effect is going to be pretty bad.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bill without limitation of time.

Thank you very much. This is an extraordinary decision that we've seen today. This was a bill that was introduced only last Thursday and was rammed through the House of Representatives without any debate, without even time for anybody from the opposition to read the bill before it was rammed through. Now, the government is trying to do the same in the Senate. This is extraordinary. It's absolutely extraordinary. This is the government's idea of responding to a fuel crisis that has been going on for five weeks. We have told the government time and time again, 'Look out the window of Parliament House, and you can see that the bowsers are dry.' In fact, the petrol station closest to where the Prime Minister lives, closest to the Lodge, had run out of fuel last week.

Somehow, it wasn't a crisis. First, we heard from the government that there wasn't a crisis, then, we heard it was a crisis, but it was only caused by people buying fuel—which was un-Australian. Apparently, you're all un-Australian for doing something as basic as filling up your car when the prices are lower than you know they're going to be next week. It's just extraordinary. This is how the government has responded. Now, when they finally come to the House of Representatives with a bill to do one tiny little thing to help the trucking industry—they've asked for heaps of things; the government are doing one tiny little thing—they ram it through without any debate.

This is a pretty serious piece of legislation. It's an amendment to the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act is the entire framework for employee-employer relationships. It's all about making sure you have an appropriate balance of power. Adjust this without scrutiny and it can have incredibly dire unintended consequences, but, for some reason, the government does not want to have any debate on it. We took this very seriously, and have proposed some pretty basic amendments—things like, if you're going to have emergency provisions, how about you have a sunset clause? You only use your emergency provisions during an emergency. Who would've thought that that would be so controversial? But, no, the government doesn't want to consider that.

We suggested that, perhaps, if we're not going to have sunset provisions, you might like to have an independent review of the provisions after a couple of months—six months—of the bill being in place. I would have thought that that would be pretty reasonable, considering there is already a statutory review of the closing the loopholes bill, and we're changing legislation before it's reviewed. I would have thought that an additional review of this particular provision would not be unreasonable, but, no, that's not something the government wants to consider. They also don't want to consider enforcing consultation for the exercise of the powers that they are giving the Fair Work Commission. That's extraordinary, considering that was the one thing that the trucking industry asked of the government in the closing the loopholes legislation. That was what they wanted. They wanted that consultation period. But no, the government doesn't want to consider that.

They don't want to consider only using these provisions in an emergency. In fact, they'd rather like to use these provisions in times that aren't emergencies as well. They don't want to align the definition of emergency in one piece of legislation as well as another, so you can have one minister declaring an emergency and another one saying, 'Well, it's not really an emergency,' but still using the provisions. That's entirely inconsistent. There's an idea that you would use these provisions—that the minister would have these increased powers—without any checks or balances for something than other than fuel. They might want to change the terms of the contract for other reasons. They might want to change it for industrial relations purposes. That is sneaking through legislation without scrutiny. That's what's happening right now. First of all they rammed it through the House of Representatives. Now they're trying to ram it through the Senate, without answering these very basic questions.

We said we would not stand in the way of the trucking industry getting a better deal. That was why we announced a cut to the fuel excise well before the government did. That was why we pushed for that. That was why we pushed for a cut in the heavy vehicle road user charge. Now finally the government has come onboard, but this tiny little nod to the trucking industry is being pushed through without any scrutiny. The implications of that are far reaching.

We stand behind Australia's trucking industry. We want to make sure we see more trucks on the road, that they get access to the fuel they need and that they do so at a reasonable price, so that Australians don't end up paying the cost. But this government doesn't care about the cost to Australians. What they—

Thank you, Senator Hume. Senator Green?

On behalf of the truckies in the gallery, I move, so that we can pass this bill:

That the question now be put.

Question agreed to.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier, the Senate will now consider the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026. I will now put the questions before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3750, moved by Senator Hume, be agreed to.

by leave—Senator Fatima Payman has asked that her support for that amendment be noted.

I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3747 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment

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

(a) notes that both parties of government have been warned about fuel security for decades and have failed to secure enough fuel stocks to protect Australians from inevitable global shocks; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) cut the fuel excise by 100% for 3 months and/or remove GST on fuel, which is a tax on a tax, to give immediate 57 cent per litre relief to Australians, while pausing the heavy vehicle road user charge for truckies and road transport businesses,

(ii) declare a national liquid fuel emergency under the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 to force fuel supplies to the regions and stop price gouging,

(iii) outline plans for rationing so that essential sectors like emergency services, defence, hospitals and food production can be prioritised if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and

(iv) ditch net zero so we can drill Australia's own oil, invest in gas to liquid and coal to liquid technology and rebuild refineries so Australia is never subject to fuel vulnerability again".

by leave—Senator Payman asked that her support for part (a) be noted and her opposition to part (b) be noted.

Thank you, Senator Pocock.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3738, 3789, 3741, 3742, and 3746 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3738

(1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of amendments

Requirement to conduct review

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

Timing of review

(2) The persons conducting the review must:

(a) commence the review as soon as practicable after the end of 6 months starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) complete the review before the end of 90 days after the day the review commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review as soon as practicable after the review is completed.

Minister to table copy of report of review

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

_____

SHEET 3739

(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 21), at the end of section 536PEA, add

(4) However, the Minister must not make a determination under subsection (3) unless a declaration of a national liquid fuel emergency is in force under section 16 of the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984.

(2) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", but are not limited to,".

_____

SHEET 3741

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:

(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (line 16), after "made by", insert "Schedule 1 to".

(3) Page 10 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Repeal of Schedule 1 amendments on 31 March 2027

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Section 12 (definitions of emergency application and time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order )

Repeal the definitions.

2 Subsection 536 NT( 4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) Despite subsection (3), the specified day may be a day not earlier than 6 months after the relevant notice of intent for the order was published, if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.

3 Section 536PB (paragraph beginning "Normally, a road transport contractual chain order")

Repeal the paragraph.

4 Subsection 536 PD( 1) (note 1)

Omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

5 Subsection 536 PD( 1) (note 2)

Repeal the note.

6 Subsection 536 PE( 1) (note 1)

Omit "Note 1", substitute "Note".

7 Subsection 536 PE( 1) (note 2)

Repeal the note.

8 Section 536PEA

Repeal the section.

9 Subsection 536 PF( 3)

Repeal the subsection.

10 Subsection 536PH(1A)

Repeal the subsection.

11 Paragraph 536PJ(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) follow the process set out in section 536PH in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).

12 Subsections 536 PJ( 3) and (4)

Repeal the subsections, substitute:

(3) Despite paragraph (2)(c), the FWC may reduce the consultation period mentioned in that paragraph to a period not shorter than 6 months if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.

13 Subsection 536 PQ( 1)

Omit ", other than a time-sensitive roadtransport contractual chain order,".

14 Subsection 536 PC( 2)

Omit "that is not a time-sensitive roadtransport contractual chain order".

15 Subsection 536 PQ( 3)

Repeal the subsection (including the note).

16 Section 536PQA

Repeal the section.

17 Section 536PS (note)

Repeal the note.

18 Subsection 536 PT( 1) (note)

Repeal the note.

19 Paragraph 536PX(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) must not be longer than 12 months; and

20 Subsection 536 PX( 5)

Omit "the relevant period" (wherever occurring), substitute "12 months".

21 Subsection 536PX(5A)

Repeal the subsection.

22 Section 536PY (heading)

Omit "generally".

23 Subsections 536 PY( 1) and (2)

Omit "the relevant period starting on", substitute "12 months of".

24 Subsection 536 PY( 3)

Repeal the subsection.

25 Paragraph 536QG(3)(a)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(a) must not be a period of more than 12 months; and

26 Subsection 536 QG( 5)

Omit "the relevant period" (wherever occurring), substitute "12 months".

27 Subsection 536QG(5A)

Repeal the subsection.

28 Subsection 536QM(1A)

Repeal the subsection.

29 Paragraph 536QN(2)(c)

Repeal the paragraph, substitute:

(c) follow the process set out in section 536QM in relation to the revised draft road transport contractual chain order (with the period of consultation under that section to be no shorter than 12 months starting when the subsequent notice of intent and the revised draft required by paragraph (b) of this subsection were published).

30 Subsections 536 QN( 3) and (4)

Repeal the subsections.

31 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 23 — Amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026

132 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 apply in relation to:

(a) an application for a road transport contractual chain order; or

(b) an application for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order;

made on or after the commencement of that Schedule.

(2) Despite the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026, this Act as in force immediately before the commencement of that Schedule continues to apply in relation to:

(a) an application for a road transport contractual chain order; or

(b) an application for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order;

made before that commencement.

_____

SHEET 3742

(1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 20), after subsection 536PJ(4), insert:

(5) Nothing in subsection (4) limits or removes the requirement for consultation to be actually undertaken.

(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 10 (after line 13), after subsection 536QN(4), insert:

(5) Nothing in subsection (4) limits or removes the requirement for consultation to be actually undertaken.

_____

SHEET 3746

(1) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (lines 22 to 24), omit paragraphs 536PQA(2)(c), (d) and (e), substitute:

(c) rate reviews involving fuel;

(d) charges involving fuel.

by leave—Please note my opposition to sheets 3741 and record Senator Payman's support for sheets 3738 and 3742.

by leave—May I note my support for sheet 3738 and sheet 3742.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3743 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Time-sensitive road transport contractual chain orders".

(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (line 16), after "by", insert "Schedule 1 to the".

(3) Page 10 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Mandatory terms of workplace determinations must not be less favourable

Fair Work Act 2009

1 Section 270A (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

270A Certain terms must not be less favourable

2 After subsection 270 A( 2)

Insert:

(2A) A term that is included in the determination to comply with subsection 273(2), (4), (5) or (6), must be not less favourable to each of those employees, and any employee organisation that was a bargaining representative of any of those employees, than a term of the enterprise agreement that deals with the same matter as the term included in the determination.

Note: In addition, the delegates' rights term included in compliance with subsection 273(6) must not be less favourable than the delegates' rights term in any modern award that covers a workplace delegate to whom the determination applies (see subsection 273(7)).

3 Subsection 273(4)

After "must include the model flexibility term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

4 Subsection 273(5)

After "must include the model consultation term", insert ", or, if section 270A applies, a term that complies with section 270A,".

5 In the appropriate position in Schedule 1

Insert:

Part 24 — Amendments made by Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026

133 Definitions

In this Part:

amended Act means this Act as amended by the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026.

134 Application of amendments — workplace determinations

(1) Sections 270A and 273 of the amended Act apply in relation to workplace determinations made on or after the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 including:

(a) for intractable bargaining workplace determinations—determinations in relation to which the intractable bargaining declaration concerned, or the application for the declaration concerned, was made before that commencement; or

(b) for an industrial action related workplace determination—any conditions necessary for the making of the determination were satisfied before, on or after that commencement.

(2) Sections 270A and 273 of the amended Act also apply in relation to intractable bargaining workplace determinations made before that commencement, in the circumstances described in clause 135.

135 Application of amendments to intractable bargaining workplace determinations made before commencement

(1) This clause applies in relation to an intractable bargaining workplace determination made before the commencement of Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 (the original determination).

(2) On application by an employer, employee or employee organisation covered by the original determination, the FWC must make a determination (a variation) varying the original determination where required so as to give effect to the amendments made to sections 270A and 273 by the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026.

(3) An application under subclause (2) must be made before the end of the period of 12 months commencing on the day Schedule 3 to the Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Act 2026 commences.

(4) The FWC may make a variation despite paragraph 603(3)(c).

(5) Any variation must be made by a Full Bench.

(6) A variation operates from the day specified by the FWC in the variation, which must not be a day before the variation is made.

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

Please note Senator Payman's agreement for Greens amendment 3743 and for the bill itself.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

It's important at the outset to place on record that the concept of an independent oversight body is not new. Indeed, the coalition brought forward legislation in 2020 to establish a national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention. That proposal sought to create a truly independent statutory authority with many of the same structural features now being implemented. At that time, the legislation was not supported. The Labor Party instead opposed that legislation at the time for political purposes. Their stated position then was that a royal commission was necessary first, but they rejected an immediate independent overnight mechanism that could have begun driving reform and accountability years earlier. The decision had consequences that delayed the introduction of a system-wide oversight at a time when it was urgently needed. Earlier action could have seen reform efforts and accountability mechanisms operating in parallel with the royal commission, accelerating progress and strengthening outcomes for veterans and families.

What is now before the parliament, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, closely resembles the model the coalition proposed and the government opposed. If that earlier proposal had been supported, we would already have a mature, independent oversight body operating within the system today. The coalition will support this framework because veterans and their families cannot afford further delay; however, history should not be overlooked. It's a matter of record that Labor put political consideration ahead of early reform and is now delivering a model that it once rejected.

The coalition established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide because we recognise that too many families have been failed by the system. Confidence had broken down, and truth and accountability were required. The findings of the royal commission reinforced what veterans and families had been saying for years—that systemic failures require systemic solutions. The commission made clear that enduring reform depends on independent system-wide oversight operating at arm's length from Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. One of its central recommendations was the creation of a permanent independent statutory oversight body. These bills are intended to give effect to that recommendation, and the coalition supports that objective in principle.

Independent oversight must be real, not symbolic. It requires strong powers, transparent reporting and direct accountability to the parliament. Without those elements, oversight risks becoming procedural rather than transformational. It's also essential that a body established through standalone legislation—attempts to create it through late-stage amendments to unrelated legislation were rushed and lacked appropriate consultation. Major institutional reforms of this nature demand proper scrutiny and engagement. The coalition supported the amended vets bill at the time to avoid delaying urgent reforms for veterans, but we made clear our concerns about process and structure. We advocated for standalone legislation, stronger independence guarantees and proper parliamentary scrutiny.

Following the coalition's initiative, a Senate inquiry examined the proposed model in detail. That inquiry confirmed significant stakeholder concerns regarding independence, power, scope and clarity of function. Many of the improvements reflected in the final legislation stemmed directly from that scrutiny. Stakeholders across the veterans community emphasised the need for genuine independence, clear authority and transparency.

These principles are reflected in the bill before us, and that is to be welcomed. Strong information-gathering powers are appropriate in this context. Weak oversight bodies produce weak outcomes. However, these powers must be balanced with safeguards, procedural fairness and the protection of rights. This bill achieves that balance. Equally important is transparency. Public reporting and mandatory tabling in parliament ensure that findings are visible and cannot be set aside within the bureaucracy. Mandatory government responses within defined timelines are essential to ensuring that recommendations translate into action.

Returning to the coalition's amendment, this is a matter of accountability and timing. The bill as currently drafted delays the first implementation assessment by the commissioner until December 2027, with the report potentially not being tabled until 2028—almost four years after the royal commission delivered its findings. That timeframe is simply too slow. Veterans and their families were promised urgent reform, not deferred reporting. Independent oversight must be timely if it is to be meaningful. Delayed accountability weakens the very purpose of establishing the commission. (Time expired)

I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we'll be supporting the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and to deal briefly with the history of why we're here. We're here because the royal commission made a finding that veterans and people serving in the ADF are at significant risk, and at significant risk to their mental health. There have been appalling rates of suicide and self-harm in our defence forces and our veterans community. One of the core recommendations from the royal commission was that there needs to be an independent commissioner—independent of Defence, independent of the minister—to ensure that there is somewhere to go, for veterans, their families, members of the ADF, and that there would be that independent, ongoing oversight of any reforms that this parliament makes to try to change the structures in the ADF to make it a safer place, especially for women but not just women: for people serving in the ADF.

That, for me and for the Greens and for the veterans my office works with, was always one of the core recommendations—to ensure independent oversight. If you remember the dying few months of the last parliament, there was legislation coming through the parliament to harmonise a bunch of the compensation provisions for veterans and for ADF personnel, and at the last minute the government tacked on schedule 9, I think it was, to put in place some kind of commissioner. It didn't have the independence. It was part of the Defence Act. It wasn't seen to be meeting the core recommendations of the royal commission, and it all happened without consultation with our veterans. Even though what was put into that legislation in that unholy rush in February of last year made things slightly better—put in place at least a commissioner—the way it was done, the disrespect it showed to the veteran community in particular, really put the government behind the eight ball. We were deeply critical of the process the government used, just ramming it through without regard.

We worked across the chamber, and I think a requirement for review was put in. We then worked across the chamber with whoever we can work with. I want to acknowledge the ongoing work of Senator Lambie—her ongoing interest in this, her ongoing connection with veterans—to ensure that we've got where we are now. What's happened now is that fresh legislation has been brought in to fix some of the mess from February last year, to make a genuinely independent commissioner—independent of the defence minister—to ensure they have the evidence-gathering powers they need, the ability to have self-initiated inquiries and the ability to refer matters to this parliament when they see the need to do that.

I want to credit all the members of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation committee in this process. I think you all committed to working through and making sure we got to where we need to be for veterans and for members of the ADF. I know that there are a couple of competing amendments in this, which are about reporting. I want to be clear that the Greens will be supporting Senator Lambie's proposals that there be annual reporting for the implementation of the recommendations from the royal commission and such other reporting that this independent commissioner wants to make to parliament about the state of the ADF and the protection of members and veterans.

If we can't succeed in getting Senator Lambie's annual reports, we'll be backing the coalition's reports, which bring the reports in earlier. I don't think we'll be doing what we should do, which are annual reports. But bring the reports in earlier and we'll be backing those amendments in.

I want to finish with this: there was a suggestion that this bill might also be guillotined and pushed through without debate, and we resisted that. That was the mistake made in February last year. It's the mistake that is so often made—that when we're dealing with incredibly sensitive issues for the veterans community it's done in an unholy rush, without any kind of scrutiny. So I'm pleased that we've finally got here. I hope that those veterans who are watching what this parliament does realise that there's cross-party support for them, for their families and for the needs that they have. If I think about the last Senate estimates hearing we had on veterans, there's a bloody lot more work to be done.

I associate myself, in particular, with the last remark Senator Shoebridge made in relation to our last Senate estimates hearing with the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Senator David Pocock participated in that estimates hearing as well. I wholeheartedly agree that there are a number of fundamental issues in relation to how, in particular, the Department of Veterans' Affairs is managing access to medical services, including medical compensation, expert reports, access to psychiatrists and a number of other issues. I acknowledge the work that Senator Lambie has undertaken in that regard.

In the context of this legislation, I want to place on the record my thanks to Phil Thompson, the member for Herbert in the other place, and also the former member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, who now serves with great distinction in the Tasmanian parliament. I can distinctly remember, during the period of my first three years in this place, their advocacy, particularly informed by their lived experience as veterans, in relation to the need to have a royal commission looking at the issue of suicide amongst our veterans. It was, in large part, due to their advocacy that the coalition government instituted and established the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. I want to take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to each of them for their strong advocacy. I saw firsthand their passionate commitment to this cause.

Senator McDonald said, in her usual wise way, that the coalition had proposed the establishment of an independent national commissioner dealing with the issue of suicide and suicide prevention for our veterans. It had been something which was put forward by the coalition when we were in government. It was legislation which was, unfortunately, defeated in this place. But we've gotten here eventually, with respect to setting up this independent Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill. I think it's extraordinarily important that we got to this destination. I think it's a much improved piece of legislation, from the scrutiny which has occurred through the Senate committee process. I want to thank all the senators who contributed to that scrutiny across the chamber and acknowledge where the government has accepted those amendments proposed by the committee.

The last comment I want to make is on the importance, from my perspective, of this new commissioner's power to establish an inquiry on their own initiative into matters relating to suicide prevention or wellbeing outcomes for veterans. From my perspective, it is absolutely crucial that the commissioner not be hamstrung, not be limited and not have guardrails erected around their discretion with respect to embarking upon their own inquiry and examination into matters of concern with respect to suicide and suicidality among our veterans. That is incredibly important. When you dovetail that power with the commissioner's independence from the department and from the minister and consider the powers the commissioner will have with respect to witness protection and compelling access to evidence, I think this is a really good scheme. It's an effective scheme. As Senator McDonald has advocated, we should accelerate the reporting dates in relation to the work of the commissioner and the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations. I fully support that as well. Our veterans deserve nothing less than this legislation.

I rise to speak to the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025, and I associate myself with the remarks of my fellow senators. The creation of the commissioner position is a product of the findings of the royal commission. It will not only hold Defence accountable but also seek to identify measures which will improve the system.

I wish to reflect, in the time allocated to me, on the fact that, being someone who has served, spent time at the foot of the Hindu Kush and worked with and as a member of Legacy and the RSL, it's sad to me that, in 2026, we are still legislating to assist veterans and hold Defence accountable. One would like to think that Defence would hold itself accountable and that we as a community would support our veterans, because we have a moral obligation to do so. We ask individuals to volunteer. They put their lives at risk, they come home and many suffer—not always physical injuries. Those stresses of reintegrating into civilian life often manifest long after their discharge. None of this should be a surprise after two world wars, Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan, yet here we are debating an excellent piece of legislation in 2026.

As a body politic, we cannot continue to grind on and accept mediocrity in the treatment of our veterans. We have to seek excellence and not default to mediocrity. We should be the world leader in the treatment of veterans and their families by treating our veterans not only with respect throughout their service but also with the utmost care—particularly those who suffer from their service in conflict.

But I'll leave this on a positive note. We have arrived at a place where we have a commissioner that will continue to shed light on how we treat veterans in the service, how we discharge them and how we give them care for the remainder of their days. Long gone are the days when we could hold the view that, once they're discharged, they are someone else's problem. We have a moral obligation to care for them, to watch over them and to meet their needs every single day for the rest of their lives. I thank the government for pursuing this legislation, I thank all my colleagues for their great work in committee and I look forward to these bills' passage through this house, their proclamation and their coming into life.

I would like to sincerely thank senators for their contributions to the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 and the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. I refer here not just to the contributions during this debate but to the work done in committee and, indeed, the many contributions made over the years in relation to these issues.

The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide highlighted the devastating scale and impact of veteran suicide and made it clear that this is a national tragedy that desperately needed to be addressed. The government understands the seriousness of these issues and the gravity of the recommendations put before us by the royal commission, and that is why we have worked to implement the agreed recommendations of the royal commission as quickly as possible.

In his address to the National Press Club on the one-year anniversary of the government's response to the final report of the royal commission, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Personnel provided an update that 32 recommendations would be implemented by the end of 2025, and we expect two-thirds of the agreed recommendations to be complete by the end of this year.

The royal commission described recommendation 122, the establishment of an independent oversight body, as its most important recommendation. In acknowledgement of the significance and urgency of this recommendation, the Albanese Labor government legislated the creation of the Defence and Veteran Service Commission in February 2025, and it has been up and running since September 2025. The current enactment within part 8E of the Defence Act 1903 by way of schedule 9 of the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025 passed the parliament in February 2025 and ensured that the commission could be up and running by September and not be subject to the intervening federal election. Noting the swift passage of that legislation, the government supported a Senate inquiry into this, enabling the defence and veteran community to provide feedback on schedule 9 and the establishment of this oversight body.

These bills before us are a direct result of that engagement. We seek to demonstrate our commitment to working with the defence and veteran community. We want to get this right. The bills address the first recommendation of the Senate inquiry by establishing standalone legislation for the commission. The bills also add a specific reference to families as part of the commissioner's functions, strengthen the commissioner's independence and powers, improve witness protections and increase transparency.

The bills require the commission to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the measures and actions taken to implement the government response to the royal commission, and this is in addition to other inquiries that may be undertaken by the commissioner, including a recently announced inquiry into the implementation of the government's response to recommendations 9 to13 of the royal commission's interim report. The timeline for the first legislated inquiry will enable a proper consideration of our work and an opportunity to genuinely evaluate whether the recommendations have been implemented appropriately and are making a difference for the defence and veteran community.

Again, I want to sincerely thank all who have contributed to this debate for your unwavering support for our veteran community. The commission is an integral part of this work and will ensure ongoing scrutiny of our efforts to achieve this aim.

Senator Pocock.

With all the guillotine motions, I didn't get a chance to get myself on the speakers list. I'm wondering if I'm allowed to make a brief contribution.

You'll need to seek leave to speak because the minister has closed the debate.

A five-minute statement?

You could do that during the committee stage, which we will be moving to after this moment, if that's agreeable. Minister?

I would be very happy to cede to Senator Pocock at the opening of the committee stage—and I can see the opposition indicating a similar willingness to do so. If that suits Senator Pocock, speaking at that point would be fine, from my perspective.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

I fear that we denigrate the work of this place when we see guillotines and the shoving together of all sorts of legislation that hasn't been through proper scrutiny by the Senate, where we are handing the executive extraordinary powers with no sunset clauses. It doesn't seem to square with the rhetoric we hear from the Albanese Labor government about transparency, a different way of governing and all those sorts of things—and it's not going unnoticed by people I represent here in the ACT.

When it comes to these bills, they are good bills. This is something that has been a very long time in the making. I thank the government, the opposition and the Greens. As many people who have contributed today have pointed out, many people have played a part in getting these bills to where they are. They're a key recommendation of the royal commission, and we need to get cracking on the hard but very necessary work of cleaning up the culture of the ADF.

I associate myself with the remarks from Senator McLachlan. Parliament ideally shouldn't have to do this. If we had leadership from those high up in the ADF, this would have been a priority by now. But here we are. This is long overdue. We're still seeing veterans dying by suicide—far too many. The number is stubbornly high, when you look at the statistics, and that's on all of us. As has been pointed out, ADF members put their lives on the line for us. It has a huge impact on their families both while they serve and after they serve. It's on us to better look after them.

I thank Senator Lambie, who is absent, for all her work for veterans. It's something that's often raised with me by veterans here in Canberra. They know she has their back. I don't think you will find another parliamentarian who works as hard on veterans' issues and who fights as doggedly as Senator Lambie. She's not afraid to ruffle feathers in her pursuit of ensuring that the Senate does not forget the men and women who serve, and who have served, this country. I echo Senator Shoebridge's recognition of Senator Lambie's amendment, which I will be backing. And I will be backing her amendments on annual reporting by this commission on progress towards implementing the recommendations of the royal commission.

We see this with so many royal commissions—great work done, so much effort from communities affected where they put themselves through the wringer and bare their souls, and it is not good enough that we don't see implementation of those recommendations. This is too important not to get right. We need to track it closely and we need to keep the government accountable on progress. I don't think we'll get an opportunity to debate the veterans bill before this Senate, and I think that is regrettable, so I also want to thank Senator Lambie for her thoughtful amendments to that bill, which I will also be supporting—amendments that would give veterans the right to have legal representation at the Veterans' Review Board. The government gets advice from lawyers. Why can't our veterans? That seems like a very hard one to explain. She has amendments for review of the Veterans' Affairs fee schedules, and, as someone who hears every day from veterans who can't get a GP or physio appointment, this is critical for veterans both here in Canberra and, obviously, around the country, particularly those living in regional Australia.

I wish Senator Lambie could be here today. She pushed for this commission following the royal commission. She got in place early. She got it going, and now we're making it permanent.

I seek leave to move an amendment at the request of Senator Lambie.

Leave granted.

I move Senator Lambie's amendment on sheet 3652:

(1) Clause 18, page 19 (line 28) to page 20 (line 2), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The Commissioner must conduct inquiries into the Commonwealth's implementation of the Government's response to the recommendations of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission until the implementation of the Government's response is completed.

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the implementation of the Government's response is completed when both Houses of the Parliament pass a resolution declaring that the implementation of the Government's response is complete.

(2) Clause 18, page 20 (line 11), omit "2 December 2027", substitute "2 November 2027".

(3) Clause 18, page 20 (lines 12 to 14), omit subclause (4), substitute:

Subsequent inquiries

(4) Each subsequent inquiry under subsection (1) must be completed on or before the end of the 12 month period following the completion of the previous inquiry.

The coalition recognises and respects the intent behind Senator Lambie's amendment. The objective of strengthening oversight, improving transparency and ensuring the implementation of reforms arising from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide remains a national priority is one we share. However, we cannot support the amendment in its current form. Advice provided by the government is that the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission is not intended to operate as a continuous monitoring body for the purpose of government implementation. Its core role is to undertake independent inquiry, examine systemic issues and provide considered reports that drive meaningful reform. Requiring annual implementation inquiries risks diverting the commission resources and focus away from that primary function, potentially diminishing its capacity to deliver on its intended mandate.

The coalition sought to strike a responsible balance in reporting timeframes. We moved an amendment in the House to bring forward the first implementation report to 30 September 2026, ensuring an initial report would be available ahead of the next election. Following further consideration and advice that this time frame did not allow sufficient time for a thorough and meaningful report, we have incorporated that feedback and adjusted the timing to February 2027. This approach ensures timely and credible accountability while preserving the independence and effectiveness of the commission. For these reasons, while we appreciate the intent of the amendment, we are not able to support it.

It's a pity we can't get the coalition to support this amendment from Senator Lambie, because, literally, the coalition's amendment just brings things forward. It doesn't increase the actual amount of reporting and transparency. If we are going to set up a commissioner, I think this commissioner is going to have a lot of work to do.

In my contribution in the second reading debate, I didn't have a chance to acknowledge on the record my appreciation of the work of Mr Michael Manthorpe, who was the interim head of the commission first appointed, and I've got to say I genuinely appreciated his work: the set of principles and amendments that he proposed in that role as the head of commission to increase the power of the commissioner and to ensure that the commissioner is genuinely independent of the government. For those who have been following this debate, I think his set of recommendations that he put as the interim head, which have largely found their way into this legislation, have been critical.

I think it would be remiss of us not to note and acknowledge his work. It's hard to do that from inside the executive. He was appointed in that role. I really want to acknowledge on the record the work that he did. Part of what he was recommending was broadening and expanding the capacity of the commissioner to report to parliament—not to a minister, not to a government department. They would actually report and effectively be an officer of the parliament. It's in the spirit of his recommendations that I think Senator Lambie has moved this to have annual reports to the parliament. We could have achieved it. We could have achieved annual reports. It's just that the coalition baulked. Even though their amendments make a marginal improvement on the bill, they don't really increase the amount of transparency. They just bring it forward.

I say again to the coalition: reconsider your opposition to Senator Lambie's amendment, because it actually produces that annual transparency. The veterans community wants that annual transparency, and I'm sure they've told you that they want that annual transparency. That's why the Greens will be supporting Senator Lambie's amendment and, only if that doesn't succeed, supporting the coalition's amendment.

In responding to the amendment, I might take the opportunity to acknowledge, as others have done, the advocacy by Senator Lambie for the veterans community. I also know that, in addition to her public advocacy, Senator Lambie engages closely with Minister Keogh, and he has spoken to me on many occasions of his appreciation for the way that she engages with him and with his office and the consistent way that she seeks to bring forward the views and ideas of the many veterans with whom she engages.

In relation to this amendment, like the opposition, the government will be opposing this particular amendment. We acknowledge, as I think all senators do, that the independent oversight that will be provided by the commission will be critical and of course is also a key recommendation from the royal commission itself. The commissioner must meaningfully and independently assess the implementation of each recommendation and publicly report on progress. A 12-month timeline would not provide sufficient time for the commission to independently and meaningfully assess progress on implementation for all 122 recommendations and 13 interim recommendations.

The bill requires comprehensive reports on all recommendations in 2027 and again in 2030. In addition, the commissioner may, at any time, undertake other inquiries into particular recommendations to independently confirm the outcomes and effectiveness of implementation. This approach will mean that smaller reports may be released, which will provide ongoing transparency of the government's implementation and assist stakeholders to follow progress. We consider that requiring the commission to undertake annual reviews into the implementation of the government's response to the royal commission's recommendations would unnecessarily consume the commission's resources without allowing them to exercise their independent judgement and powers.

However, the government does understand the public interest in the progress of the royal commission's recommendations. In particular, we acknowledge the many veterans who advocated for the royal commission and shared their stories with the royal commission in the hope that change would come. We will continue to hold ourselves accountable for implementing the royal commission's agreed recommendations. We will continue to subject ourselves, as any government should, to parliamentary scrutiny. As I noted in my second reading remarks, Minister Keogh provided an update as recently as December indicating that 32 of the agreed recommendations would be implemented by the end of 2025 and that we expect two-thirds of the agreed recommendations to be completed by the end of this year.

Finally, I will take the opportunity to observe that Senator McDonald has foreshadowed her amendment to bring forward the reporting date for the first mandated inquiry. The government will support this amendment, which will see the first mandated report occur by 5 February 2027.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Pocock at the request of Senator Lambie be agreed to.

by leave—In lieu of a division, could I ask that the Australian Greens' support for this amendment be recorded and also that Senator Payman's support for this amendment be recorded.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We also recognise the support of Senator Pocock and Senator Lambie.

by leave—In respect of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, I move opposition amendment on sheet 3673:

(1) Clause 18, page 20 (line 11), omit "2 December 2027", substitute "5 February 2027".

Question agreed to.

by leave—Could I ask that Senator Payman's support for the opposition's amendment be noted.

Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025, as amended, agreed to; Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 agreed to.

Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner Bill 2025 reported with amendments; Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 reported without amendment, report adopted.

I move:

That these bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. These are the bills which establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, known as ATEC. That's how I'll refer to it. Let me say this from the very outset. These bills are not in a state fit to pass this parliament. They are replete with problems at every level, from design flaws to major technical operational errors. The bills have been criticised right across the board. To put it bluntly, these bills are not what Australians need right now. This bill has very few friends. Maybe it will have some friends here in this place tonight and pass this parliament, but out there, in the real world, among providers and universities in the higher ed sector, it does not have the kind of support that would justify this bill probably being rushed through tonight. I've only got 3½ more minutes to speak because this bill is subject to the guillotine that we're dealing with tonight.

There is not enough time under the standing orders to do justice to all of the problems with this legislation. There is an attempt to set down in law a national tertiary education objective for Australia, which fails to even mention the words 'teaching', 'learning' or 'research'. There is a fundamental problem that it adds to the already overly regulated sector. There is a decision to spend at least $54 million on a new bureaucracy, not a cent of which will create a single new student place, improve student experience on campus, enhance teaching or deliver new research. There is a decision to bring universities far more tightly under ministerial control than has previously been the case, all while removing parliamentary oversight.

I could go on. The list does go on. But this bill, as I said, is not fit to pass. It's got very few friends. The National Tertiary Education Union has slammed it as a ham-fisted attempt to ram more ideology into our universities and tertiary providers. The NTEU said:

The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector.

When a member of the Liberal Party is quoting from the National Tertiary Education Union in its criticism of the bill, you know that it's got a problem! You know that this bill has some very real problems.

The criticism doesn't stop there. Even the institutions who champion ATEC—and there were some championing the idea, concept and model of ATEC—have slammed the bill. Universities Australia said:

As currently drafted, the Bill does not deliver on the Australian Universities Accord's … aspirations for an independent body to design and drive the longer-term reform agenda for Australia's tertiary system.

Deakin University, ATEC supporter, said this:

… though supportive of an ATEC, and already engaged with the interim body in a productive and meaningful manner, Deakin holds several concerns regarding the proposed legislation. We posit that addressing these concerns, which range from a lack of clarity to missed opportunities to truly achieve the ambitions of establishing such a function, should be a priority.

And then professor of higher education policy at Monash University, Andrew Norton, stated in his submission:

… the ATEC bills should be rejected. They would narrow higher education's purposes. As they stand, they offer universities nothing but additional government control and bureaucracy. Due to ATEC's design flaws, we can have little confidence that it will improve on the current policy framework.

And what are we going to do here tonight? We're probably going to pass it.

So I call on the government to reconsider that position. This is a serious issue. There are serious critics of it. This bill is not fit for purpose. It needs to be amended. We'll be moving some amendments in the committee stage, and I hope that we can get support for those.

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. The Australian Universities Accord final report was released in February last year, and it outlined the blueprint for higher education reform over the next decade and the decade after that. The accord found that the tertiary education system's approach to planning and policymaking is fragmented, lacks collaboration and does not focus on the long-term future.

The evidence was clear: Australia has not been adequately applying the expertise of our higher education system. For too long, we have lacked a single institution responsible for leading and pulling together both higher education and VET to respond to our national needs. The accord highlighted the need for a dedicated national steward to support long-term planning, consistency and improved outcomes for different cohorts.

Establishing the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the ATEC, was one of the key recommendations of the accord. Through these bills we can deliver on that recommendation. These bills establish the ATEC to be an independent steward for the higher education system. The ATEC will provide advice to government to support long-term planning and publish an annual report on the health and performance of the tertiary system. Let me be clear: the ATEC is not about being a regulator; it's about bringing together the VET and higher education systems, making it easier for students to get the qualifications they need and desire. The ATEC will be empowered to allocate funding under the new managed growth funding system, implement needs based funding within the core funding model, and negotiate mission based compacts to support this diverse, responsive and high-performing sector.

Importantly, the bills ensure that the ATEC will recognise the role of First Nations Australians in the higher education system and improve access and success within it. Through its work, the ATEC will help more students—in particular, those from regional and rural communities—to access university, and it will help them to participate better and succeed when they get there.

The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which I chair, conducted an inquiry into these bills. Our inquiry spanned three months. It received 70 submissions from a range of stakeholders, including public universities, peak bodies, and staff and student representative organisations. Overall I believe the message was clear: Australia's tertiary education system lacks coordinated leadership and has become fragmented and unable to meet our national higher education needs. Reform is essential. Long-term direction is crucial to the sustainability and consistency within the tertiary sector. A dedicated system steward is needed. A dedicated system steward is overdue.

We know the sector strongly supports the establishment of an ATEC. For that reason, our report recommended that the Senate pass these bills. Over the course of this inquiry we heard evidence that the ATEC has the potential to become one of the most consequential transformations of the Australian higher education sector since the reforms of the eighties. Any further delay in creating a steward would leave the sector without the guidance it so urgently requires.

Establishing the ATEC in law is a significant and substantial reform. It is an overdue reform. The sector needs a steward. All Australians benefit when our higher education system is performing at its best. We can and should have a higher education system that is the envy of the world. That's why we're investing extensively in higher education, driving governance reforms across the sector and delivering further reforms to make it more affordable for Australians to attend university. We've cut the HELP debt of all Australians who have a student loan by 20 per cent, wiping $16 billion worth of student debt. We've established a Commonwealth prac payment for the first time to support teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work students while they are completing their practical training at university. We've established a National Student Ombudsman and are implementing a new set of university governance principles.

The Labor Party has always been the party of education. Our government will continue to build a better and fairer higher education system for every Australian. We need to be clear that an ATEC is an essential part of that agenda. An ATEC is what is required to secure and to steward the system. I commend these bills to the Senate.

The higher education sector is in crisis. Inquiry after inquiry, report after report, tell the same story, over and over, of the complete failures of a neo-liberal agenda and the corporatisation, the consultant capture and the commercialisation of universities, where the public focused knowledge creation, teaching and research mission of universities has given way to the commodification and marketisation of pubic higher education, to the utter detriment of staff, students and public education.

An Australian Tertiary Education Commission, or ATEC, as envisaged by the accord, has the potential to provide stability and stewardship to the higher education sector. However, the proposal in this bill requires significant changes. The Greens have secured a number of amendments to the bill that will improved ATEC's ability to confront the significant challenges facing the higher education system.

One of the issues with the bill is that it fails to even recognise the public mission of universities. Universities should be places that advance the public good through learning, teaching and research. They should be places to seek knowledge, to research, to debate and for discussion and be places that support the social, civic and educational basis of a society. They should not simply become job factories that churn out graduates.

Another issue raised, nearly unanimously, by stakeholders in the Senate inquiry is the lack of independence of the proposed ATEC. The ATEC must have the teeth and the remit to genuinely guide a sector in crisis with independence. It must be able to do its work frankly and fearlessly. Otherwise, it's just an administrative exercise and risks merely duplicating the Department of Education.

We all know that research is a core function of our higher education system that contributes to the public good by advancing knowledge, technology and society. But this bill has a lack of focus on research, and that is a concern. It will be addressed through Greens amendments, which put research front and centre of the ATEC's mission. The bill abolishes the Higher Education Standards Panel, which currently sits under TEQSA, and provides independent advice on the Higher Education Standards Framework. A Greens amendment will ensure that the functions of the Higher Education Standards Panel, or HESP, and its expertise are transferred to the ATEC—that this function and its expertise don't get lost.

In order to fulfil the public mission of higher education, universities and their leadership must represent the communities that they serve, and they must confront the legacies of imperialism and racism. All campuses must be actively anti-racist, but, unfortunately, we are far from this.

Possibly the most significant concern in this bill is that while it will, perhaps, be Minister Clare's signature reform it neglects to address the punitive Job-ready Graduate scheme, fee hikes and funding cuts—one of the major challenges facing higher education. This policy is responsible for students paying more and more—paying $50,000 for arts degrees—and getting crushed under higher and higher debt. It is this policy that is stopping people from studying what they love. It is this policy that is creating the biggest inequities and unfairness in the higher education system.

When in opposition, Labor called the JRG package 'an act of economic and cultural vandalism'. Given all of this hot air, Prime Minister Albanese should have dumped Morrison's job-ready graduates' fee hikes the second Labor came into power. Instead, we are four years into the Albanese government and today we have another higher education bill but still no change. Labor really is all talk and very little action. They won't even allow the ATEC to give them advice on student contributions, because they know exactly what that advice will say, and this government doesn't want to hear it.

Before politics, I worked in the university sector as an academic and as a researcher. That was my dream job. That was my passion. My passion for higher education has not dimmed one bit since I have come into this place, and it has been personally devastating for me to see the sector get smashed over and over. The Australian Tertiary Education Commission won't fix it all, but the Greens recognise its potential to provide guidance, stability and stewardship to a sector in crisis.

We are pleased that Labor has agreed to many of our amendments to this bill, which will help ensure that the ATEC will be more effective in fulfilling its role, but we are deeply concerned by the government's refusal to ensure that the ATEC examines contributions and actually scrap the JRG. The longer JRG remains, the more students are punished and the more inequitable our higher education system becomes.

I must say that the there are some deeply troubling aspects in this bill. I start at the front, in terms of the objective. The legislation proposes a national tertiary education objective that is meant to guide the ATEC in the performance of every function and exercise of every power. Let me read this objective. The objective that's contained in clause 13 of the bill is to:

(a) promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and

(b) drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability.

I'm trying to relate that objective, in a precise way, to our tertiary education sector. Reflecting on that bureaucratic language—that objective could apply to almost any institution in this country. I put it to you that, if I were to state that objective outside of the context of this debate and ask any reasonable listener to tell me what the purpose of that objective was, what it was related to, which institution it related to—I suspect an average person would struggle to connect that objective to the tertiary education sector at all. There's no mention of learning. There's no mention of research. There's no mention of teaching. There's no mention of knowledge. There's no mention of critical thinking.

I'm looking again at the definition, the objective—'promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy and drive national, economic and social development and environmental sustainability'. It's absurd, absolutely absurd. This is the objective of the so-called steward of the higher education system, and it's completely disconnected from the teaching function of a university, its research function, its learning function, its critical thinking function, its knowledge function. It's unmoored. It's unmoored from the purpose for which it's in this bill in terms of our tertiary education system.

I'm not the only one who's noticed this. The National Tertiary Education Union said:

The NTEU believes that this objective does not adequately address the character, nature and purpose of higher education; it makes no reference, for example, to the importance of critical inquiry, academic discovery and discourse, institutional independence or even to academic freedom. Instead, the objectives seek to define tertiary education as part of broader Government policy and could apply to virtually any sector.

That is exactly the point I made, and I challenge the government speakers to take on that point.

Tell me, if this objective were put in any other legislation or on a blank piece of paper and the reader of the objective were asked to connect it with the institution for which it's meant to provide the objective—tell me how you reach that connection with the tertiary education sector, because I can't see it. I'll put some direct questions to the speakers who will follow me and who themselves have benefited from the critical thinking with which they've been inculcated through our tertiary education system. Tell me: Why the objective doesn't refer to teaching? Why doesn't the objective refer to learning? Why doesn't the objective refer to research or knowledge or critical thinking? Why have the concerns of the National Tertiary Education Union, our educators in the tertiary education system, been ignored in this regard? Tell me, because I can't see the reason.

I have other comments and concerns with respect to this bill, but I will say this. It's a great disappointment that, in relation to something where we should be able to get cross-chamber support, for a piece of legislation that's this important—it's a great concern that the government is pressing forward with a piece of legislation that does not achieve its stated objectives.

I rise to speak in support of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025.

This is an essential piece of legislation borne out of the Australian Universities Accord, the most comprehensive review of Australia's higher education system in over a decade. This bill is not just a technical measure; it is the legislative foundation for transformative reform. It will establish ATEC, a new, independent steward of our tertiary education system. This is a proud Labor reform, a reform that puts students, equity and national prosperity at the heart of education policy.

For far too long, our tertiary education system has operated in silos, disconnected, fragmented and too often leaving behind the very students that deserve the greatest opportunity. The accord recognised this, recommending a joined-up, strategic and fair system that meets Australia's economic and social needs. The creation of ATEC will be a game changer. It will provide long-term policy and funding certainty for universities and students alike, something the sector has desperately needed. It will drive needs based funding that channels support to students from disadvantaged backgrounds and to regional campuses that carry higher delivery costs. It will improve transparency, data and planning across the tertiary systems so governments, universities and students can invest with confidence. It will support a seamless pathway between VET and higher education, ensuring more Australians can gain the skills that employers need.

Right now, our universities are under pressure. They are operating with thin margins and grappling with costs and stretched resources. Without bold reform, we risk undermining our nation's ability to educate the skilled workforce of tomorrow. We are at a pivotal moment. The target set by the accord that 80 per cent of working-age Australians hold a tertiary qualification by 2050 is an ambitious national objective. To get there, we must act now, not later.

I know some will ask: Why legislate now? Why commit to ATEC? The answer is simple. It is because our universities cannot wait. Our students cannot wait. Our future cannot wait. Already the Albanese government is rolling out accord reforms, including shared funding for placements, preparatory programs and improved support to make higher education more accessible and affordable. But, without formalising ATEC in law, we risk losing the momentum of those gains and, with that, billions in funding and further reform opportunities. This bill won't solve every challenge overnight—no single law can—but it anchors the system in fairness, consistency and long-term vision.

So today I urge the Senate to support this bill. This is not a debate about politics. This is about nation building. Supporting this bill means backing students, giving them clearer pathways to qualifications without unnecessary barriers. It means backing universities, offering policy certainty that allows them to plan, invest and innovate. It means backing regional Australia, ensuring country campuses and regional students are not left behind. It means backing equity and fairness, direct support to those who need it the most. If you want a system that offers opportunity to every Australian regardless of their background, support this bill. Australia needs a strong, competitive tertiary sector. Partner with us in delivering it.

This is another example of the Albanese government backing excellence in education not just in words but in action. It is Labor that is lifting dreams, opening doors and building a future where every Australian can prosper. So let the Senate pass this legislation for our students, for our universities, for Australia's future. I commend the bill to the Senate.

by leave—I move the Greens amendment on sheet 3712:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) this bill fails to grapple with the most significant issues facing our higher education sector, namely the impacts of the job-ready graduates package,

(ii) students are being shackled by a lifetime of debt which is making the cost of living crisis worse, locking people out of the housing market, causing people to delay having families and crushing dreams of going to university,

(iii) the student debt system cannot be fixed because student debt should not exist and higher education, like education at every level, is an essential public good that should be free, universal and provided by the government,

(iv) the recent final report of the Racism@Uni Study found that racism 'remains a significant barrier to equity and inclusion in Australian universities', and

(v) universities are being hollowed out by corporatisation and governance failures, while Commonwealth funding continues to slide backwards; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) wipe all student debt and return to free university and TAFE for all,

(ii) urgently reverse the fee hikes and funding cuts of the job-ready graduates package,

(iii) invest in higher education to ensure high-quality public learning, teaching and research, and

(iv) take urgent action to implement the recommendations of the Racism@Uni Study and address racism at universities".

I rise to speak on the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and to foreshadow amendments I'll be moving in relation to this legislation. I want to start by thanking colleagues who were on the university governance inquiry for the huge amount of work that they undertook, starting with Senator Sheldon, who helped kick it off, and then Senator Marielle Smith. They both did really impressive work as chair of a committee dealing with a huge range of stakeholders. At times, through that committee's work and at Senate estimates, we were dealing with some pretty difficult subject matters and things could get fairly heated.

I want to acknowledge Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Henderson, Senator Faruqi, Senator Kovacic and Senator Barbara Pocock for their work. I think that some of that work highlighting the deficiencies in governance at universities in this country, starting with some of the concerns we've been hearing from our national university, the ANU, for a long time now, have really strengthened the need for more leadership in this space. I also want to thank the NTEU and the many staff, students, peak bodies and experts who have engaged so closely with me and my office over years now on these critical reforms.

At the outset I want to acknowledge that the establishment of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC, is a welcome and necessary step. I thank Minister Clare and his office for their work on this and for bringing it forward. For too long we've had a higher education sector that has lacked coordination and lacked the independent stewardship that is actually required for long-term sustainability, and I think that's really caught up with us now. We're seeing the impact of that at universities across the country.

As has been pointed to in some of the contributions, our universities are critical national institutions. They educate the next generation, they drive innovation and they underpin our economic and social prosperity. So getting the settings right clearly matters. However, if ATEC is to fulfil its promise, it must be more than a new layer of administration. It must be genuinely independent, properly resourced and empowered to provide frank and fearless advice. That's why the second reading amendment I'll be moving makes three key points. First, it notes that the creation of ATEC is positive reform. Second, it recognises that ATEC's long-term effectiveness depends on its independence. This was raised a number of times through the committee process. That means independence in its functions, in its resourcing and in its reporting. Third, it urges ATEC to prioritise one of the most urgent and pressing issues in higher education today: fixing the failed job-ready graduates scheme.

This scheme has distorted student contribution settings, particularly for arts and humanities disciplines. It was rightly slammed by Labor when they were in opposition, but it has unfortunately now been in operation for longer under the Albanese government than it was under the Morrison government, and that is having a huge impact on students and our higher education sector. The universities accord made clear recommendations on this issue, and ATEC must move quickly to progress reform.

I will try to talk about my amendments in committee of the whole if there is time. I would just urge my Senate colleagues to look at amendments and ensure that we actually set the ATEC up for success. I think we need to be really critically looking at student contributions. We hear a lot about intergenerational inequality in this country. We see rising wealth inequality. Actually ensuring that the contributions of students is being looked at by ATEC, I think, is a really important part of setting this up for success.

I rise today to speak about these bills, the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 and the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025. They're about something really important: whether our university system is actually working for people, especially young people. Right now I think a lot of Australians are looking at higher education and thinking that it feels expensive, confusing and disconnected from real life and it doesn't actually have people like them in mind. We ask young people to make huge decisions about their future early. We then tell them education is the pathway to opportunity, to a decent job and to security, but then we give them a system that can feel messy, inconsistent and at times completely out of step with what students and the country need. That is why these bills matter.

The bills started out as a report of the Australian Universities Accord. The Albanese Labor government has implemented 37 of the recommendations so far. This legislation is the next step. It creates the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, ATEC—the long-term final boss of the higher education system.

At the moment, uni policy can feel like it does a 180 from one change to the next. There's not always a clear long-term direction. Different parts of the system don't line up properly, and when that happens students are the ones who wear it. They wear it through higher debt, through qualifications that don't always match workforce needs and through barriers that make uni feel out of reach in the first place. These bills are trying to bring a bit more sense, consistency and planning into the system to make things smoother for everyone involved. We can't keep treating education policy like an all-nighter essay—panic driven, last-minute and hoping it somehow passes. It should not be shaped by random short-term thinking; it should be based on what kind of country we want to build, what skills we need and how we make sure people have a fair shot at participating.

That's one of the reasons why I like that these bills put a national objective into law, and that the objective is not about pumping out more graduates for the sake of it; it is about making sure tertiary education supports a strong democracy, economic and social development, and environmental sustainability. It boils down to this: education should help people build decent lives and should help the country meet the challenges ahead—which seems pretty reasonable to me.

But, when you look around, the cracks are obvious. We've got skill shortages in areas we desperately need skills. We've got ongoing inequality in who gets access to higher education and who succeeds once they're there. We've got a gap between universities and vocational education that still makes moving between the two harder than it should be. And we've got students carrying the cost of policy failures they didn't create. There is something genuinely refreshing about setting up a body whose job is to step back, look at the system as a whole and ask: Is it working? Is this fair? Is this sustainable? Are we setting people up well or just hoping for the best? That kind of long-term thinking has been missing.

I also think it matters that these bills put equity front and centre, because talent is everywhere in this country; opportunity is not. There are still too many people, especially students from regional areas, low-income backgrounds and First Nations communities, who face extra barriers getting into higher education and succeeding once they're there. If we're serious about fairness, education can't just be there for people who already know how to navigate the system; it has to work for the people who have been shut out of it too. That's why having a First Nations commissioner is important. That is why having a stronger focus on access and outcomes matters. That is why having someone keeping an eye on whether the system is serving the whole country is fundamental.

There is also a practical side to the bills which makes a lot of sense. Universities will have to be clearer about what they're there to do and what their goals are, and how that lines up with national and local needs—and I don't think that's some outrageous ask. If institutions are receiving public support, it's fair to expect them to be thinking about students, communities, workforce needs and outcomes, not just operating in their own bubble. Some people are worried this could become another layer of bureaucracy. Some are worried it won't be independent enough. Some think the bills don't go far enough. While these are valid things to discuss, for me the big picture is this: the current system is not perfect and pretending it's fine is not a serious option.

I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate. The Australian Universities Accord was the biggest and broadest review of the higher education system in 15 years. It says that, in the years ahead, more jobs are going to require people with more skills. It says that 60 per cent of Australians working today have a qualification and that that number will need to increase to about 80 per cent by 2050. This means we need more people going to TAFE and more people going to university. The Universities Accord says the only way this will happen is if we break down two big barriers. The first of those is the barrier that has been built up between the vocational education system and the higher education system; the second is the barrier that stops young people from poor families, outer suburbs and regional Australia from going to university.

That's what these bills before us are all about. They formally establish the Australian Tertiary Education Commission, the ATEC. They set out the ongoing responsibilities of the ATEC: to provide independent, expert advice; to negotiate compacts with individual universities; to get the higher education sector to work more like a system; and to support the vocational education and higher education systems to work more closely together. Its job will be to drive the long-term reform we need across the tertiary education system to deliver better outcomes for students and meet Australia's current and future skills needs. Establishing the ATEC is a key recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord. It is the next important step to real and lasting reform, and to making tertiary education better and fairer. It will also continue to deliver on reforms recommended by the Universities Accord.

From their inquiry into these bills, the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment acknowledged broad stakeholder support for the establishment of the ATEC. The government notes the additional recommendations by Australian Greens senators as part of this inquiry, including those related to the Morrison government's Job-Ready Graduates scheme. As minister Clare has said: 'We're taking this one step at a time... there is more work to do… we have never ruled out reform here. It's all about what you do first.'

The government notes other recommendations from the Australian Greens senators in the standing committee report into these bills, including the ATEC being able to initiate and publish advice, expanding the National Tertiary Education objective, action against racism and support for marginalised communities, having appropriate expertise and capability, advising on research and research training, processes to change the threshold standards and clarifying any overlap with TEQSA.

The government also notes the additional comments and recommendations made by Senator Pocock. Some of these are similar to recommendations made by Greens senators, so I refer Senator Pocock to my earlier comments. The ATEC will negotiate individual compacts with universities and negotiate the content of those individual compacts with each university. Introducing further merits review processes in relation to Senator Pocock's amendments could unnecessarily delay actions to resolve a suspended compact.

On staffing arrangements, there will be a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Education and the ATEC to ensure clarity of operational arrangements. Senior ATEC staff will be made available by the secretary following consultation with ATEC commissioners. The secretary's power to engage staff, contractors and consultants can be delegated to the ATEC's executive director. ATEC staff will undertake their roles at the direction of commissioners. They will be able to recruit staff using standard APS recruitment processes, including merit-based selection.

I acknowledge Senator Pocock has put forward amendments including on the number of commissioners, and I thank him for his contribution to strengthening the ATEC. The Australian government also appreciates the support of many stakeholders for the establishment of the ATEC. These bills let us to deliver the ATEC in legislation. This is real, lasting reform, and it's disappointing but not surprising that the coalition have opposed the reform. The ATEC will make our university system stronger. I commend the bills to the Senate.

The question is the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet 3712 be agreed to.

A division having been called an d the bells being rung—

Since time is limited for this debate, we're happy to have our support for the amendment recorded and not have a division, if others are keen to do the same.

We will cancel the division and recorded in favour of the noes. The noes have it, but we will record the Greens's support for Senator Faruqi's amendment.

Question negatived.

by leave—I record the Greens's support for the amendment.

by leave—I move:

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

(a) notes that the establishment of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC) is a welcome step in improving the sustainability, governance and enduring excellence of Australia's higher education system for staff, students and the continued future success of our country;

(b) recognises that, to fulfil its potential over the long-term, the ATEC requires independence in its functions, resourcing and reporting; and

(c) urges the ATEC to progress the urgent reform of the failed job-ready graduates scheme, consistent with the recommendations of the final report of the Universities Accord, with a view to urgently addressing inequitable student contribution settings—particularly in arts and humanities disciplines—and mitigating the disproportionate debt burden and emerging socio-economic stratification current arrangements are creating for the student cohort".

Question negatived.

I record my support for my amendment.

The question is that second reading be agreed to.

by leave—under the standing orders I ask that Senator Lambie's position on the two second reading amendments be recorded.

The Greens have a number of amendments to this bill, and I am pleased to say that the government has agreed with quite a few of those amendments. I do want to thank the many higher education advocates, supporters and stakeholders who have worked with us to make sure that that does happen.

These amendments include making ATEC more independent. That was one of the key issues that was raised by literally every single stakeholder and every single witness to the inquiry into this bill. Otherwise, we were told again and again—and I agreed with that sentiment—ATEC risks becoming just another administrative arm of the education department. It is absolutely vital, especially after the turmoil that the sector has been in, that it has independence from the government, so I'm glad that that amendment was agreed to by the government.

But there needs to be stronger independence provided to ATEC. I was hoping that the government would agree to the Greens amendment for the minister to basically not retain effective veto rights on the publication of ATEC's work, because that undermines their ability to publish the independent work that they have done. I hope the government can consider that in the future.

The government has also agreed to support Greens amendments on research in particular, because a strong research and development sector is crucial for higher education, for our society, for democracy. The recent release of the final report of the Strategic Examination of Research and Development—the SERD review—highlights that importance. Also, the government has agreed to make sure that the commissioners of ATEC have expertise in research.

One of the really important amendments that the Greens pushed for was around the purpose of higher education. We were quite surprised to see that, in the objectives of the ATEC bill, there was actually no purpose that highlighted this mission of higher education. So I'm really glad that we will now have an amendment which puts into the objectives of ATEC 'to recognise the public focused mission of higher education, the importance of academic freedom and the crucial role of higher education in developing knowledge and critical inquiry for the benefit of society'.

But I do have a few questions for the minister, because I want to come to their refusal, I guess, to include student contributions as part of the ATEC remit. One of our amendments goes to the heart of that. This is the amendment on sheet 3671. This amendment adds to the functions of the ATEC in order to ensure that the commission can examine not only the total cost of degrees and Commonwealth contributions but also student contributions, because, without those, in effect we have only half the picture.

Students at the moment are being crushed under spiralling student debt. A one-off 20 per cent debt cut by the government really does nothing for those who start university this year or after. What is even more devastating is that there are those who are now considering never starting university at all, because the cost is becoming prohibitive. They want to do arts degrees, which are now more than $50,000, but they can't study what they love, because it is so expensive. This Labor government knows that the fee hikes and funding cuts of the Job-ready Graduates Package have been an unmitigated disaster. Of course they have been an unmitigated disaster for young people and for students, but they have also been an unmitigated disaster for staff and universities. We know that, in opposition, the Prime Minister spoke in strong opposition to the JRG. But he's now been in charge for four years, and he won't even allow ATEC to provide advice on replacing this dog's breakfast of a policy. The Albanese Labor government could undo the Job Ready Graduates fee hikes and funding cuts today. But the real sad story out of this is that they won't even let ATEC look at student contributions.

So, Minister, my question to you is: Why is the government refusing to include student contributions as part of ATEC's remit and only having a half cooked cost estimate of higher education?

The government appreciate the work that the Australian Greens have done on this bill, including those amendments that we have been able to accept. In relation to the particular amendment that you just spoke to, which goes to issues around student contributions, the Universities Accord made several recommendations to reduce student contributions and reform HECS or HELP repayment arrangements. As a government we have implemented many of those recommendations, including fixing indexation of HELP debts and making the repayment system fairer as well. Last year we cut 20 per cent off student debt, which has reduced student debt by around $16 billion dollars and benefited over 3.2 million Australians.

Right now, with the interim ATEC in place, Professor Stephen Duckett is working with the interim ATEC to understand the true costs of teaching and learning at university. This is a really important and complex first step in the process of any future reform. The bills establish the functions of the ATEC, including providing advice on 'the efficient cost of higher education across disciplines and student cohorts and in relation to the Commonwealth contribution amounts'. This work that Professor Duckett is undertaking and provisions in the ATEC bill that allow for that work to be done are an important first step that the ATEC will be able to take following the passage of this legislation.

As Minister Clare has said, we are taking these reforms, as outlined by the Universities Accord, one step at a time. We're taking the Universities Accord recommendations to reduce student contributions and reform HELP repayment arrangements one step at a time, and we're also taking this big step today or passing the ATEC bill, also recommended by the accord.

():  In the one minute that we have remaining on this debate, I will make this point about the recommendation for the Senate to support my amendment on sheet 3655. I don't believe the amendment has been moved yet. I don't have to move it, because it's subject to the guillotine in any case. It is quite extraordinary. The words 'teaching', 'learning' and 'research' simply do not appear in the bill. There's nothing there about the quality of our institutions, the national interest, student experience, dynamism, competition, innovation or efficiency that are absolutely required in our tertiary education system. This bill is not fit for purpose. We heard from stakeholders throughout the inquiry that it's not fit for purpose. I encourage the Senate to agree to the amendment we have before us as we now move onto our guillotine.

The question is the amendment on sheet 3665 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) develop a world-class tertiary education sector that drives excellence in teaching and learning; and

(b) deliver world-leading research and scholarship, particularly in strategic areas of national significance; and

(c) improve productivity by developing a highly skilled, adaptable and productive workforce; and

(d) establish close links between tertiary education providers, industry and business to strengthen student outcomes and support innovation across the economy; and

(e) deliver positive student experiences across the tertiary education sector; and

(f) promote competition and innovation across the tertiary education sector; and

(g) support Australian values, including equality of opportunity, the rule of law, and Western liberal democratic traditions; and

(h) drive efficiency across the sector to provide value for money for students and the Australian taxpayer; and

(i) reduce regulatory burdens on the tertiary education sector where practicable.

by leave—Could I ask that Senator Payman's opposition to that amendment from the opposition be recorded.

The question now is that clause 69 of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 stand as printed.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025—

(4) Clause 69, page 47 (lines 12 to 19), to be opposed.

by leave—I ask that Senator Payman's opposition to that question be noted.

I shall deal with the remaining amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. Senator Darmanin?

We'd like to ask for some of them to be voted on differently. Could we please have amendments on sheets 3674, 3668, 3669, 3671 and 3710 split out?

Okay. I am first putting the question on the amendments on sheets 3667, 3670, 3672, 3720 and 3728.

Greens amendments as circulated—

SHEET 3667

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 17), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(2) Clause 11, page 8 (line 27), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(3) Clause 11, page 9 (line 4), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(4) Clause 40, page 26 (line 6), omit "ATEC must give", substitute "ATEC may give".

(5) Clause 40, page 26 (lines 10 to 12), omit "and must be given at the request of the Minister and, in relation to the tertiary education system, the VET Minister".

(6) Clause 41, page 27 (line 4), omit "If requested by the Minister, the ATEC must", substitute "The ATEC may".

(7) Clause 41, page 28 (lines 7 and 8), omit "If requested by the Minister and, if the Minister is not the VET Minister, the VET Minister, the ATEC must", substitute "The ATEC may".

(8) Clause 41, page 28 (lines 22 to 25), omit subclause (3).

_____

SHEET 3670

(1) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 25), after paragraph (f), insert:

(fa) to provide advice and recommendations to the Minister in relation to research and research training;

(2) Clause 41, page 27 (after line 6), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) research and research training;

(3) Clause 42, page 29 (after line 14), after paragraph (2)(c), insert:

(ca) the extent to which the higher education system is delivering high quality research and research training;

_____

SHEET 3672

(1) Clause 59, page 42 (after line 3), after subparagraph (a)(iii), insert:

(iiia) research and research training;

_____

SHEET 3720

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 2), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; (h) to recognise the public-focused mission of higher education, the importance of academic freedom and the crucial role of higher education in developing knowledge and critical inquiry for the benefit of society.

_____

SHEET 3728

(1) Clause 7, page 7 (lines 27 and 28), after "First Nations Advisory Committee", insert "and the Higher Education Standards Committee".

(2) Clause 25, page 16 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:

Higher Education Standards Committee

(1A) The ATEC must establish a committee to be known as the Higher Education Standards Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the ATEC in relation to its functions under:

(a) paragraphs 11(e) and (f) of this Act; and

(b) sections 58A and 58B of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011.

(1B) Without limiting subsection (4), in determining the membership of the Higher Education Standards Committee, the ATEC must:

(a) ensure the members collectively have an appropriate balance of professional knowledge and demonstrated expertise, including in higher education and in the development of standards relating to the quality of higher education; and

(b) ensure the members collectively have contemporary experience in the provision of higher education by registered higher education providers (within the meaning of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011); and

(c) have regard to the interests of the States and Territories, current and prospective higher education students, and staff of higher education providers.

The question is that those amendments be agreed to.

by leave—I ask that Senator Payman's support for those amendments be noted.

by leave—I record One Nation's support for sheets 3670 and 3672.

I am going to put the remaining amendments on sheet 3674 and the amendments on sheets 3668 revised, 3669, 3671 and 3710. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments

SHEET 3668 revised

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 27), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:

(fa) to improve access to, and participation and success in, the higher education system for persons from culturally and racially marginalised communities, persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics and persons with disability;

_____

SHEET 3669

(1) Clause 11, page 9 (line 9), after "socioeconomic background", insert ", persons from racially and culturally marginalised communities, persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics".

(2) Clause 14, page 11 (lines 1 and 2), after "socioeconomic background", insert ", persons from racially and culturally marginalised communities, persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics".

(3) Clause 41, page 27 (line 30), after "socioeconomic background", insert ", persons from racially and culturally marginalised communities, persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics".

(4) Clause 42, page 29 (line 29), after "socioeconomic background", insert ", persons from racially and culturally marginalised communities, persons with diverse sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics".

_____

SHEET 3671

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 10), after the definition of Secretary, insert:

student contribution amount has the same meaning as in the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

(2) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 24), after the definition of Torres Strait Islander, insert:

unit of study has the same meaning as in the Higher Education Support Act 2003.

(3) Clause 11, page 9 (line 14), after "funding clusters", insert "and student contribution amounts for units of study".

_____

SHEET 3674

(1) Clause 41, page 28 (lines 3 to 5), omit the note.

(2) Clause 41, page 28 (lines 19 to 21), omit the note.

(3) Clause 68, page 47 (lines 7 and 8), omit "requires the ATEC to obtain the Minister's agreement before publishing any of its advice or recommendations. It also".

_____

SHEET 3710

(1) Clause 13, page 10 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The National Tertiary Education Objective is the objective for tertiary education in Australia to:

(a) recognise the public-focused mission of tertiary education; and

(b) promote a strong, equitable and resilient democracy; and

(c) drive social development and environmental sustainability; and

(d) deliver solutions to the major challenges in society.

(1A) The National Tertiary Education Objective aims to recognise:

(a) the inherent value of a high quality public education system; and

(b) the importance of tertiary education in creating a strong, equitable and resilient society; and

(c) the significance of tertiary education in protecting and advancing the civil, political and social rights that underpin Australia's democracy; and

(d) the crucial role of tertiary education in developing knowledge and critical inquiry for the benefit of society.

by leave—Could I have One Nation's vote recorded as being in support of sheet 3674's remaining stages.

by leave—Could I ask that Senator Payman's support for those amendments be noted.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3717 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 42, page 29 (after line 5), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) A report must include an assessment of the outcomes of tertiary education for graduates including:

(a) average starting salaries for graduates across different industries and sectors; and

(b) average time taken after graduation for graduates to gain full-time employment across different industries and sectors.

by leave—Could I please ask that Senator Payman's support for those amendments be noted.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock.

Could we please split out the amendments on sheets 3716, 3726, and 3727.

The question is that the amendments on sheets 3716, 3726, and 3727 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025

SHEET 3716

(1) Clause 11, page 8 (line 27), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(2) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 2), after paragraph (c), insert:

(ca) to prepare reports, and provide advice and recommendations to the Minister, the Research Minister and the Science Minister, in relation to research and research training in the higher education system and its interactions with the broader research and development system;

(3) Clause 11, page 9 (line 4), omit "if requested by the Minister".

(4) Clause 11, page 9 (line 13), after "Commonwealth", insert "and student".

(5) Clause 11, page 9 (after line 14), after subparagraph (d)(ii), insert:

(iia) the funding of research and research training; and

(6) Clause 22, page 14 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) The Secretary and the ATEC must enter into an enforceable agreement specifying minimum staffing levels and standards.

(7) Clause 41, page 27 (after line 17), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) the funding of research and research training, including indirect costs of research grants and support for research students;

(8) Clause 41, page 28 (after line 25), at the end of the clause, add:

Work initiated by the ATEC

(4) Within the scope of the ATEC's work plan specified in section 45, the ATEC may initiate its own research and analysis and publish reports, advice and recommendations in relation to the items listed in subsections (1) and (2).

(9) Clause 42, page 29 (after line 18), after paragraph (2)(d), insert:

(da) the contribution of higher education in progress towards any research, development, innovation or science priorities and targets set by the Commonwealth;

(10) Clause 42, page 30 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add:

(6) To avoid doubt, a report is not prepared at the request of the Minister.

(11) Heading to clause 69, page 47 (line 12), omit "Ministerial agreement", substitute "Consultation with Minister".

(12) Clause 69, page 47 (lines 15 and 16), omit "seek and obtain the agreement of the Minister", substitute "consult with the Minister".

_____

SHEET 3726

(1) Page 42 (after line 7), after clause 59, insert:

59A Merit-based and transparent selection process

The Minister must not appoint a person as an ATEC Commissioner under this Division unless the Minister is satisfied that the person was assessed as suitable for the appointment through an assessment process that:

(a) was merit-based; and

(b) included public advertising of the position.

_____

SHEET 3727

(1) Clause 29, page 19 (after line 21), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) The ATEC and the provider must make a genuine effort to ensure the compact reflects and promotes, so far as possible, the provider's goals and missions.

(2) Page 22 (after line 32), at the end of Division 2 of Part 3, add:

35A Review by Administrative Review Tribunal

A Table A or Table B provider may apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal for review of a decision under subsection 33(1) to suspend a mission based compact with the provider.

Question negatived.

by leave—I ask that Senator Payman's support for those amendments be noted, along with that of the Australian Greens.

I record One Nation's support for the amendment on sheet 3726.

by leave—I also record the support of Senator Tyrrell and Senator David Pocock, who, after all, did circulate those amendments.

I think that goes without saying, but that will be recorded. I now put the question on the amendments on sheet 3715.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment s to the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 10), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "the Commissioners".

(2) Clause 5, page 4 (line 5), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(3) Clause 5, page 4 (line 8), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(4) Clause 7, page 7 (line 7), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "the Commissioners".

(5) Clause 9, page 8 (line 10), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "the Commissioners".

(6) Clause 19, page 12 (line 29), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "the Commissioners".

(7) Clause 20, page 13 (lines 9 to 12), omit the clause, substitute:

20 Commissioners

There is to be at least 1, but not more than 3, Commissioners.

Note: For provisions relating to a Commissioner's appointment, see Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 5.

(8) Heading to Clause 21, page 13 (line 13), omit "Commissioner", substitute "Commissioners".

(9) Clause 21, page 13 (line 14), omit "Commissioner", substitute "Commissioners".

(10) Clause 21, page 13 (line 16), omit "Commissioner", substitute "Commissioners".

(11) Clause 47, page 35 (line 8), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "the Commissioners".

(12) Heading to clause 58, page 41 (line 1), omit "Commissioner", substitute "Commissioners".

(13) Clause 58, page 41 (line 3), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner".

(14) Clause 58, page 41 (line 7), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(15) Clause 58, page 41 (line 23), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner".

(16) Clause 60, page 42 (line 29), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(17) Clause 60, page 42 (line 31), omit "or Commissioner", substitute "or the Commissioner".

(18) Clause 60, page 43 (line 4), omit "or Commissioner", substitute "or the Commissioner".

(19) Clause 62, page 44 (line 20), omit "the Commissioner", substitute "a Commissioner".

(20) Clause 63, page 44 (line 26), omit "The Commissioner", substitute "A Commissioner".

(21) Clause 67, page 46 (line 10), omit "the Commissioner's", substitute "the ATEC Commissioner's".

Question agreed to.

by leave—I ask that the opposition's position against the amendments on sheet 3715 be noted.

by leave—I ask that Senator Payman's support for those amendments be noted.

I will deal with the amendments on sheet 3730 circulated by Senator Thorpe. As these amendments were not circulated within the required timeframe, they can only be considered by leave. Senator Thorpe is not in the chamber. Is anyone willing to seek leave on behalf of Senator Thorpe?

by leave—At the request of Senator Thorpe, in respect of the Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, I move the amendments on sheet 3730 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 19), after the definition of First Nations Commissioner, insert:

First Nations data sovereignty principles: see subsection 25(1A).

(2) Clause 19, page 13 (after line 3), after paragraph (d), insert:

(da) to uphold and safeguard First Nations data sovereignty principles; and

(3) Clause 25, page 16 (lines 3 to 9), omit subclause (1), substitute:

First Nations Advisory Committee

(1) The ATEC must establish a committee to be known as the First Nations Advisory Committee to provide advice and recommendations to the ATEC in relation to:

(a) participation and outcomes for Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders in tertiary education; and

(b) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge; and

(c) upholding and safeguarding First Nations data sovereignty principles.

First Nations data sovereignty principles

(1A) The treatment and management of data, information or knowledge, in any format or medium, which is about, or may affect, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, collectively or individually, should:

(a) assert the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and organisations to maintain, control, protect, develop and use data as it relates to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; and

(b) reflect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests, values and priorities, including cultural ways of knowing, being and doing; and

(c) be accessible, appropriate and meet Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander needs; and

(d) be collected with free, prior and informed consent, including respect for confidentiality; and

(e) be stored securely; and

(f) be returned in an easily understood and meaningful way; and

(g) be interpreted by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experts, ensuring it reflects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander lived experiences and perspectives; and

(h) be used to advance self-determination and development; and

(i) only be used how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and organisations agree.

These principles are the First Nations data sovereignty principles.

Question negatived.

by leave—I ask that the Australian Greens' support be noted and also that Senator Payman's support be noted.

by leave—I note Senator Lambie's position on amendments as follows: sheet 3674, support; sheets 3672, 3671, 3670, 3669 and 3668 revised, oppose; sheet 3667, support; sheets 3710, 3720 and 3728, oppose; sheets 3716, 3715, 3726 and 3727, support; sheet 3717, oppose; and sheet 3730, support.

by leave—I came back so the whip for the Greens wouldn't have to do it for me. I note my support for Senator Thorpe's amendments on sheet 3730.

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025, as amended, agreed to; Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 agreed to.

Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) Bill 2025 reported with amendments; Universities Accord (Australian Tertiary Education Commission) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 reported without amendment; report adopted.

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

by leave—I note Senator Payman's support for the bills.

Bills read a third time.

Recent fuel pressures have highlighted just how essential our service station workers are. When Australians drive up to fill their tanks at the bowser, it is these workers are on the front line, serving customers, managing queues and keeping petrol flowing. Let me be very clear: the fuel spikes are not their fault. These workers are simply doing their jobs under stressful and often challenging conditions. As we know, international tensions and the ongoing conflict in the Middle East are putting pressure on supply chains. Yet it is the frontline workers who face the immediate consequences—frustrated customers and relentless pressure—all while keeping our country moving. Service station staff are vital to our communities, but they are too often overlooked. They deserve safe workplaces, fair conditions and proper support—signs at petrol stations reminding customers to respect staff and to not take fuel prices out on them. It is not the workers at the pumps who should shoulder the blame for global fuel markets.

The toll on frontline workers extends far beyond petrol stations. Millions of Australians in retail and essential services face similar challenges. Last year the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association launched a campaign highlighting the pressures and presented a five-point plan for safe workplaces, sustainable workloads and support for workers.

In its report Under pressure: the hidden cost of retail, the SDA union surveyed more than 11,000 retail workers, and the surveys were deeply concerning. Seventy-seven per cent of workers are at high risk of harm, 72 per cent report experiencing burnout, 58 per cent report very low levels of wellbeing and nearly half intend to leave the industry. With retail employing around 10 per cent of Australia's workforce, these numbers simply cannot be ignored. Despite the essential nature of their work, whether keeping our shelves stocked or serving customers, too many workers are struggling under unsafe conditions, leading to physical and mental exhaustion.

The SDA's ongoing 'No One Deserves A Serve' campaign shines a light on abusive and violent behaviour towards retail and fast-food workers. Abusive behaviour towards staff is unacceptable. Retail and service workers deserve to feel safe and valued, not overworked, undervalued and at risk of harm. So, next time that you are at the petrol pump, please do not blame those workers and do not take your anger out on them. These workers keep our country moving, and it is time that we all make sure that they are supported, protected and respected always. Well done and thank you to the SDA union, who continue to fight for their rights and the wellbeing of millions of Australians every single day.

It is the responsibility of every federal government to carefully and soberly steward its nation through the best and the worst of times, and I think we can all agree that these are some of the worst of times. Australia is critically exposed to geopolitical risk unless we can reliably produce a domestic supply of liquid fuel.

Today, the Nationals think tank, the Page Research Centre, has warned of exactly this. In its groundbreaking new report, All at sea: fuel, war and Australia's Achilles heel, it has outlined a pathway to restoring Australia's self-sustainability, including incentivising domestic oil drilling, expanding fuel reserves as supply bridges, establishing a dedicated fuel security budget and approving coal-to-liquid pilot plants. This report confirms what we have long been warning: Australia must develop its own energy, including liquid fuel.

If you don't have fuel and you don't have food, you are pretty close to anarchy. You cannot use a carbon credit to fill up a fuel tank, and you certainly can't unlock any strategic reserves. In this mad pursuit of net zero, we have offshored our most important industries, forcing us to rely on unstable regions to meet our most basic needs—needs which we can fulfill from our own abundant resources. This report from the Page Research Centre shows we do have all the resources here, in Australia, to get us out of this mess. We just need more Australia. We must drill, baby, drill and unleash Australia's energy resources.

The report recommends expanding Australia's own petroleum supply, conventional and unconventional, and prioritise, incentivise and deregulate domestic exploration and drilling for crude oil, gas and unconventional petroleum in Australia. We must approve coal-to-liquids pilot plants so that Australia can test and scale one of the few domestic pathways capable of supplying the substantial share of national fuel and chemical demand. We must expand in-country fuel reserve as a bridge, not a substitute, with priority given to distributed storage. We must recapitalise and expand domestic refining capacity to meet Australia's diesel-heavy fuel needs, including hydrocracking capability able to process a wider range of imported and synthetic feedstocks. We need to support complementary fuel streams where they make strategic sense, including gas-to-liquids, biofuels and other alternative liquid fuel pathways. We must establish a dedicated fuel security budget, funded from a portion of fuel excise, a new dedicated excise or from the defence budget.

Labor's ill considered and economically damaging policies have had a very predictable outcome. They've included arbitrary mentions of a gas levy and the PRRT changes, a gas market intervention, overbearing EPBC changes and the brutalising safeguard mechanism. Australians will be left jobless and at the mercy of international energy supply if this keeps going. The Albanese government's continued policy failures in the resources and energy space have left businesses questioning if Australia is worth investing in while discouraging sovereignty of supply. Private capital has also attempted coal-to-liquid projects in Australia but has run into excessive green and red tape. We can create our own energy abundance with domestic production of liquid fuels, and, with the necessary steps to achieve it, it will have limited economic cost.

Australia deserves better. We must restore our standard of living and protect our way of life, and the coalition will commit to this through expanding offshore tenures, encouraging drilling and making sure we have our own domestic capability for fuel.

Easter is a time of significance for families across Tasmania and across the country. It's a period for reflection, connection and relaxation. Eating chocolate and spending time with your loved ones also makes it a very special time of the year. Yet for too many working Tasmanians, Easter remains unrecognised as a public holiday. This legislation has been an oversight for too many years and leads almost 30,000 Tasmanian workers, especially those in retail, warehousing, pharmacy and fast food, at a clear disadvantage compared to their counterparts in the rest of the country.

In most Australian state and territories, Easter is celebrated as a public holiday, granting workers the right to fair pay, penalty rates and the option to spend precious time with their loved ones. However, here in Tasmania, where I live, many employees are required to work through this period without the benefit of public holiday entitlements. They miss out on additional pay and, in many cases, the opportunity to take leave and recharge. This discrepancy is not just a matter of industrial relations policy; it's a matter of fairness when compared with interstate neighbours and respected workers who reap the benefits of having it as a public holiday.

Retail sector workers already face demanding schedules and pressures at work due to increased aggression from customers, and they are impacted by this—like anyone would be. These frontline workers often juggle shifts during times when families elsewhere are together, receiving neither financial recognition nor the right to the rest that they deserve. Every worker should be compensated for their sacrifice at work when it is on a public holiday. When everyone else is out enjoying themselves, you should get a fair day's pay for the work you're doing at that time. It supports having a break, supports workers' mental health and physical wellbeing, and boosts productivity in the workplace. It acknowledges their right to rest, to be with family and to participate in community life.

When we deny Easter public holiday recognition, we deny Tasmanian workers the dignity they deserve. It impacts not only their pay and conditions but also their sense of inclusion and value. I have on many occasions—and I do it here tonight—urged the Tasmanian Liberal government to stop dragging their feet on this simple reform. Recognising Easter as a public holiday will bring Tasmania in line with the rest of the nation. It will reaffirm our commitment to fairness and respect for workers' rights. It will ease the pressure faced by those in retail and hospitality, improve their quality of life and strengthen our social fabric. When we support workers we build a community that values equality, wellbeing and social cohesion.

I acknowledge tonight the work of the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association, better known as the SDA, and their continual campaign to recognise this reform for working Tasmanians—in particular Joel Tynan and Paul Griffin, the former secretary who also campaigned tirelessly for this much-needed reform. I take the opportunity to acknowledge Josh Willie, Leader of the Labor Party in Tasmania, for being out this week and coming to the party and recognising that this has been an oversight for too long, and backing in Easter Sunday being a public holiday and being recognised in my home state.

We know in this place that we always prioritise workers. We want to support them and their families, just like the SDA and all the other unions that put their members before themselves. This is a change that needs to occur. The time is over for any further delay. Let us envisage a fairer Tasmania, one where every worker receives the recognition, pay and conditions they deserve. Together this will make Easter a time of celebration for all Tasmanians, ensuring no-one is left behind. Why should Tasmania have fewer public holidays than the ACT, who have 15; the Northern Territory, who have 14; and South Australia, who have 14? Tasmania has 11. That's unfair to Tasmanian workers.

Senate adjourned at 20:27