by leave—With reference to Senator Hanson-Young's order for the production of documents on 25 March 2026, I table documents concerning algal blooms in South Australia.

I present 12 government responses to committee reports as listed on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report:

Inquiry into economic self-determination and opportunities for First Nations Australians

March 2026

Recommendation Key

Preamble

The Australian Government thanks and acknowledges the work of the Committee and secretariat in producing this report and its recommendations, and would further like to acknowledge the work of First Nations partners and organisations that are advancing the economic empowerment agenda.

The First Nations economy has a rich and enduring tradition, and today's policy settings should be viewed in their proper context. First Nations people have exercised economic self-determination through the trading of goods, services and information, both domestically and internationally, for tens of thousands of years. The strength and resilience of the modern First Nations economy derives from the strength, resilience, creativity and resourcefulness of First Nations people.

These strengths are obvious when one considers the numbers. First Nations businesses are thriving—they contribute over $16 billion to Australia's economy and pay out more than $4.2 billion in wages to 116,000 people across 13,000 businesses1 every year. The community-controlled sector is also a significant employer of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, all the while providing vital support to over 500,000 First Nations Australians in all states and territories. Furthermore, the First Nations Estate equates to a legal right and interest to around 60 per cent of the Australian land massi and approximately 43 per cent of clean energy projects required to meet Australia's net zero commitments will need to be situated on the First Nations estate.

The Government recognises these strengths as a solid foundation with which to work towards greater economic empowerment of First Nations Australians. Increased economic opportunity can play a major role in reducing outcomes gaps across all aspects of policy, in all walks of life. As agreed in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, economic policy—like all policy, is done best in Partnership.

To this end the Government, working in partnership with First Nations representatives has established a First Nations Economic Partnership. The Government, guided by the Partnership, will develop a First Nations Economic Framework that will draw together the fundamentals needed to drive Government action across portfolios.2

The Australian Government is pleased to provide the responses that follow.

Recommendation 1

2.38 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government and the Department of Treasury develop a supplementary measurement framework that incorporates the principles of Australia's Measuring What Matters Framework. This must include profiling and tracking to illustrate gaps and the mapping of variations of socio-economic wellbeing of First Nations communities. This will create a systematic way to track the socio-economic wellbeing of communities over time.

Response: Noted

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

In signing the National Agreement on Closing the Gap the Australian Government has committed to collecting and sharing data that is most useful to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations and communities (clauses 70-74 of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap) on a range of metrics surrounding the 19 socio-economic targets. The Data Policy Partnership will bring together all Australian governments with First Nations representatives to progress work that will strengthen data related activities under the National Agreement. The Data Policy Partnership is co-chaired by a representative from the New South Wales Coalition of Aboriginal Peak Organisations and a representative from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Recommendation 2

3.95 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government fund a national longitudinal Indigenous economic and business dataset to understand the composition and economic contribution of First Nations business to the Australian economy.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Bureau of Statistics' existing Business Longitudinal Analysis Data Environment (BLADE) and emerging Business Characteristics Asset (BCA) provide a foundation for the potential development of a national longitudinal Indigenous economic and business dataset. While these data assets do not currently support nationally consistent identification of First Nations businesses, the existing BLADE allows for the longitudinal analysis of business composition and economic contribution.

Work is underway by the Indigenous Economic Power Project, led by the University of Melbourne and supported by Government funding, to integrate data on First Nations businesses, from various business registers, into BLADE. While the data and research outputs are informative, they do not represent all businesses of this type. The University of Melbourne is also working to expand its list of registries, including for community-controlled organisations whose ownership cannot be identified through administrative sources.

Recommendation 3

3.101 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in its review of the Indigenous Procurement Policy, consider:

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is committed to empowering and improving economic outcomes for First Nations people though leveraging its significant purchasing power to create more opportunities for First Nations businesses.

The Indigenous Procurement Policy (IPP) aims to increase the rate of Australian Government purchasing from First Nations businesses by setting targets for Commonwealth Portfolios. Since it began in 2015, more than $11 billion in Australian Government contracts have been awarded to First Nations businesses. The IPP has supported a high rate of growth for the First Nations business sector, and has significantly increased the Australian Government's purchasing from First Nations businesses.

The Government heard calls for changes to the IPP to increase the ambition of the policy and ensure that the economic benefits of the IPP are genuinely flowing to First Nations people as intended. In February 2025, the Australian Government announced changes to strengthen the IPP eligibility criteria and be more ambitious with the Commonwealth and Portfolio procurement targets that are set under the policy. These changes include:

Recommendation 4

3.102 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate the practice of black-cladding and policies to combat it.

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government notes there are various perspectives about what is and is not black-cladding, its prevalence and how to best address the issue. Strengthening the definition is the first step. As outlined at Recommendation 3, the eligibility criteria for the IPP will be strengthened to require that Indigenous businesses are 51 per cent or more First Nations owned and controlled (or registered with ORIC) to access the IPP. This will ensure First Nations business owners accessing the IPP are empowered to run their businesses and exercise their rights as majority owners.

The Government remains committed to exploring options to tackle black cladding in other ways. The Australian Government has introduced a Supplier Code of Conduct outlining the Government's minimum expectations of suppliers and their personnel while under contract with the Government. The code includes explicit requirements to respect the rights of First Nations people, and to ensure that partnerships with First Nations people are entered into with free, prior and informed consent and are fair, equitable and deliver genuine benefits to the First Nations party. In combatting black-cladding, the Government also notes that regulators (such as the ACCC and ASIC) in some instances may have the ability to take action based on their legislative remit and the circumstances raised. The NIAA will work with relevant regulators and support services to identify opportunities to make it easier for First Nations people to report black cladding that might amount to unlawful conduct and provide targeted education, guidance and support for First Nations business owners.

Recommendation 5

3.104 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider support for Indigenous Chambers of Commerce and similar business networks to boost their delivery of financial, commercial, and business capability services.

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Department of Industry Science and Resources is well-positioned to share learnings with

Indigenous Chambers of Commerce and similar networks about the support available for First Nations businesses. AusIndustry Regional Managers, for example are able to share information and enhance awareness of available programs and services, identify opportunities, build connections and networks across the economy, and to access market opportunities.

Recommendation 6

3.107 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government launch an awareness campaign and establish a central resource with information on federal, state, and territory government business advisory services for First Nations businesses.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Department of Industry Science and Resources, National Indigenous Australians Agency and Indigenous

Business Australia work collaboratively to ensure that information on the business.gov.au website supports positive outcomes for First Nations businesses.

The business.gov.au Adviser finder tool is a central resource that provides all federal, state and territory adviser opportunities for business in one place. There is a specific question and filter to show opportunities for First Nations businesses.

Recommendation 7

3.113 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government pilot an entrepreneurial and business mentorship program for aspiring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women, and explore how it can improve support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait women in business.

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is committed to fostering diversity in entrepreneurship, which will help deliver transformative economic outcomes for local communities and the Australian economy.

On 10 February 2025, the Government tabled its Closing the Gap 2024 Annual Report and 2025 Implementation Plan, which includes a commitment to provide $3.4 million over three years (to 30 June 2028) to Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) to establish a place-based business coaching and mentoring program for First Nations businesswomen. The business coaching and mentoring program will support First Nations women entrepreneurs with greater access to the resources, networks and support they need to launch a viable business, commercialise a viable business idea or grow an existing business.

Through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, the Australian Government funds a range of programs under the Indigenous Business Sector Strategy (IBSS) which provide entrepreneurial and business support for aspiring, and established, First Nations people in business. The IBSS has a focus on access to services and tailored support for First Nations women.

For example, through its Business Solutions Program IBA established Australia's largest network of First Nations businesswomen and entrepreneurs—'Strong Women Strong Business'. Created in 2018, the network provides First Nations women and aspiring entrepreneurs access to formal and informal mentoring, capability development resources, business forums, and an online community network of over 2,000 First Nations women.

Recommendation 8

4.100 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government strengthen existing, and develop new, instruments to enhance and fast track Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' access to finance and capital.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government has made a number of commitments to support access to finance and capital. These include boosting Indigenous Business Australia's (IBA) Home Loan Capital Fund by around $70 million, and amending the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to enhance IBA's ability to leverage its capital to invest in First Nations communities and businesses.

On 29 September 2025, the Government signed the First Nations Economic Partnership with the First Nations Economic Empowerment Alliance and the Coalition of Peaks An immediate action in the Economic Partnership Agreement includes a commitment to 'consider opportunities to improve investment mechanisms and access to capital'.

The Australian Government is also considering ways in which it can further support access to finance and capital, such as through the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy (Strategy). The Strategy includes actions to investigate new models for collaborative finance and broker an investor forum on access to capital and equity ownership. For more information on the Strategy, refer to the response to Recommendation 18.

Recommendation 9

4.101 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider impediments to responsible lending and capital flow from mainstream banks and financial institutions to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government has a range of programs aimed at supporting access to finance and capital. Indigenous Business Australia has collaborative partnerships with like-minded banks and financial services providers to help First Nations customers access the benefits of commercial finance, such as competitive rates and access to a range of products and services. ASIC's Indigenous Outreach Program is a specialist team that works with industry, service providers and other government agencies to enhance First Nations consumer experiences of banking access and services, and aims to drive positive financial outcomes for First Nations Australians.

In considering ways to support economic empowerment, self-determination and wealth creation, the First Nations Economic Partnership will focus on improving access to markets, affordable capital, tailored investment support and institutional settings.

Recommendation 10

4.107 The Committee recommends that, on completion of the Australian Law Reform Commission Future Acts Regime Review, the Australia Government should consider whether a full review of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) is required.

Response: Noted

The Australian Government notes this recommendation. As noted in the Report, the Attorney-General has requested the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) review the future acts regime in the Native Title Act in partial fulfilment of its 'agreement in principle' to recommendation 4 of A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge.

The future acts review is investigating any inequality, unfairness or weakness in the regime which governs how development projects can occur on land subject to native title.

In undertaking the future acts review, the ALRC will consider the opportunity for the native title system to contribute significantly to economic outcomes for First Nations people and business; the role of the future acts regime as a precursor to economic and other activities on native title land; and the importance of the future acts regime being appropriately designed for Australia's current and future social and economic development, in a way that respects the rights and interests of native title holders.3

In addition to the ALRC review, section 209A of the Native Title Act requires an evaluation of the amendments made by the Native Title Legislation Amendment Act 2021 to be conducted by 25 March 2026.

The Australian Government considers that current and planned reviews of the Native Title Act should be completed before consideration of any further reviews.

Recommendation 11

4.112 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure resourcing for Prescribed Body Corporates in the Native Title Act 1993 is sufficient to enable delivery of its full legislative potential.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. In line with the Australian Government's in principle commitments to recommendation 7 in A Way Forward: Final report into the destruction of Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge4 the Government is committed to working with Native Title holders, their Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs), state and territory governments and other stakeholders to consider a range of options to reform funding of PBCs and build PBC capacity.

The Government recognises PBCs play an essential role in the Native Title system and in safeguarding Native Title holders' rights and interests. PBCs are also frequently the main vehicle for Native Title holders land management and economic aspirations and may also undertake various programs, such as ranger and cultural heritage management programs.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency is working closely with the National Native Title Council and receiving advice from the PBC Steering Group on issues impacting the sector and options for funding reforms that would support economic self-determination and opportunities.

The Government enhanced PBC Capacity Building grant funding of $77.2 million over

3 years (from 2024-25 to 2026-27) to improve organisational capacity and support PBCs to realise economic opportunities. This is provided in addition to the Government's Basic Support funding via Native Title Representative Bodies and Service Providers that was noted as part of the Inquiry Report.

On 2 August, the Australian Government committed an additional $75 million to PBCs over three years to 2028-29, taking the Australian Governments investment through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy for the PBC sector to over $200 million.

Recommendation 12

5.83 The Committee recommends the Australian Government ratify the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization and the World Intellectual Property Organization's Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge.

Response: Support in part

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in part. The Government supports the recommendation to ratify the World Intellectual Property

Organization (WIPO) Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty), subject to normal Treaty making processes, including consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The GRATK Treaty will require patent applicants to disclose the source of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge when submitting patent applications. This Treaty is the first to address issues relating to the intellectual property (IP) system and traditional knowledge, providing for greater recognition and transparency.

The Government notes the recommendation to ratify the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing. In 2012, Australia signed the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (Nagoya Protocol). It has not yet ratified the Nagoya Protocol which came into effect in 2014. The Australian Government, along with each state and territory currently manages access to biological resources in its jurisdiction under its own laws. These legislative frameworks are largely aligned with the principles of the Protocol.

The Australian Government remains committed to engaging with stakeholders to examine the implications of ratifying the Nagoya Protocol. This will include considering how best to safeguard Traditional Knowledge associated with the use of biological resources and any related genetic information.

Recommendation 13

5.84 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government task IP Australia, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to investigate legislative and regulatory options to strengthen the protection, certification, promotion, and marketing of First Nations products and services domestically and internationally.

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports this recommendation. This recommendation aligns with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Commitment to empower First Nations economic self-determination across Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries.5 This empowerment will take place through enhancing the productivity, resilience and innovation of Australian food and fibre supply chains, and by expanding pathways for First Nations food and fibre exporters to international markets.

The Government notes there is work underway to develop an Indigenous Agricultural Product Framework to define characteristics and provide an evidence-base to support the establishment of Indigenous agricultural product credentials. This framework and eventual credentials will assist First Nations agricultural businesses and communities to demonstrate product authenticity, verify provenance, prove product claims, and provide assurance to consumers, governments and processors.

There is also continuing work to support promotion and marketing of First Nations products internationally. Austrade amplifies First Nations trade and investment success stories and the participation of qualified export ready First Nations businesses in international trade missions. Austrade also promotes The National Sustainability Framework for the Visitor Economy, released by Tourism Ministers in November 2023, and the accompanying sustainability toolkit to support respectful First Nations engagement in the visitor economy.

Australia's First Nations people and cultures are at the heart of Tourism Australia's Come and Say G'Day campaign and First Nations representation is prioritised in all of Tourism Australia's marketing activities.

The intellectual property (IP) system is another mechanism available to support the protection, certification, promotion, and marketing of First Nations products and services. IP Australia is increasing its public education and awareness material for First

Nations businesses and examining other IP system changes.

Further, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is collaborating with the World Intellectual Property Organization on a pilot project which aims to assist First Nations bushfoods exporters better understand how to protect and commercialise their products through the international IP system.

These work streams are intended to make the IP system more accessible to First Nations businesses. The work on stand-alone legislation for Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP), as discussed in Recommendation 14, may also assist once implemented.

Recommendation 14

5.85 The Committee recommends the Australian Government task IP Australia as part of its current works to protect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, to investigate legislative options to strengthen legal protections for collective knowledge and historical rights and opportunities.

Response: Support

The Government supports this recommendation. On 30 January 2023, the Australian Government released Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place, Australia's National Cultural Policy (Revive) for the next five years. One of the actions under Pillar One of Revive, First Nations First, is to introduce stand-alone legislation to protect First Nations traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, including to address the harm caused by fake art, merchandise, and souvenirs.

The Office for the Arts is the lead Australian Government agency working to develop stand-alone legislation to protect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property. The Office is working closely with a First Nations expert group and other government departments on the legislation.

In addition to the work on stand-alone legislation, as part of their ongoing work IP Australia is examining what complementary changes could be made to the Patents, Trade Marks, Designs and Plant Breeder's Rights Acts to improve the consideration of Indigenous Knowledge in applications for IP rights and support the cultural integrity and economic potential of Indigenous Knowledge held by First Nations peoples. These changes include possible amendments to trade mark and designs laws to prevent the misappropriation of First Nations' language or imagery. Possible changes to patent and plant breeder's rights laws, such as the requirement to disclose the source of Indigenous Knowledge used in new innovations, would make it easier to determine if Indigenous Knowledge has been used in a patent or plant breeder's right application.

Recommendation 15

5.90 The Committee recommends establishing and funding a centralised database or national registration system to substantiate Indigenous knowledge and facilitate the creation of access and benefit sharing agreements. Such a database would enable a digital repository for data and knowledge associated with genetic resources found in Australia.

Response: Noted

The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Indigenous Knowledge is an important asset belonging to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, their communities, organisations and businesses. Indigenous Knowledge can reflect and identify a community's history, cultural and social identity, and its values.

The Australian Government notes the interest in databases as a potential mechanism to support the protection of Indigenous Knowledge. Databases can complement legislative protections for Indigenous Knowledge but any collection and storage of knowledge must be done appropriately and in partnership with Indigenous Peoples so that information is not more vulnerable to misuse or misappropriation.

In prior public consultations on databases for Indigenous Knowledge stakeholders raised the need for appropriate access controls, incorporation of the principles of free prior and informed consent and the need for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to retain data sovereignty.6

The Productivity Commission has urged caution around the use of registries (required or voluntary) in the context of First Nations visual arts and crafts.7 The Commission found that the expected benefits of registration, in the form of greater certainty about the allocation of rights, are unable to be realised due to several factors:

There are existing regulatory systems of the Australian, state and territory governments in relation to the accessing of biological resources and benefit sharing where traditional knowledge is involved.

Please see responses to Recommendation 12 and Recommendation 14 for further context and information on the Australian Government's support of Indigenous Knowledge.

Recommendation 16

5.96 The Committee recommends the Australian Government work with the bush foods and fibre industry to establish a sustainable peak industry body.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government notes the establishment of a sustainable peak body for bush foods and fibre would align with Priority Reforms One and Two in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, to build structures that empower First Nations people to share decision-making authority with governments to accelerate policy and place-based progress against Closing the Gap socio-economic outcome areas, and build community-controlled capacity to deliver this.

The Government is committed to working in partnership with First Nations stakeholders in the bush foods and fibre industry. The recommendation to establish a peak industry body aligns with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's (DAFF) commitment to empower First Nations economic self-determination across Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries by working in partnership with First Nations stakeholders in the sector through ongoing engagement.

The Department of Industry, Science and Resources continues to contribute to collaborative research on First Foods and is working with Indigenous business researchers, DAFF and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to bring key stakeholders in the system together to capitalise on opportunities and overcome challenges faced in bringing traditional foods and medicines to market.

Recommendation 17

6.84 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government explore and consider best practice mechanisms to improve First Nations workplace cultural safety.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government recognises the importance of workplace cultural safety. In culturally safe workplaces, employees feel comfortable, supported and respected. This provides an environment where employees can fully participate at work, will work more safely and be more productive.

Cultural safety is also a right. There are a number of regulatory frameworks which provide for aspects of cultural safety including work health and safety (WHS) legislation, and protections against racial discrimination in human rights legislation and the Fair Work Act 2009.

Under model WHS laws, a person conducting a business or undertaking, such as an employer, has a duty of care ensure the health and safety of workers and other people in the workplace, to the extent that is reasonably practicable. Recent changes to WHS safety regulations specify the obligation to protect employees from psychosocial hazards and risks. Psychosocial hazards refer to aspects of work design, the work itself, and the interactions between employees which can negatively influence mental health and emotional wellbeing. The laws are supported by a model Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work, published by Safe Work Australia and was adopted by the Australian Government in November 2024.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 protects an individual's rights (including all employees) to be free from discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic While origin in any field of public life, including in employment and the provision of human services.

While this regulation protects the right to feel safe at work, it is not the only mechanism to promote cultural safety. In signing the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, all Australian governments committed to embed meaningful approaches to promoting cultural safety (Priority Reform Three). The Priority Reforms Roadmap is a practical guide to help the Australian Public Service (APS) do things differently when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

The Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) support the building of cultural capability across the APS. Launched in 2023, the Cultural Capability Hub provides a central repository of practical tools, examples, and resources to help APS staff enhance their cultural capability through self-paced learning modules. In addition to facilitating learning and training opportunities for individual staff, the Hub supports the application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Cultural Capability Framework and assists agencies in improving workforce management processes so that APS policies, programs, and services are responsive to the needs of First Nations people.

The Australian Government continues to explore mechanisms to build cultural capability and to attract and retain First Nations employment across the APS. Following recommendations from the Chief Operating Officer (COO) Committee Collaboration Circle (which teams up several agency Chief Operating Officers and First Nations staff from across the APS), the APSC are in the process developing guidance on elements of cultural training that meet a foundation level, and a more advanced level of knowledge on cultural awareness.

A First Nations Partnership Playbook has been developed. This playbook provides the APS with practical guidance and best-practice examples on working in partnership with First Nations people. Prevailing systems and structures within government can create barriers to meaningful partnerships. The playbook provides guidance on how the APS can navigate government processes, including practices, behaviours and culture that will enable effective partnerships between government and First Nations people. This internal-to-government document will contribute to building culturally safe workplaces by building the cultural capability of the APS.

The Priority Reforms Roadmap is a practical guide to help the Australian Public Service (APS) do things differently when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The APS is at a key moment in its transformation journey. While some agencies have already made strong progress, there is more work to do across the APS to fully meet our commitments. The Roadmap gives every APS agency, no matter where they are starting from, a clear framework to begin or strengthen this transformation.

The Government also develops and provides resources that may be used by mainstream agencies to promote cultural safety. For example, the Australian Institute of Family Studies have publicly available resources to assist non-Indigenous practitioners to provide culturally safe service responses to First Nations people, families and communities, as well as resources on building culturally safe workplaces with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff.

Recommendation 18

6.92 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy and consider a target for First Nations project ownership and equity in clean energy.

Response: Support in principle

The Government supports this recommendation in principle. The First Nations Clean Energy Strategy (the Strategy), released on 6 December 2024, provides a national framework for First Nations peoples' participation and empowerment in the energy transition.

The Australian Government has committed $70 million for implementation of the First Nations Clean Energy Strategy 2024-2030 (the Strategy) over three years from 2025-26.

The Strategy includes objectives for assisting First Nations project ownership and equity stakes in project partnerships.

Work is underway with government specialist investment vehicles and other financial institutions such as Indigenous Business Australia and the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation to improve strategic investment of capital and support for First Nations project ownership and equity.

Recommendation 19

7.85 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate knowledge exchanges between First Nations Australians and international First Nations communities to share experiences and lessons on economic empowerment and trade.

Response: Support

The Government supports this recommendation. This recommendation aligns with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's (DFAT) inclusive trade, and public diplomacy agendas. This includes establishment of the Ambassador for First Nations People and the Office for First Nations International Engagement in DFAT.

The Government, through DFAT, Austrade and other Departments continue to implement a range of initiatives that support this recommendation, including:

Recommendation 20

7.86 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government accelerate its work with the First Nations Economic Partnership and consider the experiences of international jurisdictions and their fiscal management powers and frameworks (for example, Canada).

Response: Support

The Australian Government supports the recommendation. The Government has established a new First Nations Economic Partnership with the Coalition of Peaks and the First Nations Economic Empowerment Alliance. Design of the Economic Partnership has been informed by lessons from international jurisdications.

The Economic Partnership will focus on the full range of policy levers available to the Commonwealth Government to advance the economic empowerment and lasting economic security for First Nations peoples, communities and organisations including:

Recommendation 21

7.87 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ratify the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and explore opportunities for UNDRIP to guide commonwealth, state, and territory policy development and its relevance to good government in Australia.

Response: Noted

The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government recognises the important principles articulated through UNDRIP and acknowledges the important work done by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and Indigenous peoples globally in the negotiation of UNDRIP in the UN. It promotes the full and effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in all matters that concern them, and the ability of Indigenous Peoples to pursue their own priorities in economic, social, and cultural development, recognising their political, economic and social structures and cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies.

As a resolution of the UN General Assembly, UNDRIP is not a legally binding instrument, and is not open for signature or ratification by states. Despite this status, since Australia formally supported UNDRIP and the principles it outlines in 2009, the Australian Government has given practical effect to the Declaration through its programs and policies and its approach to engagement and collaboration. UNDRIP informs the way Australian governments engage with and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and

Australia seeks to proactively include references in support of UNDRIP in international instruments. This work is ongoing in pursuing the ambitions set out in UNDRIP.

The Australian Government has used successive Closing the Gap frameworks since 2008 to guide and coordinate national efforts to improve the economic, health and education outcomes of First Nations Australians. Since that time, the Government has made a conscious effort to improve concordance with the guiding principles of UNDRIP, such as self-determination, participation in decision-making and partnership, through accountability measures such as implementation plans and the Partnership Agreement.

The Australian Government is ensuring that future policies have consideration of First Nations people through the First Nations Impacts Framework (the Framework). The Framework provides guidance to Australian Government departments and agencies on how to meaningfully consider impacts of policy on First

Nations people, communities and organisations. The Framework references the National Agreement on Closing the Gap and extends to broader impacts on First Nations people.

The Australian Government is committed to progressing meaningful programs and policies that empower all First Nations people through strengthening partnerships and hearing from them about what works and will lead to meaningful change.

The Australian Government is carefully considering the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report into the application of UNDRIP in Australia and its recommendations, that was tabled on 28 November 2023.

Recommendation 22

7.88 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider capacity and capability support for First Nations and Traditional Owner groups to strengthen their engagement in the energy transition and other Australian Government initiatives.

Response: Support in principle

The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. As stated in response to recommendation 11, the Australian Government is committed to working in partnership with Native Title holders, their Prescribed Bodies Corporate (PBCs), state and territory governments and other key stakeholders to consider a range of options to reform funding of PBCs and build PBC capacity. On 2 August, the Australian Government committed an additional $75 million to PBCs over three years to 2028-29, taking the Australian Governments investment through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy for the PBC sector to over $200 million.

The Government recognises that PBCs and other Traditional Owner groups have a key role to play as partners, leaders and supporters of Australia's clean energy transition. At a project level, PBCs and other First Nations stakeholders' participation can save time, reduce cost and improve overall outcomes through the life of green energy projects.

The National Indigenous Australians Agency is working closely with the National Native Title Council and receiving advice from the PBC Steering Group on issues impacting the sector and options for reforms. This includes advice on ways to support PBCs to participate in the clean energy transition.

The First Nations Clean Energy Strategy (the Strategy), released on 6 December 2024, provides a national framework for First Nations peoples' participation and empowerment in the energy transition.

The Strategy includes objectives for assisting First Nations-led coordination and capacity building and improving First Nations engagement in the clean energy sector. To date a total of $70 million has been announced to support these objectives and programs are now in development for commencement in 2025/26.

More support and funding may be needed to improve engagement capacity and capability for First Nations people affected by other emerging initiatives and industries. Not all relevant First Nations peoples and groups are covered by existing programs such as PBC funding.

Additional comments

Coalition members of the Committee endorsed, or made recommendations similar to recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 20.

_____

Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report:

Wholesale investor and wholesale client tests

April 2026

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the government consider establishing a mechanism for periodic review of the operation of the wholesale investor and client tests; and that any such mechanism include mandatory requirements for engagement and consultation with Australia's investment industry.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

Whilst the Government does not intend to establish a dedicated mechanism for periodic review of the operation of the wholesale investor and client tests, Treasury is continuing to monitor the operation of the test and impacts on consumer outcomes.

The Government is progressing a wide range of reforms in response to the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian Master Funds with a focus on strengthening consumer protections.

The Government is considering targeted reforms to ensure our regulatory system remains fit for purpose and is consulting on these in 2026. On 10 February the Government released a consultation paper on managed investment scheme regulation and governance. The Government has also announced it will be consulting on additional consumer protection reforms in early 2026. This includes stronger regulation of lead generation activities, creating a safer framework for superannuation switching and strengthening superannuation trustee governance standards.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that subject to a period of stakeholder consultation, the government amend the Corporations Act 2001 to remove the subjective elements of the sophisticated investor test and introduce objective criteria relating to the knowledge and experience of the investor.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government is prioritising its response to the collapse of Shield and First Guardian Master Funds with a focus on strengthening consumer protections.

The Government is considering targeted reforms to ensure our regulatory system remains fit for purpose and is consulting on these in 2026. On 10 February the Government released a consultation paper on managed investment scheme regulation and governance. The Government has also announced it will be consulting on additional consumer protection reforms in early 2026. This includes stronger regulation of lead generation activities, creating a safer framework for superannuation switching and strengthening superannuation trustee governance standards.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Committee Economics report:

Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023

March 2026

Introduction

In March 2023, Coalition Senator Andrew Bragg introduced the Digital Assets (Market Regulation) Bill 2023 into the Senate. In September 2023 the Senate Economics Legislation Committee provided its final report (Report) on that Bill. The Report recommended that the Bill not be passed and subsequently the Bill was not passed by Parliament.

Digital assets are a rapidly evolving part of the economy, offering opportunities for new products and productivity gains. The potential benefits of these assets are far reaching, from streamlining payments systems to transforming how we invest and do business.

That is why, in November 2025, the Government introduced its own legislation, the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025 (Bill), to the Parliament following extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Bill helps unlock innovation and protect Australians investing in digital assets. The Government is continuing to work with industry, regulators and the broader community to make Australia a leader in the global digital asset ecosystem.

The Bill introduces clear, enforceable rules for businesses that hold digital assets on behalf of consumers, ensuring they meet the same standards of transparency, integrity and consumer protection that apply across the financial system.

The Bill introduces two new types of financial products—digital asset platforms and tokenised custody platforms. These platforms will now need to hold an Australian Financial Services Licence, ensuring they are subject to core obligations including:

This Bill highlights the Government's commitment to a fit-for-purpose regulatory regime, and a methodical approach to ensure that consumers are adequately protected, and innovation can flourish. By working closely with regulators, industry, and consumers, we are determined to get the policy settings right to ensure digital asset regulation is appropriate for a modern and innovative economy.

The Report made additional recommendations which are addressed by the Government in the next section.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to consult with industry on the development of fit-for-purpose digital asset regulation in Australia.

Australian Government response

The Government supports this recommendation.

Following extensive consultation with industry, regulators and consumer groups, the Government's Bill was introduced into the Parliament in November 2025 and is intended to be flexible and technology neutral so it can adapt as the sector evolves.

The Bill is a key reform to strengthen consumer protection and confidence by addressing gaps in oversight that can expose consumers to risks such as poor disclosure, weak governance and inadequate protections.

The Bill also plays an important role in supporting innovation. By providing greater regulatory certainty, it gives responsible businesses the confidence to invest, grow and develop new products and services in Australia. A clear, consistent and transparent framework will reduce uncertainty, support competition, and allow innovation to flourish within a safe and well-regulated environment.

Recommendation 2

The Coalition senators' dissenting report recommends that the Government expedite the Board of Taxation's review of the Tax Treatment of Digital Assets and Transactions in Australia with a view to introducing legislation in early 2024.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government provided its response to the Board of Taxation's Review of the Tax Treatment of Digital Assets and Transactions in Australia in March 2025. In its response, the Government agreed with the Board of Taxation's recommendation 13.1 that no crypto specific taxation legislation should be introduced at the current time.

https://treasury.gov.au/publication/p2025-639068

Recommendation 3

The Coalition senators' dissenting report recommends that the Government establish a consultation on an appropriate regulatory structure for Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAO) with a view to introducing legislation by the end of the 47th Parliament.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government released the Statement on Developing an Innovative Australian Digital Asset Industry in March 2025. The policy position statement outlines the Government's approach to digital asset reforms and articulates future work streams. Reviewing decentralised autonomous organisations is not part of the future digital asset work program.

Recommendation 4

The Coalition senators' dissenting report recommends that the Government implement, in full, the Council of Financial Regulators' recommendations for Potential Policy Responses to De-banking in Australia.

Australian Government response

The Government supports this recommendation in principle.

The Council of Financial Regulators' report made recommendations aimed at providing a better understanding of the extent and nature of de-banking and to improve transparency, consistency, and fairness for affected customers. The Government released its response in June 2023.

More detail about the Government response can be found at https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/p2023-404377-gr.pdf

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Committee Economics report:

Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 [Provisions]

March, 2026

Introduction

The Australian Government thanks the Senate Economic Legislation Committee for its consideration of the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024.

The Bill passed both Houses on 11 February 2025 and received Royal Assent on 14 February 2025 as the Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Act 2024.

The Government provides the following response to the Committee's recommendations.

Response to the recommendations

Coalition Senators' Dissenting Report

Recommendation 2

That the community benefit principles cannot include union agreement requirements.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government's Future Made in Australia agenda will help Australia build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy, and create more secure, well paid jobs.

Recipients of the production tax incentives will be expected to deliver benefits relating to the six Community Benefit Principles included in the overarching Future Made in Australia Bill. The specific requirements will be detailed in rules set by the Treasurer. The Government recently consulted on Draft Public Guidance on the operation of the Community Benefit Principles.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Committee Economics report:

Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023

March 2026

Introduction

The Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 defines the objective of superannuation as 'to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way'.

The Bill passed both Houses on 28 November 2024 and received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024 as the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024.

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

The Government's responses to the recommendations made in the Committee's final report are provided below.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the bill be passed.

Australian Government response

The Government supports this recommendation.

The Superannuation (Objective) Bill 2023 passed both Houses on 28 November 2024 and received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024 as the Superannuation (Objective) Act 2024.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Government develop a whole-of-system retirement income system objective, outlining the objective of the retirement income system and the roles of the pillars, as suggested by the 2020 Retirement Income Review. Factors impacting home ownership in retirement should be considered as part of the development of this objective.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The legislated objective of superannuation recognises that superannuation is one part of the retirement system.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Committee Economics report:

Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024

March 2026

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the recommendations of the Senate Economics Committee in its Report on the Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024.

The Government acknowledges the genuine concerns that have informed the development of this bill and recognises the valuable contributions of individuals and organisations who participated in the committee's inquiry.

The Government remains firmly committed to addressing food insecurity in Australia and continues to support key national food relief organisations Foodbank, OzHarvest, and SecondBite through direct grants and associated programs. In parallel, the Government maintains its commitment to halving food waste in Australia by 2030, as outlined in the National Food Waste Strategy, and continues to invest in initiatives that promote sustainable food systems and reduce waste across the supply chain.

The Government accepts the recommendation made by the committee. The Government's responses to the recommendations of the Coalition Senators' dissenting report are below.

Response to the recommendations made by the dissenting report of the Coalition

Recommendation 1

Strong consideration be given to proposed enhancements to the bill, with a view to increasing both its efficacy and cost efficiency, including:

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government shares the committee's concerns that the bill presents an uncapped and unaccounted-for cost to the budget, may preference large corporations over small businesses and charities, and lacks sufficient safeguards to prevent the dumping of poor-quality food, potentially undermining efforts to reduce national food waste.

While the Government acknowledges that recommendation 1 of the dissenting report has been proposed to expand the scope of eligibility for the proposed tax offset and, by extension, to increase the volume of potential food donations from smaller primary producers, the Government remains concerned that the bill, even with the proposed enhancements, would contain deficiencies that compromise its policy intent. In particular, the proposed tax offset would still risk disproportionately benefiting large corporations with established food donation policies and practices. Expanding eligibility and turnover thresholds would not rectify this imbalance.

As outlined in response to recommendation 5 of the dissenting report (below), the Government continues to support targeted, evidence-based measures to address food insecurity and reduce food waste, including through existing grant initiatives and broader food system reforms.

Recommendation 2

An amendment to the bill be introduced prior to debate that prevents signatories to the Mandatory Food and Grocery Code from accessing the tax incentive.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government notes the dissenting report advises that the proposal's intention is to provide the incentive to primary producers and their associated service providers. The Government appreciates that recommendation 2 of the dissenting report has been proposed to address concerns that large supermarkets would have access to the tax incentive and seeks to address the issue by excluding large grocery businesses subject to the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct from the proposal's scope. The Government notes that other large businesses in the sector may disproportionately and inappropriately benefit from the incentive and the concerns outlined in paragraph 2.68 of the committee view would still stand.

Recommendation 3

The Treasury request that the Australian Taxation Office reports any known compliance or integrity issues connected with the tax incentive on a regular basis.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) is responsible for identifying and assessing tax compliance risks based on the information available to it at any given time. As the administrator of enacted legislation, the ATO is best placed to determine how compliance resources are allocated and to advise the Government and relevant agencies on matters affecting the integrity of the tax system. The ATO undertakes this function in accordance with its statutory responsibilities and operational priorities, and any reporting on compliance or integrity matters is managed within that framework.

Recommendation 4

The Australian Government release the advice on the bill provided by the Treasury to the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and the Treasury.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

Treasury advice on the bill provided to the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury was provided to the Senate in response to Senate Orders for the Production of Documents No. 666 and No. 767, which were tabled on 5 February 2025 and 27 March 2025, respectively.

Recommendation 5

Having failed to endorse the bill, the Australian Government bring forward its own, alternative plan to support donations to food relief charities and reduce food waste in Australia.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

The Government continues to support targeted, evidence-based measures to address food insecurity and reduce food waste, including through existing grant initiatives and broader food system reforms.

The Government continues to support key national food relief organisations Foodbank, OzHarvest, and SecondBite through direct grants that enable the sourcing, transportation, and distribution of food to vulnerable communities. From 1 October 2025, these organisations, together with Good360, will share in $20 million in funding over the next five years, representing a doubling of the Government's investment in food relief, to continue the provision of food and material aid to Emergency Relief providers across Australia.

In December 2024, the Government released Australia's Circular Economy Framework which provides the blueprint for Australia's circular economy transition. This framework sets clear priorities and targets to keep materials in our economy for as long as possible, while reducing waste. The food and agriculture sector is one of four priority sectors identified in the framework. The framework states the target to halve Australia's food waste by 2030 and outlines opportunities to reduce food waste through innovation, behaviour change and standards.

The Government awarded a grant to End Food Waste Australia in September 2023 to deliver a nationwide consumer behaviour change campaign aimed at reducing household food waste. The campaign, titled The Great Unwaste, was launched on 29 September 2024 and is designed to complement and amplify existing initiatives led by state, territory and local governments, industry, and non-government organisations.

In addition, the Government has invested $37 million through the Food Waste for Healthy Soils Fund to support new and upgraded organics recycling infrastructure across multiple jurisdictions, including New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory, South Australia and Tasmania. This investment has leveraged more than $239 million in further funding from state and territory governments and the private sector. Once complete, the infrastructure projects will increase Australia's capacity to recycle an additional 1.1 million tonnes per year of food and organic waste.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report:

Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 [Provisions]

March 2026

Introduction

The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the recommendations of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in its Report on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 (the Bill).

The Government acknowledges the genuine concerns that have informed the development of this bill and recognises the valuable contributions of individuals and organisations who participated in the committee's inquiry.

The Bill was first introduced to the House of Representatives in February 2023, before being introduced to the Senate in March 2023. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee published its report in June 2023. The Bill was passed on 16 November 2023 and received royal assent on 27 November 2023.

Response to the recommendations

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider opportunities to clarify Schedule 5 of the bill to ensure it appropriately targets the identified behaviour and addresses feedback provided to the committee.

Australian Government response

The Government notes this recommendation.

In response to the committee's recommendation and stakeholder feedback, the Government amended Schedule 5 to ensure that legitimate capital raising arrangements are out of scope, and to lessen the potential for unintended consequences. The amendments clarify that schedule 5 applies prospectively and that only the relevant portion of a distribution may be affected. They also ensure that equity raisings or distributions undertaken in response to regulatory requirements are outside the scope of the measure.

_____

Australian Government response to the Environment and Communications References Committee report:

Middle Arm Industrial Precinct

March 2026

The Australian Government notes the report by the Environment and Communications References Committee (the Committee) into the Middle Arm Industrial Precinct, tabled in the Senate on 21 August 2024.

The Committee was not able to reach agreement on a unanimous set of recommendations, and presented a total of 31 individual recommendations from Committee members. With the exception of recommendations related to matters that are the responsibility of the Northern Territory (NT) Government, the Australian Government's response to recommendations raised by Senators is contained below.

The Committee's report reflects that planning for the project by the NT Government remains at an early stage. A range of the matters raised by the Committee will be considered through ongoing regulatory and assurance processes by respective governments.

The Australian Government remains committed to its $1.5 billion planned equity investment to support the development of common user infrastructure at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct (Middle Arm) in the NT. A final investment decision by the Australian Government will be made in due course, in accordance with the requirements of the Commonwealth Investment Framework, and informed by Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the business case.

The project is subject to the outcomes of Strategic Environmental Assessments being undertaken under the Environmental Protection Act 2019 (NT) (EP Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) (EPBC Act).

Middle Arm is expected to deliver transformational impacts for Darwin, the NT and Australia.

The Australian Government's investment will pave the way for Middle Arm to be a globally competitive, sustainable precinct, that takes advantage of new economic opportunities and delivers sustainable jobs for the future. Our funding will underpin infrastructure that supports industries critical to meet our commitment to Net Zero -including hydrogen and the manufacture and export of lithium batteries, and the project will be enabled by a growing renewable energy industry.

The Middle Arm Precinct is an investment in economic infrastructure that will also generate income for the NT Government, to support its ability to be self-sustaining, and the Australian Government through taxation revenues.

The Australian Government will continue to work with the NT Government to deliver the best possible outcomes for communities, industries and the environment.

_____

Australian Government Response to the Inquiry into Australia's Tourism and International Education Sectors final report:

'Are we there yet?': From recovery to resilience—opportunities and challenges for Australia's tourism sector'

Overview

On 20 October 2022, Senator the Hon Don Farrell, Minister for Trade and Tourism, asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, through its Trade Subcommittee (the Committee), to inquire into Australia's tourism and international education sectors. The Inquiry explored the challenges and opportunities presented to both sectors since the reopening of Australia's borders in February 2022.

The Committee has tabled two reports that will receive separate responses from the Australian Government:

This response focuses on the final report, which addresses the recommendations made in relation to tourism.

As the Committee indicates, tourism is a rich and complex ecosystem. The government, through Austrade and Tourism Australia, engages with State and Territory Organisations (STOs), Regional Tourism Organisations (RTOs), local government bodies and industry bodies on relevant tourism policies and programs.

At the Australian Government level, Austrade is established by the Australian Trade and Investment Commission Act 1985, which outlines its role to develop and administer tourism policy, including domestic tourism. Tourism Research Australia is a branch within Austrade, providing quality tourism intelligence across both international and domestic markets and producing Australia's official tourism statistics.

Tourism Australia was established, and its role set, by the Tourism Australia Act 2004. Tourism Australia is the Australian Government agency responsible for international tourism marketing to influence people to travel to and throughout Australia for holidays and business events, increase the economic benefits to Australia from tourism and help foster a sustainable tourism industry in Australia.

THRIVE 2030 is Australia's national strategy for the long-term sustainable growth of the visitor economy. Under the first action plan, we met the interim target of returning visitor spend (for tourism and long-stay international students) to pre-COVID levels of $166 billion, with annual visitor spend reaching $214 billion in the 12 months to December 2024. Approximately $80 billion of this was spent in regional Australia, against a target of $70 billion.

In line with the Committee's emphasis on emerging opportunities, the Australian Government is focused on supporting the visitor economy to expand international markets, grow visitation to our regions, build industry capability and address workforce challenges. Appropriately embedding Australia's First Nations cultural heritage in Australia's visitor economy provides an opportunity for improved economic opportunities and outcomes for Indigenous Australians.

Recommendations and Response

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends the Australian Government establishes a national First Nations tourism body to represent the interests of First Nations businesses and communities in visitor economy policy and program development.

The Committee recommends the terms of reference of the new body are informed by the strategies and successful activities of the Western Australian Indigenous Tourism Operators Council (WAITOC), particularly WAITOC's approach to community engagement, business capability development, and fostering employment opportunities for First Nations people.

The Government agrees in part with this Recommendation.

Since the Committee's report was tabled, a national First Nations Visitor Economy Partnership (FNVEP) has been established, comprised of First Nations tourism industry representatives from every state and territory. This was the result of an 18-month co-design process involving First Nations tourism industry representatives and Australian and state and territory governments. Funding for the two-year establishment phase of the FNVEP was announced on 30 October 2024. The Chief Executive Officer of WAITOC was a member of the FNVEP co-design group and is now Chair of the FNVEP. While the FNVEP differs from WAITOC's structure and remit, this initiative's terms of reference has benefited from WAITOC's expertise and experience.

The FNVEP will provide leadership and guidance on respectfully embedding Australia's rich cultural heritage in our tourism offerings and be a national consultation mechanism for government, while investigating the establishment of a national First Nations tourism body.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that once the First Nations tourism body referred to in Recommendation 1 is established, it should consider:

The Government agrees in principle with this Recommendation.

As outlined in the response to recommendation 1, the FNVEP was established in October 2024. The Australian Government has provided this recommendation to the FNVEP for its consideration.

Since the Committee's report was tabled, the Australian Government provided a $8 million grant to ATIC's Quality Tourism Framework (QTF) to develop a number of initiatives, including a "Connecting to Culture Toolkit" that educates non-First Nations tourism operators on how to build and foster meaningful and collaborative connections with First Nations people and communities. Launched in March 2025, the toolkit was developed through ATIC's First Nations Reference Group, comprised of First Nations representatives from across Australia, to ensure it provides an accurate reflection of First Nations people and culture.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends the Australian Government continues to implement grant programs that support First Nations tourism businesses to design and deliver authentic, culturally appropriate experiences including in ethical partnerships with established operators. In implementing these programs, the Government should engage with the new national First Nations tourism body proposed in Recommendation 1.

The Government agrees in principle with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government continues to implement the Strategic Indigenous Tourism Program, which commits up to $17.0 million to 30 June 2026 to co-invest with states and territories on strategic First Nations tourism initiatives, including grants.

The Australian Government also supports First Nations enterprises through programs such as Indigenous Business Australia's Business Solutions Program, which provides tailored business support and access to capital for small-to-medium First Nations enterprises looking to commence a business or scale-up operations and grow their business.

The Australian Government will explore opportunities to engage with FNVEP in designing and implementing any future First Nations grant programs.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends the membership of Tourism Australia's board should include at least one or more First Nations people.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government will seek to maintain Indigenous representation on the Tourism Australia Board.

Minister Farrell appointed Luritja woman, Ms Georgina Richters, to the Tourism Australia Board in August 2023. Ms Richters brings a valuable Indigenous perspective to the Tourism Australia Board.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the Board of Tourism Australia establishes a First Nations advisory panel under section 28(1) of the Tourism Australia Act 2004 (Cth). The purpose of the panel would be to advise Tourism Australia on appropriate representation of First Nations in marketing strategies and campaigns. The membership of the panel should comprise a majority of First Nations peoples.

The Government notes this Recommendation.

The Australian Government is not considering establishing a First Nations advisory panel as it considers existing Tourism Australia activities fulfil the intent of this recommendation.

Tourism Australia appointed a Head of Indigenous Affairs in 2020 who works closely with Indigenous communities across Australia to ensure their cultures and stories are represented appropriately to international audiences.

Tourism Australia will continue to seek First Nations' advice in relation to the appropriate representation of First Nations in marketing strategies and campaigns and ensure First Nations representation is prioritised in all marketing activities. Tourism Australia convenes a regular forum of representatives from STOs to share best practice on destination marketing of Indigenous tourism and in 2024, as part of its tender for creative services, appointed Indigenous consulting firm YarnUp to provide advice and guidance on future marketing campaigns.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends relevant Australian Government agencies work with the tourism industry and First Nations representatives to develop partnerships and implement a robust accreditation scheme that supports and promotes the integrity and authenticity of First Nations tourism products, experiences and partnerships.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government has committed to introducing legislation to protect First Nations knowledge and cultural expressions, addressing the harm caused by fake art and merchandise. This is an action in Australia's National Cultural Policy—Revive: A place for every story, a story for every place. Consultation on the legislation with First Nations communities is underway to inform the process.

This initiative will build on existing measures that support authenticity including:

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends that Austrade develops, in consultation with Tourism Australia, State Tourism Organisations and Regional Tourism Organisations, a Regional Dispersal Strategy to drive greater domestic and international visitation into more of Australia's regions.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

There are a range of factors impacting dispersal of domestic and international visits to Australia's regions. To understand this better, Austrade, in partnership with Tourism Australia, will conduct analysis to understand the factors that can increase greater domestic and international visitation into regional Australia.

Austrade and Tourism Australia will also continue existing collaboration with STOs to increase regional dispersal. Regular activities include dialogue through the Tourism Ministers' Meetings and STO CEO forums to ensure Tourism Australia's marketing campaigns, such as the Come and Say G'Day campaign, is consistent and representative of STO's regional campaigns.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends that tourism training providers make training more accessible for regional tourism operators, particularly through culturally appropriate partnership with First Nations businesses, in order to support innovation.

The Government agrees in principle with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government will continue to deliver on training outcomes for regional tourism operators through VET, higher education, and industry-led programs, with shared state and territory and industry responsibility.

Key region-specific initiatives include:

Since the Committee report was tabled, Australian Government grant funding of $8 million to the ATIC has been used to develop a range of training programs as part of the QTF platform which are available to tourism businesses, including regional tourism operators.

As noted in response to recommendation 2, ATIC used this grant funding to develop the Connecting to Culture Toolkit to support non-First Nations-owned tourism businesses foster meaningful connections with First Nations people and communities, guided by a newly established ATIC First Nations Reference Group. Training is available to all tourism operators who take part in the QTF.

Through Yamagigi Consulting Pty Ltd, the Australian Government delivered the First Nations Tourism Mentoring Program (FNTMP), a free mentoring program for First Nations tourism businesses across Australia. The FNTMP supported businesses to grow and achieve their goals by connecting them with skilled, experienced and culturally respectful tourism industry specialists who have made one- on-one guidance, advice and support available to all eligible First Nations tourism businesses.

Initiatives to increase access to training for regional tourism operators beyond these programs would require further funding and resources for Austrade and partner agencies to deliver.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government supports the sustainability of the tourism sector in regional communities, and the development of both accommodation and attractions in regional areas.

Where appropriate, the Australian Government should consider incentives to promote development, co-investment in tourism stock and other mechanisms to promote development in regional areas.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

Programs delivered by the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (DITRDCSA) and Austrade contribute to the achievement of this recommendation.

Tourism capital works and infrastructure projects qualify for funding through Australian Government regional development programs, including the Growing Regions Program, which allocated $55 million to tourism projects in its first round, and the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program which has allocated more than $13 million to project delivery and planning. These programs invest in capital works and infrastructure across Australia's regional, rural and remote areas.

The Australian Government has committed $10 million to support students across Australia to visit the Great Barrier Reef and to support tourism operators to become 'student ready' and accommodate increased numbers of students. The Government is also providing $8.5 million to reinvigorate Central Australia's tourism industry to develop new experiences and attract visitors.

The Government will consider further investments as permitted within the Government's fiscal constraints.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in the context of implementing the Aviation White Paper, prioritises policies that will achieve more accessible and affordable regional air access for travellers across Australia.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government recognises the ongoing impact of airline market concentration and of Australian airports as natural monopolies on the accessibility and affordability of domestic aviation services across the Australian sector. The Aviation White Paper includes a range of policy initiatives to drive a more competitive domestic aviation sector including: reforms to Sydney Airport slot management arrangements, consultations on Aeronautical Pricing Principles (APPs), tasking the next Productivity Commission inquiry into the economic regulation of airports and Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) monitoring of domestic airline pricing and performance.

The Government has committed $90 million (over three years from 2024-25) to regional and remote airports through the Regional Airports Program ($40 million) and Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program ($50 million), recognising their vital role in supporting tourism accessibility and safety.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends that in developing its International Diversification Strategy, Austrade includes actions that build industry capability to meet the needs of visitors coming from the new markets identified in the Strategy.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

Austrade will continue to identify opportunities to help tourism businesses engage with emerging markets. Since the Committee's report was tabled, the Australian Government has funded an expansion of Australian Tourism Export Council (ATEC) Host programs to cover Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand to educate operators about these markets. Tourism Australia has also expanded its Aussie Specialist Program to attract buyers from emerging markets to trade events.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends Austrade supports industry to develop and implement national standards and certification systems to promote best practice and deliver quality service outcomes for identified sectors. These standards should be aligned with global standards where applicable. The Committee recommends that Austrade and industry consider the following sectors as priorities for standards development:

The Government notes this Recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges that Australia has a lot to gain from being seen as a sustainable destination and notes that significant progress has already been made.

There are existing industry-led accreditation programs for sustainability and business development, such as EcoTourism Australia and EarthCheck, which provide sustainability certification.

The Australian Government, via Austrade, is also supporting industry to develop and implement national standards and certification systems to promote best practice through an $8 million grant for ATIC's QTF to enhance SME capabilities.

The Government is committed to reforming Australia's national environmental law—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Government also notes that productivity can be enhanced via deregulation and considers the current certification systems are sufficient.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends the Australian Government prioritise the development of policies which improve regional transport and infrastructure, in coordination with state and local governments.

The Government agrees in principle with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government delivers regional transport and infrastructure through multiple mechanisms, aligned with state and territory priorities. Programs delivered by the DITRDCSA contribute to the achievement of this recommendation. This includes the Government's community infrastructure funding programs; the Infrastructure Investment Program, which includes a range of sub programs that contribute to investment to improve regional transport infrastructure; and the Regional Airports Program and Remote Airstrip Upgrade Program. (See also responses to Recommendations 9 and 10). DITRDCSA's Regional Investment Framework developed in July 2023 provides guiding principles for a consistent approach for Australian Government investments that impact on regional Australia. The Framework describes how the Australian Government delivers regional investment—valuing local voices and priorities, being informed by and building the evidence, operating with flexibility, integrity and transparency, and coordinating across governments to make investments work better for regions.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government considers the expansion of first- point-of-entry status for ports, in order to promote access to regional tourism.

The Government notes this Recommendation.

The DITRDCSA administers the New and Redeveloping International Ports Framework (the Framework) in consultation with border agencies. Port operators proposing new or expanded international services must apply through the Framework, which evaluates national interest considerations including the availability of border services (biosecurity, immigration and customs control).

The Government notes legislation covering international arrivals to Australian ports is intended to ensure that the entry of vessels and goods into Australia does not come at the expense of national security and biosecurity requirements. To balance the facilitation of passenger entry to regional ports against national and biosecurity considerations, permanent, compliant infrastructure and adequate border agency staff would be essential for efficient inbound and outbound border clearance services. Establishing and maintaining these facilities—especially in remote ports—often involves long lead times and sustainability challenges.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends the Australian Government engage with the government of New Zealand and the governments of other neighbouring countries to develop and implement innovative initiatives and opportunities to encourage tourists to visit multiple countries in the region; for example, joint visa offerings.

The Government notes this Recommendation.

Joint visa programs between Australia, New Zealand and neighbouring countries are currently not feasible due to differences in visa requirements and data-sharing protocols. However, Australia and New Zealand are advancing simplified travel through the Trans-Tasman Seamless Travel Group, endorsed by both Prime Ministers in August 2024, to enhance border security and ease travel. The two nations continue regular discussions on tourism growth and mutual priorities.

The Australian Government also provides support for tourism in the context of its engagement supporting a strong and unified Pacific family. Key tourism-related partnerships and initiatives include:

Austrade has initiated early engagement to support Timor Leste's tourism sector, facilitating knowledge-sharing between Northern Territory Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tourism operators and Timor Leste. Future expansion through webinars and in person activities is possible with additional funding.

Tourism Australia is the Australian Government agency responsible for international tourism marketing. The Tourism Australia Act 2004 sets out the agency's functions, which relate to influencing travel and economic benefits to Australia from tourism. Without legislative change, Tourism Australia is unlikely to be able to promote destinations other than Australia.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government works with states and territories to support the promotion of regional tourism initiatives through effective marketing, improving transport linkages, streamlining regional development and providing incentives for investment.

This should be informed by enhanced destination management plans developed by state and territory governments in collaboration with regional tourism operators.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

Tourism Australia will continue to work with the states and territories to support the promotion of regional Australia in its marketing. Tourism Australia convenes a regular forum with STOs to ensure its marketing is representative of all states and territories. Tourism Australia also works closely with the STOs on international distribution, for example in holding the Australian Tourism Exchange each year with a different state or territory. The Come and Say G'Day campaign featured regional destinations across all states and territories, with the development of this campaign informed by discussions with the STOs.

Tourism Australia's consumer website also features product and itineraries in regional Australia, and the agency highlights regional destinations on its social media channels, which it does in consultation with the states and territories. Tourism Australia also conducts trade and media familiarisation trips to regional areas in conjunction with STOs.

Australian Government work to build aviation linkages and support investment in regional Australia is outlined in responses to Recommendations 9 and 10.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends the Australian Government seeks opportunities to promote nature- based tourism and agritourism in combination with developing policies directed at enhancing international tourism to regional areas, including through streamlining approval processes with state and national parks and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government will continue to seek opportunities to promote nature-based tourism and agritourism. Tourism Australia's research highlights wildlife, beaches, and natural environments as top draws for international visitors, driving its focus on nature-based tourism. Tourism Australia is developing marketing strategies to further promote regional agritourism experiences.

The Wine Tourism and Cellar Door Grant has allocated $60 million to support wineries and promote agritourism, encouraging visitors to wine regions via their cellar door operations. On 1 September 2025 the Government extended this grant program, announcing a further $30 million over three years. Grants of up to $100,000 are available through the program.

States, territories and regional tourism bodies are similarly prioritising nature-based and agritourism initiatives, to meet growing demand.

The Australian Government has announced plans to strengthen and streamline Australia's national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends the Australian Government works with State and Regional Tourism Organisations to promote the inclusion of people with a disability in the tourism sector, including through inclusion on national and state tourism organisation boards.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government will actively work towards increasing the representation of people with disability in the tourism sector, including organisation boards in line with our commitment under Australia's Disability Strategy 2021-2031. We note that STO board appointments are ultimately the responsibility of states and territories.

The Government supports the commitment to "nothing about us, without us" which ensures the voices of people with disability are embedded in the design and delivery of policy, programs and services.

Since the Committee's report was tabled, the National Accessible Tourism Working Group (NATWG) has been established, comprising representatives from state and territory governments, Austrade and Tourism Australia to collaborate and share information on accessible tourism initiatives.

Tourism Australia partners with the Dylan Alcott Foundation's Shift 20 Initiative launched in 2023 to increase disability representation and accessibility in Australian advertising. In July 2025, Austrade's Tourism Research Australia published a comprehensive report quantifying the market of travellers with accessibility needs, helping identify opportunities to better support travellers with disability.

Through the Aviation White Paper, the Government committed to creating a more accessible aviation sector that protects the rights of people with disability and improves their air travel experiences. Recent reforms to the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Transport Standards) also aim to remove discrimination by improving accessibility requirements for public transport operators.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends that the Minister for Tourism issue a new Statement of Expectation to Tourism Australia reinforcing its primary focus on marketing to drive demand from international visitors.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Minister for Tourism intends to issue a new Statement of Expectations to Tourism Australia. In line with standard practice, the new Statement of Expectations, and the Board's Statement of Intent, will be published on Tourism Australia's website.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends increased communication and flexibility among agencies in the tourism sector on both state and federal levels to improve integration and cooperation.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government agrees there should be an ongoing focus on collaboration between agencies in the tourism sector at all levels of government.

Collaboration is a core theme in THRIVE 2030, the national visitor economy strategy, supported by a framework for coordination across government and industry. Key mechanisms include:

Recommendation 21

The Committee recommends that Austrade, in collaboration with Tourism Australia, State Tourism Organisations and Regional Tourism Organisations, collectively develop a charter that explains and delineates the responsibilities each level has in the tourism sector to improve clarity, communication and accountability between the agencies.

This charter should be promoted and communicated effectively to ensure it is easily understood by new and established stakeholders across the sector. Organisations should take active steps to ensure that stakeholders understand the charter and have easy pathways to ask for clarification if necessary.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

Since the Committee's report was tabled, Austrade and Tourism Australia have updated their websites to ensure that the roles and responsibilities for tourism of the various levels of government in Australia are more clearly outlined. This information is provided regularly in public presentations and other communications to enhance understanding of their respective roles. The THRIVE 2030—Action Plan to 2030, which was released on 12 February 2026, has assigned responsibility for key actions to provide further clarity of roles and responsibilities.

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends more effective communication and regular interaction with local and Regional Tourism Organisations to foster effective knowledge sharing and to enable productivity gains. Austrade, Tourism Australia and State Tourism Organisations are recommended to implement a new engagement mechanism to achieve more effective communication with Regional Tourism Organisations and Local Government Authorities regarding government policies and programs. This will also improve the capacity for federal, state and territory governments to understand the needs and concerns of regions and regional tourism businesses.

This mechanism, in conjunction with the charter developed in Recommendation 21, will foster a 'no wrong door' environment for tourism operators seeking assistance or advice.

The Government agrees in principle with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government, through Austrade and Tourism Australia, will continue to work with states and territories, which lead engagement with their Regional Tourism Organisations and local government authorities.

Tourism Australia convenes an annual forum of Regional Tourism Organisations to share knowledge and promote coordination, where Austrade is invited to present every year. Tourism Australia meets with over 1,000 tourism businesses across Australia each year, helping those businesses understand how they can work with Tourism Australia, how to access international markets, and collecting industry's insights so this feedback can be incorporated into marketing activity and policy.

Recommendation 23

The Committee recommends that Austrade, in consultation with Tourism Australia and State Tourism Organisations, undertakes surveys of tourism businesses every three years to understand their data and research needs, including how data and research should be presented and accessed.

The Government notes this Recommendation.

Austrade's Tourism Research Australia and Tourism Australia regularly engage with industry on their data and insights. Austrade has a Service Level Agreement with STOs that outlines the joint data and research to be undertaken. This agreement is reviewed annually, and this recommendation will be considered in that context. Without additional resourcing, it may not be feasible to deliver this recommendation.

The Government acknowledges the importance of understanding the data and research needs of tourism businesses. Since the Committee report was tabled, the Government has made significant progress in improving tourism data and insights through the rollout of Domestic Tourism Statistics, which commenced in June 2025. The Domestic Tourism Statistics combined mobile phone data with survey information to provide a world-leading approach to measuring tourism. The Domestic Tourism Statistics are available on the Austrade website.

Recommendation 24

The Committee recommends the Australian Government, through the Aviation White Paper, prioritise implementation of policies to increase the competitiveness, accessibility and environmental friendliness of air travel into and around Australia, and continues to pursue increased capacity on international routes, including consideration of further 'open skies' agreements, consistent with our national interests.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

Through the Aviation White Paper, which was released in August 2024, the Government is addressing and prioritising implementation of policies to increase competitiveness, accessibility and environmental friendliness of air travel into and around Australia. This includes measures to increase competitiveness through prioritising the following initiatives:

Further competitiveness measures by the Australian Government include:

On accessibility, the Aviation White Paper commits the Government to an accessible aviation sector that protects the rights of people with disability. The Government is co-designing, with people with disability, new aviation-specific disability standards, as a schedule to the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

Finally, in support of net zero, the Aviation While Paper will fast-track support for a domestic low carbon liquid fuel (LCLF) industry. As part of the Future Made in Australia initiative, the Government is investing $250 million to develop innovation in LCLF and has undertaken targeted consultation to identify options for production incentives and other measures to support the establishment of a made in Australia LCLF industry. The Government will also extend the Guarantee of Origin Scheme to include sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). This verification and certification scheme will allow Australian SAF producers to make credible low emissions claims about their products, and ensure uptake of SAF is leading to genuine emissions abatement. It will also underpin the Government's support measures to decarbonise transport through low carbon liquid fuels.

Recommendation 25

The Committee recommends that Treasury engages with Austrade and the tourism sector to improve access and affordability of insurance for tourism businesses.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges that insurance access and affordability affects all parts of the economy and is not unique to tourism. Noting insurance access and affordability is a difficult issue to solve, under the THRIVE 2030 strategy the Treasury is monitoring insurance affordability, in consultation with Austrade. The Treasury has so far supported Austrade in addressing public liability insurance concerns through workshops and engagement with states, territories and industry stakeholders. The Treasury and Austrade will continue to consult industry and explore viable responses.

Recommendation 26

The Committee recommends that Austrade work with the tourism sector, in particular Regional

Tourism Organisations, to develop resilience plans to make them less susceptible to 'shocks'.

The Government notes this Recommendation.

Austrade promotes resilience planning and connects businesses with government and industry resources. The Australian Government, with state and territory support, developed resources to assist tourism businesses with disaster prevention, response and recovery. These include the Don't Risk It guide to assist tourism businesses with disaster prevention, response and recovery. Other organisations that we fund also support tourism business resilience, including resilience and recovery grants to tourism businesses in Central Australia.

The Government notes state and territory tourism organisations work directly with regional tourism organisations on resilience planning and also have a role in advancing this recommendation.

Recommendation 27

The Committee urges the Australian Government to consider the recommendations from the Committee's Interim Report on the international education sector, with a particular emphasis on implementing policies and actions that support regional education providers.

The Australian Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government has considered all the recommendations made in the Committee's Interim Report. Please refer to the Australian Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report: 'Quality and Integrity—the Quest for Sustainable Growth': Interim Report into International Education.

Recommendation 28

The Committee recommends the Australian Government promotes the accessibility and affordability of appropriate housing in regional areas and supports policies which will increase housing stock more broadly to improve the availability of housing for international students and workers in the tourism sector.

The Government agrees with this Recommendation.

The Australian Government meets this recommendation through existing measures and has committed $43 billion to the Homes for Australia plan to increase housing supply and improve accessibility and affordability across the country, including in regional areas.

As part of the National Housing Accord, the Government is working directly with states and territories towards a target of 1.2 million new, well-located homes over five years to July 2029.

To achieve this objective, the Government has committed $3 billion for performance-based funding through the New Homes Bonus which aims to incentivise states and territories to undertake the necessary reforms to meet their share of homes under the National Housing Accord.

The Government has also delivered the $1.5 billion Housing Support Program (HSP) which will help achieve the Accord target by providing funding for enabling infrastructure, community amenity projects, and improvements in planning capability. Of the $500 million available for planning reform and enabling infrastructure projects through the HSP's two competitive streams, approximately $373 million was awarded to 73 projects in regional Australia.

The Government has made clear to publicly funded universities that increasing the provision of safe and secure student accommodation for both domestic and international students is a priority. This priority is reflected in policy settings for managed growth of international education in Australia announced in August 2025.

Appendix—Acronyms

_____

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

'Quality and Integrity—the Quest for Sustainable Growth': Interim Report into International Education

MARCH 2026

Overview

On 20 October 2022 Senator the Hon Don Farrell, Minister for Trade and Tourism, asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT), through its Trade Subcommittee (the Committee), to inquire into Australia's tourism and international education sectors (the Inquiry).

The Inquiry explored the challenges and opportunities presented to both sectors since the reopening of Australia's borders in February 2022.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Inquiry were focussed on capturing the challenges in international education associated with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic and future opportunities to support innovation, a positive student experience for international students, and strategic and foreign policy objectives. The TOR in full is available on the Inquiry's home page).

The Committee tabled its interim report on 19 October 2023. The report includes 29 recommendations for the international education sector, addressing issues raised through the hearings. Key themes include education and migration agents, skilled-work pathways, new and expanding markets and market development, regulation and accreditation bodies, data and reporting, transparency, and communication with students. The majority of recommendations focus on the integrity of the sector.

Government response

The Australian Government welcomes the interim report titled 'Quality and Integrity—the Quest for Sustainable Growth': Interim Report into International Education'. The Government notes the recommendations broadly align with its priorities and recent reforms to strengthen the quality and integrity of the international education sector.

International education is a great Australian success story. It is Australia's fourth largest export sector, behind coal, iron ore and natural gas[]. International students bring significant value to our communities, classrooms and campuses. Our international education system must have the right settings to provide the highest quality experience for all students and maintain Australia's world-class reputation for delivering education.

The Australian Government released the Draft International Education and Skills Strategic Framework (draft Framework) on 11 May 2024. Under the draft Framework, the Government committed to implementing a managed system for international education, to support sustainable growth and ensure that Australia remains a prestige, high-quality, high-integrity provider of international education. Government remains committed to finalising the Framework in cooperation with the international education sector.

On 18 December 2024, the Government introduced Ministerial Direction 111 (MD111)- Order for considering and disposing of offshore Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications. MD111 supported a more sustainable international education sector through changes to the prioritisation of resources for student visa processing under the 2025 National Planning level (NPL) of 270,000 New Overseas Student Commencements (NOSCs).

On 14 November 2025, MD111 was replaced with Ministerial Direction 115 (MD115)—Order for considering and disposing of offshore Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications to guide student visa processing priorities for 2026, in line with indicative NOSC allocations.

The Hon Julian Hill MP was appointed as Assistant Minister for International Education in May 2025, in recognition of the important role international education plays for Australia. In August 2025, Government announced policy settings for a managed international education system, underpinned by an NPL of 295,000 NOSCs for 2026 and incentives for providers who make a genuine effort toward greater diversification and improved student wellbeing, including through the provision of adequate student accommodation.

In November 2025, the Education Legislation Amendment (Integrity and Other Measures) Bill 2025 (the ELA Bill) was passed by Parliament, improving protection for genuine international students who have chosen to study in Australia and securing the sector's reputation both domestically and overseas. The ELA Bill reintroduced integrity amendments from the Government's lapsed Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024. It also introduced new measures that will enhance the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency's (TEQSA) oversight of offshore course delivery by registered Australian higher education providers.

In the interim report the Committee recognised the need for determined and focused actions against unscrupulous providers to combat the systemic exploitation of Australia's education and migration systems and better regulate education agents, ensuring Australia remains a place where the best and brightest students can come and get the best education in the world. Government will continue to act to prevent the exploitation of students and protect Australia's reputation as a high-quality international education provider. This Australian Government Response outlines several key reforms which address issues raised in the interim report.

Recommendations and Responses

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends the Government lead a 'Team Australia' program to build a stronger national international education brand and platform and agree on a five-year prioritised Market Diversification Plan. An enhanced Team Australia approach will:

Team Australia should prioritise the development of a five-year Market Diversification Plan into new and emerging geographic markets. The five-year plan should have shared governance and be resourced across the sector including federal, state and territory contributions. The plan should:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Team Australia

The Government is committed to a 'Team Australia' approach, encompassing Commonwealth departments and agencies, states and territories, peak bodies, and education providers.

The Australian Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade) is the Australian Government agency with responsibility for promoting Australian education globally. Austrade is the custodian of Australia's Nation Brand and uses this branding when promoting Australia's education sector internationally, as Study Australia, including through supported use of the Study Australia Marketing (and Brand) Toolkit. Austrade also aggregates and disseminates whole-of-government information to global audiences via the Study Australia website, digital, and social channels. Additionally, Austrade is the policy, program, and official statistics lead for tourism, which incorporates international education as a significant source of travellers.

Austrade's work in international education is complemented by close engagement with the Australian Government Department of Education, including leveraging the department's role in driving policy development with priority partner countries to support qualifications and course recognition, greater systems alignment, and addressing barriers to growth. Austrade works closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), including on the implementation of education and skills sector recommendations in Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040; recent collaborative activities include Southeast Asia Business Exchange (SEABX) business missions focused on education, skills, and transnational education.

Austrade also works with states and territories through the Study Australia Partnership—a formal collaboration between Austrade and all state and territory study destination agencies, to co-design and execute projects that support and promote Australia's international education sector.

Diversification

The Government recognises the critical importance of market diversification to the sustainability of Australia's international education sector. Engagement with Southeast Asia is an Australian Government priority and policy settings in the managed growth approach incentivise international education providers to increasingly diversify to this region.

Diversification of international education markets also supports the visiting friends and relatives' (VFR) segment of Australia's visitor economy. As noted in the International Diversification Strategy for the Visitor Economy Discussion Paper and related industry consultations, a proposed focus on growing VFR travel from the new and emerging markets of India and Southeast Asia would have strong synergies with international education diversification.

In line with the Government's Southeast Asia 2040 strategy, Austrade is supporting engagement with Southeast Asia through SEABX, with regional trade missions involving 72 Australian education and skills providers to date.

International education sector diversification extends beyond student source countries, encompassing learner types, courses and fields of study, modes and models of delivery, and locations of study within Australia and internationally (for example, transnational education or building on the collaborative foundations of the Study Australia Partnership).

The Government will continue to work closely with the regulators, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), to guide education and training providers expanding and diversifying their operations through offshore (in-country) delivery. The Government will also continue to support the sector to engage with international governments on accessing opportunities through qualifications recognition and in-country delivery provisions enabled by bilateral trade agreements and cooperation.

Diversification opportunities will also be considered in the context of the Australian Government's International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, once finalised.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends the Government work with the sector to develop a more systemic approach to tracking and supporting alumni networks, including graduates of Australian education scholarships and programs, with the explicit aim of fostering enduring connections to Australia, with a focus on priority countries and strengthening Australia's international research networks and partnerships.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government is committed to working with the sector (with its buy-in being essential) on improving approaches to alumni networks, in line with recommendations outlined in Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040 and the Australian Universities Accord Final Report.

The Government recognises the value in enhancing personal and professional relationships forged between international scholars and the Australian community. It will continue to build on the success of alumni networks such as the Australia Awards alumni, New Colombo Plan (NCP), and other programs to identify more systematic and engaging ways to work with scholarship and self-funded alumni to deepen engagement in the Pacific and Southeast Asia.

The recent reforms to the NCP will deepen the program's business engagement and provide more ways to foster scholar and alumni engagement through relationship building with the private sector and business stakeholders. NCP initiatives, including the Alumni Representative Program and Alumni Consultative Group, provide support to engaged NCP alumni to promote the program and foster networks across the Indo-Pacific.

Work is ongoing to consolidate existing IT systems into a single solution or to strengthen existing systems to better support current needs.

DFAT has established an 'Australia Awards Global Support Mechanism' to deliver a coherent suite of Australia Awards services, including dedicated long term advisory support to bolster alumni engagement across the network of overseas posts. In addition to supporting the development of consistent and measurable alumni strategies at posts across Southeast Asia, the Government will further explore 'opt-in' approaches to tracking and convening alumni.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends the Government examine opportunities to expand programs that deliver development support to Australia's near neighbours and contribute to Australian skills needs through practical on and offshore education and training 'International traineeships', with an initial focus on aged care and allied health in regional Australia. International Traineeships should be limited to Technical and Further Education providers (TAFEs) and approved Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) and companies to maintain integrity.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government will examine opportunities to expand skills-related support through international traineeships where critical skills shortages exist in the region. Skills and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) are integral to economic success and improved development outcomes. In March 2023, the inaugural Conference of Pacific Education Ministers agreed that developing skills pathways is a collective priority for the region.

The Government supports this priority in the Pacific. DFAT's pilot of on-the-job training of Pacific Australia Labour Mobility (PALM) scheme workers in the aged care sector in the Northern Territory and Queensland, informed the expansion of training through the PALM scheme. In April 2025, DFAT's Office of the Pacific introduced a new, regional skills program, Pacific Australian Skills, continuing Australia's longstanding support for skills and training in the region, following the conclusion of the Australia Pacific Training Coalition (APTC, 2008—2025). Pacific Australia Skills builds on the strong legacy of APTC, focusing on skills for employment and links with industry.

The Government's development partnerships in Southeast Asia include a strong focus on education and skills in Official Development Assistance (ODA) eligible countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and throughout ASEAN. These partnerships build links with Australian institutions through the International Development Policy framework and programs such as Australia Awards scholarships, fellowships and short courses, and the New Colombo Plan. The Policy guides investment in partner-led initiatives that improve schooling, vocational training, and employment services. This will help build regional capacity, develop future leaders and leverage Australia's education institutions to further connect the region to Australia.

The Government is also establishing a new specialised scholarship program complementing Australia Awards, as well as expanding Australia Award Scholarships to Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. Additionally, a new Placements and Internships Pilot Program for Young Professionals (an initial $6 million over four years) to help build enduring links between Australian and Southeast Asian businesses.

Under a system of managed growth, universities will be able to grow their student allocation where they demonstrate continued investment in Southeast Asia through their education offerings, partnerships, campuses, alumni and scholarships. This will help drive Australia's economic, people-to-people links and two-way cultural exchange.

The Government exempts students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste from the prioritisation of offshore Subclass 500 (student) visa applications under Ministerial Direction 115, in recognition of Australia's commitment to strengthening education and employment pathways with the region. This exemption extends to other visa applications, including those students with an Australian Government sponsored scholarship and key foreign partner government scholarship holders, and students studying at an Australian education provider delivering education services internationally under a transnational education agreement.

Recommendation 4

The Committee recommends the Government engage with the international education sector and industry bodies to develop and implement targeted campaigns to educate employers on the opportunities to hire international student graduates in sectors with high skilled job vacancies. Campaigns must combat employer confusion and misinformation about graduate work rights, visa conditions and pathways to permanent residency (where available). The first campaign focus should be for engineering, information technology and health industries, followed by other skilled occupations identified in high demand.

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government notes the proposal for further information strategies and campaigns as outlined in this recommendation, as well as Recommendation 20.

The Government currently engages with the international education sector, industry bodies and employers to support awareness of rights and opportunities in the sector. The Government recognises there is value in improving employers' understanding of the benefits that international graduates can provide, including through addressing confusion or misinformation about graduate work rights, visa conditions and pathways to permanent residency.

The Government supports improving clarity around rights, obligations, and employment opportunities for the international education sector, and will continue to consult with the sector to develop information products in line with recommendations outlined in the Migration Strategy,Working Future: The Australian Government's White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities (Employment White Paper), and the International Students Pathways and Outcomes Study by Jobs and Skills Australia.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the Government establish a national work-integrated learning framework to oversight work-integrated learning placements. The work-integrated learning framework and any accompanying system changes should be developed in consultation with the international education sector, industry peak bodies and accreditation bodies and the work-integrated learning peak body, taking into consideration Fair Work Requirements and ensuring robust oversight of providers and businesses to prevent student exploitation and integrity loopholes.

The work-integrated learning accreditation system should support the integration of accreditation placements into the work-integrated learning program, where appropriate. Further sandwich courses, higher education apprenticeships and other paid work and learn integrated models of study are increasingly common in jurisdictions with whom Australia competes for international students. These models offer better integration between industry and educational entities, and should be given immediate consideration by a taskforce established by the Government.

The Australian Government agrees withthis recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of work integrated learning to support international students to enhance their workplace and employability skills and graduate employment outcomes, while also ensuring that there is appropriate oversight of providers and businesses to comply with workplace relations laws including the Fair Work Act 2009, and to prevent, detect and remedy the exploitation of students.

The benefits for international students of work experience and volunteering during their studies is well documented. Through these experiences, international students build networks, develop their English language skills, and build the skills and attributes necessary to find work in their field of study.

This recommendation aligns with the 2022 Post Study Work Rights Working Group Report to the Ministers for Education and Home Affairs which notes that "additional work experience during their studies can also assist graduates to be more work ready upon graduation".

The Government agrees to establish a work integrated learning working group to consider this recommendation in the context of other key government reforms, including the Employment White Paper, the Australian Universities Accord Final Report, the Migration Strategy, Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040, and the International Students Pathways and Outcomes Study by Jobs and Skills Australia. The Government has also committed to deepen engagement in Southeast Asia through Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040 including encouraging universities and vocational education providers to offer work-integrated learning internships as part of course offerings to Southeast Asian students.

Recommendation 6

The Committee recommends the Government take a pro-active, interventionist approach in reviewing unreasonable barriers to qualified international student graduates filling skills shortage roles that are imposed by professional accreditation bodies, to identify opportunities to streamline and remove unnecessary requirements while preserving quality assurance. The Committee recommends these reviews target and assess, as a matter of priority, accreditation barriers and issues encountered by qualified international graduates in health and allied health professional fields. There should be a specific focus on accreditation issues in nursing, midwifery, and psychology, then professional trades and other critical skills shortage areas, as they emerge.

Consideration should be given to improving pathways to apprenticeships and work placements for both vocational education and training and university degrees for international students where skills shortages cannot be met domestically.

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government notes this recommendation aligns with work undertaken by DFAT on Mutual Recognition Agreements for Professional Qualifications. The Government will further consider matters relating to priority skills areas in line with the Migration Strategy, Australian Universities Accord Final Report,the Employment White Paper, and the International Students Pathways and Outcomes Study by Jobs and Skills Australia.

The Government recognises that occupations are generally subject to state and territory licensing and regulatory oversight, with health and allied health professions being nationally regulated by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).

The Government recently released the Guiding Principles and Standards for Skilled Migration Assessing Authorities (the Guide) (effective 1 October 2025) to improve the approach to skills assessments for migration purposes. The Guide will be supported by new legislative powers to impose conditions on assessing authorities. The completion of this work represents a significant milestone in the journey towards greater integrity and assurance measures in skills assessments. The Government will continue to work closely with industry, migrant representatives, assessing authorities and other stakeholders to understand the opportunities for systemic changes to lift the sector and strengthen its role within the broader skills, employment and migration system.

As noted in the response to Recommendation 5, the Government recognises that work placements more broadly are critical to post-study employment outcomes, and will consider opportunities to further improve access to placements for international students, including in the context of other key government reforms.

Recommendation 7

The Committee recommends, in light of the highly dynamic nature of the international education sector and global markets and the continuously evolving policy and regulatory frameworks, an appropriate Parliamentary Committee hold a regular annual or biennial 'check-in' inquiry, either stand-alone or as part of a routine annual report inquiry by the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Recommendation 8

The Committee recommends the Government develop an International Education Compact for the endorsement of National Cabinet, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of respective levels of government regarding the quality and integrity standards of Australia's international education system and to improve international student experience. Such responsibilities, for example, may confirm:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle withthis recommendation.

The Government works closely with states and territories through the Study Australia partnerships and regular meetings of the Commonwealth States and Territories International Education Stakeholder Forum to ensure a quality student experience for international students and enhanced community engagement. States and territories also celebrate the contribution that international students make to Australian society through annual international student award ceremonies. The Government notes the utility in confirming the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government.

The Government recognises the importance of a sustainable and representative student voice in policy development and implementation as well as within individual institutions.

Recommendation 9

The Committee recommends the Government use its convening power to encourage state and territory governments, local government authorities and universities to develop appropriate local accommodation models including home stay in their respective jurisdictions to help alleviate pressing student accommodation issues and deepen connections between international students and Australian society, highlighting the tax advantages for Australians who host up to two international students.

Best Practice Home Stay models should be informed by the Gold Coast Council's 'Host for Coast' program and developed in consultation with established reputable homestay organisations such as the Australian Homestay Network and international education peak bodies and include:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government is working with state and territory, local governments and education providers to develop accommodation models to increase the provision of student accommodation, to ensure both domestic and international students have access to safe and secure housing.

Recommendation 10

The Committee recommends the Government urgently work to foster the expansion of the Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) sector including:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government recognises the critical role of Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (PBSA) to alleviate accommodation shortages, particularly in the student market. There is a growing pipeline of additional PBSA, with more than 11,000 beds under construction, more than 15,000 with development approvals in place and over 12,000 in the planning process.

The Government has made clear to publicly funded universities that increasing the provision of safe and secure student accommodation for both domestic and international students, including through PBSA, is a priority. This priority is reflected in policy settings for a managed system of international education in Australia. In its settings for 2026, the Government established an application process for universities through which they can apply for an increase in their New Overseas Student Commencement (NOSC) allocation, with student accommodation as one of the key factors against which applications are assessed.

The Government will further consider this recommendation in line with other Government reforms, including the Housing Australia Future Fund, the measures from the National Housing Accord, the Australian Universities Accord Final Report, as well as guidance from the recently established National Housing Supply and Affordability Council.

Recommendation 11

The Committee recommends the Government review and consider the desirability of the widespread practice in the university sector whereby universities establish Central Business District (CBD) campuses largely comprising international students and sub-contract the teaching to private institutions. This could be considered as part of the University Accord process and may warrant adjustments to funding formulas to ensure genuine regional universities in particular are adequately funded and not forced in effect to chase revenue in this manner.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government is committed to supporting regional universities, ensuring they are adequately funded and that the students receive a quality education.

The Government will further consider how to support regional universities to thrive in line with other Government reforms, including implementation of recommendations in the Australian Universities Accord Final Report with demand-driven Needs-based Funding for students studying at regional campuses commencing from 2026. Measures to guide the international education sector towards greater sustainability will continue through a managed growth approach, which is currently being implemented through changes to the prioritisation of resources for offshore student visa processing under a National Planning Level.

Where a provider delivers a course with a third party, the Higher Education Standards (HES) Framework requires higher education providers to remain responsible and accountable in all aspects of course delivery and support. TEQSA may apply a greater focus in ensuring compliance is effectively implemented by the higher education provider. TEQSA also expects students have equivalent opportunity to successfully transition into and through their course of study irrespective of educational background, mode, delivery arrangement or place of study.

Recommendation 12

The Committee recommends the Government significantly improve data sharing between agencies to address serious integrity concerns, including formal information and sharing agreements and platforms between the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Education, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA), and where appropriate, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, Austrade and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations.

Government should form or utilise an existing cross agency expert group to oversee the development of these platforms to ensure:

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government is exploring further reforms around data expansion as outlined in Recommendations 12, 13, 18, 23, and 26, and notes the actions in this recommendation are being progressed.

The Government is committed to enhancing data sharing capability between regulatory agencies, in alignment with the Government's response to the Nixon Review.

Broader data sharing detailed in this recommendation will be investigated over the longer term in line with the strategic priorities of Government and areas of responsibility for relevant agencies.

The Government regards agencies working together to share intelligence, identifying areas for regulatory action and treating shared risks in international education, as a critical component to ensuring integrity in the sector. Government has established a cross-agency committee consisting of ESOS agencies and Commonwealth departments, with a focus on information sharing on integrity risks to the sector.

Recommendation 13

The Committee recommends the Government use whatever means at its disposal to compel education providers to develop information channels across sectors to share credible information and concerns regarding education agents, entities and student movements to inform and support integrity in student recruitment and delivery of international education and to disrupt non-genuine students and other entities seeking to exploit the international education sector, the student visa system, and international students.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government has positive working relationships with the sector and will continue to build conduits to share information related to risks to the integrity of Australia's international education system. The Government remains committed to ensuring the quality, integrity and sustainable growth of Australia's international education sector and working with the sector to achieve this goal.

The ELA Act contains robust elements to increase information sharing on education agents to support providers to choose ethical, high performing agents. Integrity reforms in the Act complement the changes to the Student Visa Program through strengthening regulations for education providers and disrupting and deterring non-genuine education providers and students.

Recommendation 14

The Committee recommends the Government take firm action to address persistent and deep-seated integrity issues in the private Vocational Education and Training (VET) sector, understanding this will be a difficult and long-term reform program. Actions may require legislative changes to strengthen regulatory oversight and tough decisions and could include:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government is committed to ensuring integrity and quality in Australia's international and domestic VET sector. These issues are complex and require a coordinated approach across government agencies.

The ELA Bill passed by Parliament on 28 November 2025 included a range of integrity measures to strengthen the international education regulatory framework by amending the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (the ESOS Act).

These measures directly address the recommendation, including by:

In the 2023-24 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), the Government announced a package of $37.8 million for measures to improve integrity in the VET system and protections for students. The measures have supported the national VET regulator, ASQA, to strengthen its regulatory activities by:

The Government has also taken swift action to strengthen the Fit and Proper Person Requirements under the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 (NVETR Act). These changes provided ASQA with increased powers to scrutinise those who are in the business of managing or operating Registered Training Organisations (RTOs).

The Government is also lifting the quality and integrity of training within the VET sector through the release of revised Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015 with 2025 Standards for Registered Training Organisations (2025 Standards). The 2025 Standards for RTOs came into effect on 1 July 2025 and strengthen the focus on quality outcomes for learners and employers, provide greater clarity around expectations, and allow for more flexibility and innovation in training delivery across the sector.

The Government made amendments to the NVETR Act in early 2024 to ensure ASQA has the necessary regulatory tools to take swift action to address integrity risks posed by non-genuine or unscrupulous RTOs and lift quality across the VET sector.

In the 2024-25 MYEFO, the Government committed $7.7 million over four years from 2024-25 (and $0.4 million per year ongoing) to enable ASQA to deliver additional integrity activities for Australia's international vocational education and training sector, working closely with sector regulators.

Additionally, in the 2025-26 Budget, the government committed $4.7 million in surge funding for ASQA. This funding will enable ASQA to immediately respond to fraud in the VET sector, particularly where providers are issuing fraudulent qualifications.

The Government is committed to ensuring Australia's VET system delivers world-class training while protecting students and quality providers. Government will continue to investigate further improvements to the regulatory framework and enhance quality requirements for VET delivery. Implementation of improvements would require careful consideration to ensure intended outcomes are achieved.

Recommendation 15

The Committee recommends the Government implement or at least trial major reforms to how international student learning is assessed, and education quality assured for high-risk Vocational Education and Training (VET) providers and courses by working with the States and Territories to consider the following options:

All of the above initiatives would be provider funded on a cost-recovery basis.

The Australian Government agrees in-principle withthis recommendation.

The Government is strongly committed to ensuring a high-quality vocational education and training (VET) sector with oversight by the national VET regulator, ASQA, delivering a risk-based approach to regulation.

ASQA manages the registration of all providers based on risk and has an ongoing risk focus on CRICOS providers. ASQA's measures to support greater integrity in the international education system, supported by a significant uplift in its digital and data systems continues to build ASQA's compliance, investigative and enforcement capabilities. The most effective approach is to engage with those providers on whether they meet the threshold for registration—at any stage in their registration cycle.

As outlined in Recommendation 14, Government is lifting the quality and integrity of training within the VET sector through the release of revised Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs). The 2025 revised Standards for RTOs will strengthen the focus on quality outcomes for learners and employers, provide greater clarity around expectations, and allow for more flexibility and innovation in training delivery across the sector.

In line with a focus on quality outcomes, the 2025 Standards for RTOs support a more flexible approach to delivery and regulation and complement ASQA's risk-based approach. A significant and ongoing program of engagement has been undertaken to facilitate the transition to the 2025 Standards, including to build RTO understanding and capability for operating under the 2025 Standards. Commencing in October 2024, this program of engagement included the development of educative and supporting resources, policy guidance, and a significant program of face-to-face and virtual workshops conducted by ASQA with providers across the country.

The Government remains committed to managing the sector at sustainable levels, creating a better and fairer system, and addressing integrity issues in international education. Measures included in the ELA Act strengthen integrity and support quality in the sector.

Recommendation 16

The Committee recommends the Government consider differentiating visa applications for international students who choose to study at Technical and Further Education providers (TAFEs). Further considerations to support TAFEs should include:

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government will further consider this recommendation, in line with its response to the Nixon Review, which advocates for several reforms to protect students from unscrupulous private VET providers.

Recommendation 17

The Committee recommends the Government review international education regulatory bodies to ensure the settings and frameworks empower proactive risk analysis, on-the-ground quality assurance practices and that individual complaints, especially complaints by students, are investigated within an efficient timeframe. The review should consider how:

The Australian Government agrees withthis recommendation.

The Government notes that the actions responding to this recommendation are covered by its response to the Nixon Review. In its response, Government has undertaken significant uplifts of regulatory capacity.

In the 2023-24 MYEFO, the Government announced a package of $37.8 million for measures to improve integrity in the VET system and protections for students. The measures have supported the national VET regulator, ASQA, to strengthen its regulatory activities by:

The Government is continuing cross agency work to support ESOS agencies to share and integrate data holdings and to support ongoing development of evidence-based risk indicators to inform compliance actions by the education regulators.

Recommendation 18

The Committee recommends the Government amend Quality Indicators for Teaching and Learning (QILT) Surveys to include questions about education agents and equivalents that would provide more detailed information of the agent student interactions.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government has worked with the QILT contractor to include questions about education agents and equivalents for the 2025 Student Experience Survey.

Recommendation 19

The Committee recommends the Government:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle withthis recommendation.

The Government has zero tolerance for exploitation of migrant workers, including international students.

In July 2024, the Government implemented a pilot to strengthen reporting protections for a range of temporary visa holders, including international students. This pilot was co-designed with a targeted group of unions and civil society organisations with expertise in workplace relations. The design recognised that without appropriate protections for both their current and any future visa, some temporary migrants have been too afraid to try to resolve workplace exploitation, or to support investigations or pursue litigation against dishonest employers. This is a key element of the package of reforms to address migrant worker exploitation announced by Government in June 2023, in line with commitments made at the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit.

The Government has driven broader legislative reform to deter the misclassification of employees as independent contractors through its Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024. The Act changes the defence to misrepresenting employment as an independent contractor arrangement (i.e. 'sham contracting') from a test of 'recklessness' to one of 'reasonableness'. The effect of this change is to impose a more objective test. This means that an employer's ignorance or unreasonable mistake will no longer allow them to make out the defence and avoid liability for sham contracting. The Act also substantially increases the maximum penalties for bodies corporate that are not small business employers that are found to have engaged in sham contracting in the Fair Work Act 2009.

For the purposes of examining the scale and use of ABNs, the Australian Business Registrar currently shares ABN non-public information with eligible government agencies. The Government will consider a scheme of endorsement of ABN requests by international students overseen by education institutions. The recommendation to have ABN requests to be overseen by educational institutions raises several policy and legal issues, including considering how such a scheme would fit with the existing ABN obligations, and whether it would achieve the desired outcome. The recommendation would also require policy and law change.

Consistent with the direction in the Migration Strategy and the development of a public register for employer sponsors in the temporary skilled program, Government will in future consider if this register can extend to businesses that employ other temporary migrants where workers are particularly susceptible to exploitation.

Recommendation 20

The Committee recommends cross government agencies and the sector intensify efforts in implementing a targeted communication strategy to educate:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle withthis recommendation.

The Study Australia website and social channels are official Australian Government sources of information and referral for international students, agents, parents, school counsellors and other stakeholders.

Study Australia channels aggregate and disseminate whole-of-government information to a global audience. Austrade works closely with Commonwealth agencies, as well as Australian state and territory study destination agencies, to ensure the provision of accurate and up-to-date information, including on rights and obligations, and relevant tools and directions to providers, students and other stakeholders. Austrade also actively engages with global education agents via the Study Australia Agent Hub, a dedicated resource for education agents.

Education providers are required under the ESOS Actand the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 to provide information on student rights and responsibilities, as learners and as employees in Australia. The Department of Home Affairs, as the responsible agency, disseminates information relating to student's visas and conditions for employment, while the Fair Work Ombudsman offers free advice and education, including a range of in-language resources, to all employees and employers.

Collectively, these whole-of-government activities provide current and prospective students with information about their protections and rights under the Education Services for Overseas Students Framework, assist education providers and their contracted agents to understand their responsibilities, and educate employers and industry on the benefits and processes associated with engaging international students and graduates.

Greater cross-government collaboration will be developed and delivered in the context of the International Education and Skills Strategic Framework, once finalised. Implementation will include additional targeted communication strategies to better inform and educate providers on their obligations, under both the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 and 2025 Standards for RTOs, along with further efforts to educate international students, education agents, and employers.

Recommendation 21

The Committee recommends the Government:

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government has removed the concurrent study functionality from the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), in line with   .Standard 7 of the National Code of Practice for Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2018 which restricts student transfers in the first 6 months of their primary course of study.

The government announced its intention to introduce new legislation to ban agent commissions for onshore transfers in October 2023 and remains committed to implementing this measure. The ban seeks to disrupt unscrupulous agents from facilitating non-genuine student transfers, including in the first 6 months of study.

The Department of Home Affairs will work with the Department of Education to identify and inform policy changes and risk settings for students changing education providers. Government will consider student wellbeing to ensure that students with legitimate reasons for requesting a transfer within the first 6 months of study are not disadvantaged.

The Government will further consider regulatory enforcement in line with this recommendation, including how non-compliance would be identified and enforced.

Recommendation 22

The Committee recommends the Government amend Education Services and Overseas Students regulations to provide that any medical letter or certification for consideration of early release can only be issued by a medical professional who is approved under the students' Overseas Student Health Cover.

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government will consider this recommendation in the context of work underway to increase integrity in Australia's international education sector.

Recommendation 23

The Committee recommends the Government tighten regulations to:

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government supports increasing the transparency of education agent data to providers. The collection of information on education agent commissions will enable Government to share more information with providers on the education agents they engage. These changes are outlined in measures under the ELA Act passed by Parliament in November 2025, supported by complementary changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Regulations 2019. The Government also supports increasing requirements for providers to actively monitor education agents including requiring providers to have written agreements with the agents from when they receive international students and will consider these measures in more detail in consultation with the sector.

The Government notes the part of the recommendation to implement mandatory requirements to report misconduct involving suspected trafficking and will consider this in the context of the work underway, in line with its response to the Nixon Review and commitments detailed in the Migration Strategy.

Recommendation 24

The Committee recommends the Government in consultation with the education sector and agent peak bodies develop model clauses for providers to use in their written agreements with education agents to improve integrity, consumer protection and enable more transparency of payments.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government will consider how implementation of the recommendation on model clauses could align with its broader reform work on the Education Services for Overseas Students Framework.

Recommendation 25

The Committee recommends the Government use whatever regulatory levers necessary to mandate certain minimum requirements be included in all written agreements between providers and students to increase transparency and consumer protection including:

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Government recognises the importance of embedding transparency and consumer protection in written agreements between providers and students.

The Government will work with the sector to consider requirements to be included.

Recommendation 26

The Committee recommends an expansion of the current Education Agents Dashboard on Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) to allow provider access to all education agents' information. Such an expansion should enable providers to consider an agent's performance before entering contractual arrangements and to be able to compare agent performance or integrity concerns about individual agents across the sector.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

Improving providers' access to education agent performance data will assist providers in choosing quality education agents to support their student recruitment activities.

The Department of Education has already made enhancements to PRISMS that align with this recommendation. In July 2024, the Department of Education expanded functions in PRISMS, allowing education providers to search for any education agent and view information related to the education agent, including the other education providers they work with as well as the incompletion rates and visa refusal rates associated with that education agent.

As noted in the response to Recommendations 13 and 23, measures under the ELA Act give providers greater access to the performance data of all education agents, not just those agents with whom they have agreements. Improving providers' access to education agent performance data will assist providers in choosing quality education agents to support their student recruitment activities.

Recommendation 27

The Committee recommends, in implementing the decision to ban the payment of commissions by providers to education agents, migration agents or equivalent entities for all onshore international student transfers, the Government ensure this captures 'marketing' or equivalent payments to related entities and persons however they are characterised.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

As noted in recommendation 21, the Government is committed to implementing the ban on agent commissions for onshore transfers and will ensure that all relevant persons, entities and payment types are captured by the change.

The ELA Act includes a new definition of 'education agent' in the ESOS Act as well as complementary changes to the Education Services for Overseas Students Regulations 2019. These provide an activity-based approach to persons or entities considered to be education agents, in order to capture persons or entities who may not have formal agreements or relationships to providers.

Similarly, the new definition of 'education agent commission' includes both monetary and non-monetary considerations or benefits given by a provider to an education agent or associate in connection with the recruitment of overseas students or any other activity involved in being an education agent under the new definition.

These changes ensure that, in implementing the banning of agent commission payments for onshore transfers, all relevant persons, entities and payments are captured.

Recommendation 28

The Committee recommends the Government accept that regulation of education agents is essential and long overdue, and that a model must be determined and implemented. Government should consider the most effective way of ensuring scrutiny of education agents given their key role in providing temporary migration advice and dealing with often vulnerable consumers. Any model will need to ensure compliance with a single Code of Ethical Practice for Education Agents setting expected standards for all education agents who work with Australian education providers. Any scheme should be industry funded through cost recovery mechanisms and have adequate resourcing for compliance and enforcement.

The Australian Government agrees in-principle with this recommendation.

The Government is currently undertaking work to bring effect to this recommendation in line with previous recommendations from the Nixon Review and theMigration Strategy,and may consider further measures should this be required.

The Government recognises the importance of ensuring Australian immigration advice is provided by lawful providers of immigration assistance.

Recommendation 29

The Committee recommends the Department of Education and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations are each empowered to take a lead approach as policy owners for International Education with respect to their relevant policy portfolios. The Minister for Education and the Minister for Skills and Training, and relevant departments, should ensure the ongoing coordination of policy development and implementation. The Departments should also ensure that appropriate and holistic measures are included in their annual performance statements.

The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.

The Department of Education, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, and other relevant agencies continue to build strong working relationships to coordinate policy development and implementation with meetings at the working and executive level. The departments also work closely with the sector to ensure providers comply with the requirements of the ESOS Act.

The Council for International Education which includes as its members the Minister for Education, the Minister for Trade and Tourism, the Minister for Skills and Training, the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, the Assistant Minister for International Education and the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs, provides the framework to ensure whole-of- government strategic thinking, informed by input from the Expert Members of the Council.

_____

Dear President

I present to you the Government's response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's Advisory Report on the Royal Commissions Legislation Amendment (Protections for Providing Information) Bill 2026. This response was provided during debate in the Senate on 12 March 2026.

I have enclosed a Hansard extract containing the Government response. On page 38 of the Hansard, the Government agreed to the committee's recommendation. Of the additional recommendations made by Coalition Members and Senators of the committee, the Government agreed in principle to Recommendation 1 and noted Recommendations 2 and 3.

In the event this letter is received when the Senate is not sitting, I note the presentation of this document is pursuant to Senate Standing Order 166.

Yours sincerely

Michelle Rowland MP

_____

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

Right Wing Extremist Movements in Australia

March 2026

Introduction

The Government thanks the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for its review into right wing extremist movements in Australia.

Australia's security environment is degrading. On 5 August 2024, the National Terrorism Threat Level was raised from POSSIBLE to PROBABLE—and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation assesses there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next 12 months. More Australians are being radicalised, and radicalised quickly, embracing an increasingly diverse range of extreme ideologies and willing to use violence to advance their cause. This was demonstrated by the horrific antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025. The Government's thoughts remain with the families and friends of the 15 people who lost their lives. The alleged attempted bombing of a First Nations rally in Perth on 26 January further highlights the threats facing Australians.

The Australian Government is committed to countering violent extremism in all its forms. We have developed deep relationships with state and territory partners, international partners, academia and industry to prevent and respond to violent extremism and ensure a safer Australia. This commitment and the importance of wide-ranging partnerships is reflected in A Safer Australia -Australia's Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy 2025, which was released on 17 January 2025.

A key focus of the Government's effort is building resilience within our communities to guard against violent extremism and providing early support services to those who are at risk. This requires our law enforcement and security agencies to work hand in hand with health, social and community services.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that the Australian Government undertake periodic evaluation of Australian de-radicalisation and countering violent extremism programs. That evaluation should involve experts engaged in those programs, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and organisations that research countering violent extremism and de-radicalisation. Any such periodic review should draw upon the experience both in Australia and overseas in other liberal democracies.

Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Australian Government has established a nationally coordinated expert evaluation capability that will measure the effectiveness of countering violent extremism (CVE) intervention programs delivered in all states and territories. This national evaluation is underway and will ensure intervention programs are continually reviewed and refined, in light of the changing environment, developments in research and internationally recognised best practice.

Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Australian government develops a national framework for engaging with young people to deter them from radical extremism. That framework should provide best practice guidance to the states and territories and the broader civic community on how to engage with young people to:

Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

A Safer Australia—Australia's Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy 2025 sets out the Australian Government's plans to engage young people, and youth experts, in its efforts to address youth radicalisation. This takes a whole-of-sector approach, drawing together education, social services, law enforcement and other key bodies across the country.

The Australian Government has established the Youth Advisory Council for A Safer Australia (YACSA) to incorporate youth perspectives into policies and programs which aim to disengage young people from violent extremism. The YACSA was appointed on 16 July 2025 and is made up of 15 young people aged 16-24. The YACSA will provide feedback on materials, initiatives, and resources that support youth prevention efforts, ensuring they reach and resonate with young people.

The YACSA will work closely with the Youth and Mental Health Advisory Group, an existing group of youth experts in CVE, mental health and education, to provide advice to the Government on how to improve policy responses to issues related to violent extremism. This includes providing advice on the whole system, from identifying early signs and risk factors to becoming radicalised to violence to providing support to a community after a violent extremist event. The Youth and Mental Health Advisory Group will also continue to be a community of practice by sharing case studies, assessing capabilities and gaps in programs, consolidating evidence on best practice, and uplifting capabilities to engage with youth clients and clients with mental health and neurodivergence.

Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Australian government conducts research into violent extremism in the online environment, including on:

That research should examine how those platforms may be used by extremist actors to spread propaganda and recruit members, particularly in relation to young people.

Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Australian Government will continue reviewing existing research into violent extremism in the online environment to identify any gaps and inform future research priorities.

The Australian Government's commissioned research program includes analysis of violent extremism networks and behaviours in the online environment, the impacts of artificial intelligence amplified misinformation, and policy responses to youth vulnerabilities and interventions.

Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner engages with stakeholders in relation to the development of best practice guidelines in relation to transparent and independent assurance measures to verify that social media platforms are enforcing terms of service to exclude harmful extremist content.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Under the Online Safety Act and subordinate legislation and codes, there are a number of expectations or obligations on social media services, as well as other services, to enforce their terms of service, including in relation to harmful extremist content.

The Government's Basic Online Safety Expectations establish expectations that providers of certain services—including social media services—take reasonable steps to ensure that end-users are able to use the service in a safe manner, minimise material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct, ensure that penalties for breaches of their terms of use are enforced against all accounts held by those end-users and ensure they have terms of use, policies and procedures in relation to the safety of end-users as well as procedures for reports and complaints. These are supported by mechanisms for the eSafety Commissioner (eSafety) to require information from service providers to promote transparency and accountability, with reports published on the eSafety website. eSafety published a transparency report focusing on terrorism and violent extremism in March 2025.

The Online Safety Act also provides for the development of mandatory industry codes and standards for illegal and restricted content. The Unlawful Materials codes and standards have been developed and are in force. The codes and standards establish obligations relating to Class 1A and Class 1B material (which includes pro-terror material and extreme crime and violence material). The relevant codes and standards include requirements to enforce their terms of service in relation to Class 1A and 1B material. The maximum civil penalty for not complying with the codes and standards is $49.5 million. Certain social media services are required to provide annual compliance reports to eSafety on their compliance with the code, and eSafety has a range of other information-gathering and investigations powers across the codes and standards to investigate potential non-compliance.

eSafety also routinely engages with stakeholders in relation to the development of good practice guidance, particularly to promote the Safety-by-Design initiative. This initiative was created based on extensive stakeholder consultation and provides industry with a set of principles and guidance to incorporate, assess and enhance user safety. To support implementation of the Safety-by-Design principles, eSafety developed assessment tools for enterprise and start-up tech companies. The tools act as a safety 'health check' and learning resources and include good practice examples.

Recommendation 5: The committee recommends the Australian government considers introducing legislation that would enable Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access encrypted communications if there is a well-founded threat to national security and a warrant has been issued by a judicial officer to access those communications.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 provides agencies with powers to lawfully access communications in limited situations, under warrant and the Telecommunications Act 1997 provides a framework for agencies to seek assistance from industry.

The Australian Government continues to engage collaboratively with technology companies to safeguard privacy, strengthen cybersecurity and protect users against technology-enabled crime. The Government is committed to ensuring user and public safety while maintaining privacy and cyber security—including through the use of strong encryption and other innovative technology.

The Australian Government will also continue to work in partnership with technology companies to maintain tightly controlled lawful access to communications, under warrant, which is vital to the investigation and prosecution of serious crimes including terrorism, hate crimes and other violent extremist offending, and protecting the safety of our citizens.

Recommendation 6: The committee recommends the Australian government adopts a nationally consistent definition of what constitutes a hate crime and consider establishing a national hate crimes database.

Response: The Australian Government agrees-in-principle to this recommendation.

On 23 December 2025, the Australian Government launched the first phase of the National Hate Crimes and Incidents Database, which provides national information on individuals charged with offences under hate crimes legislation in all Australian jurisdictions.

On 18 December 2025, the Australian Government published the 'Eliminating Antisemitism' response to the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism's 'Plan to Combat Antisemitism' and committed to providing states and territories resources to accelerate the development of the National Hate Crimes and Incidents Database.

The Commonwealth is leading a working group with state and territory representatives to accelerate the database. Through this work the Government will consider a nationally consistent definition of what constitutes a hate crime.

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 passed the Parliament on 20 January 2026. The Act established a new regime to list groups that advocate for, or engage in, conduct constituting a hate crime, with offences for individuals participating in certain activities with these prohibited hate groups. For the purpose of this framework, 'hate crime' is defined in s 114A.3 of the Criminal Code to include a specific set of Commonwealth, state and territory offences.

Greens additional recommendations

Recommendation 1: That responses to right wing extremism and white supremacy be intersectional, explicitly anti-racist and shaped by targeted communities.

Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to addressing ideologically motivated violent extremism in a way that reflects the diversity of Australian communities and builds community cohesion. This means including diverse perspectives in the development and implementation of CVE programs and maintaining a community-centred approach to addressing radicalisation to violent extremism.

Recommendation 2: That the Australian Government publicly commit to implementing the recommendations of the Christchurch Call.

Response: The Australian Government notes the recommendation, as this has already occurred.

The Australian Government joined the Christchurch Call to Action on 15 May 2019, the same day it was founded by the Governments of France and New Zealand. Joining the Call included public commitment to the 25 commitments of the Call, of which five pertain to governments and 13 are collective commitments. The seven commitments for online service providers are not for the Australian Government to implement.

Then, as now, the Australian Government remains committed to the Call's aims to eliminate terrorist and violent extremist content online and establishing a free, open and secure internet. The Australian Government has taken action on all government commitments and collective commitments. The Australian Government's commitment to the Christchurch Call has continued through its restructure to a non-governmental organisation in July 2024.

Recommendation 3: That anti-racism training be mandated for all MPs and their staff.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Act 2023 gives the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service a function to provide education on, and to inform parliamentarians and their staff about, matters relating to the employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 and maintaining safe and respectful workplaces.

The Parliamentary Workplace Support Service Chief Executive Officer may, by legislative instrument, determine a specified education or training program for parliamentarians and their staff is mandatory where certain conditions set out in the legislation are met.

Recommendation 4: That guidelines are developed for media that are grounded in an anti-racist approach to reporting and to minimise harm from sensationalist reporting.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

A balanced, robust and independent news media sector is critical to Australian society and the operation of our democratic systems and institutions. Reflecting the importance of a free media, our regulatory arrangements enable industry to take the lead in developing and overseeing content standards that reflect community standards.

Australia's print and online news media operates under a self-regulatory framework. Industry bodies, such as the Australian Press Council (APC), are responsible for assessing complaints regarding its members. Several media organisations have their own internal complaints handling processes. The APC has developed Advisory Guidelines on particular issues. These Advisory Guidelines provide additional information and resources on best practice reporting, including in relation to the reporting of religion, ethnicity and race.

In addition, news content that is provided via broadcasting services in Australia is regulated under a co-regulatory framework. This framework is premised on industry codes of practice that are developed by relevant industry sectors and registered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. These codes of practice include procedures for dealing with complaints.

Recommendation 5: That the Australian Government commit to fully funding and implementing the National Anti-Racism Framework.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government believes that there is no place in Australia for racism or discrimination of any kind.

The Government is taking a number of actions as part of its multifaceted approach to addressing complex experiences of racism in the community, with initiatives already underway across a range of portfolios that align with the National Anti-Racism Framework's recommendations. This includes appointing the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism and Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia. The Government has adopted the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism's Plan to Combat Antisemitism and will continue to work through the implementation of the 13 recommendations in consultation with the Australian Jewish community and the Special Envoy. The Government is also carefully considering the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia's report.

The Government has also passed legislation to strengthen offences for urging force or violence against groups or members of groups and creating new offences for threatening force or violence against groups or members of groups.

In response to the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi Beach, the Parliament passed the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 on 20 January 2026. The Act increased penalties for hate crime offences, created aggravated sentencing factors for hate-motivated conduct, and introduced new aggravated offences targeting leaders who promote violence and adults who radicalise children. The Act also established a new regime to list groups that advocate for, or engage in, conduct constituting a hate crime, with offences for individuals participating in certain activities with these prohibited hate groups. In addition, the Act included reforms to Australia's migration laws to improve community safety by enabling the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant, or to cancel a visa, on the basis of hate motivated conduct and offences relating to the spread of hatred and extremism.

Recommendation 6: That the Australian Government establish a standalone anti-racism portfolio.

Response: The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.

The Government believes that racism and discrimination are unacceptable. All parts of Government have an important role in tackling racism to ensure that everyone can participate in Australia's democratic, social and economic life. The Government considers it important that all public servants foster an understanding and appreciation of the human rights implications of policy and service delivery across government.

Current approaches, where portfolios collaborate across government while developing their own specific expertise, are intended to embed practices that ensure the equity and dignity of all Australians are considered at all stages of decision-making.

Recommendation 7: That Parliament conduct a public inquiry to review standing orders and any changes to their language and interpretation in order to eliminate racist, exclusionary and discriminatory behaviour.

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation as it is a matter for the Parliament.

Recommendation 8: That technology companies be held accountable for the proliferation of hate on their platforms through:

Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Government has committed to amend the Online Safety Act 2021 to introduce a statutory duty of care on digital platforms, placing the onus on them to better prevent online harms. Moving towards broader systems-based regulation that ensures digital platforms take responsibility for minimising harm on their services is a key recommendation of the independent statutory review of the Online Safety Act undertaken in 2024 by Ms Delia Rickard PSM.

The review of the Online Safety Act recommended that, under a duty of care, digital platforms be required to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harms on their platforms and services, including the proliferation of hate. These requirements to prevent foreseeable harms would extend to digital platforms' systems and processes, including the algorithms for social media services that determine which content is displayed and how it is displayed. It is also recommended that such requirements be underpinned by risk assessment and risk mitigation, and informed by safety-by-design principles.

In addition, the Government has committed to updating the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) for the digital age. The Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 included a requirement for the Information Commissioner to develop a Children's Online Privacy Code, and work is underway towards a second tranche of reform. While the second tranche of reform is yet to be finalised, relevant measures may include a proposal from the Privacy Act Review to prohibit entities from targeting and direct marketing to children (unless it is in the best interests of the child) and prohibit entities from trading in the personal information of children.

Recommendation 9: That developing strategies to make social media safer for young people must genuinely engage and involve young people themselves.

Response: The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

Engagement with young people who use social media is essential to developing strategies which are practical and effective, and the Government is committed to providing young people with the opportunity to inform regulations and policies that affect them.

Notably, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act2024 passed Parliament on 29 November 2024. It introduces a minimum age of 16 years to have an account on age-restricted social media platforms, protecting young Australians at a critical stage of their development. The Government consulted widely with young people, parents and carers, experts and community groups and used these insights to inform the legislation. Consultation included three roundtables dedicated to directly engaging young people and seeking their input and feedback on the issue of a social media minimum age.

In addition, the eSafety Commissioner administers the eSafety Youth Council (the Council). The Council gives young people, aged 13 to 24 years, an avenue to influence issues that matter most to them, by engaging in meaningful discussion and sharing their knowledge and experiences of online safety with eSafety. The Council was established in 2022 and offers an opportunity to share insights for policy and program design on online safety issues now and into the future. The Council is made up of young people who have a range of lived experiences, come from various places across Australia and represent different gender identities and cultures. eSafety seeks new members for the Council every two years.

As mentioned above, the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 legislates a requirement for the Information Commissioner to develop and register a Children's Online Privacy Code that would apply to social media and other internet services likely to be accessed by children. The Information Commissioner is developing the Code and has already undertaken extensive consultation with a range of stakeholders, including children, young people, parents, child development experts, child welfare advocates, industry and the eSafety Commissioner.

These measures align with key national strategies such as Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2021-2023, which emphasises embedding the voices and lived experience of children in program and policy design.

In addition, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Act 2026 created a new aggravated offence for adults who radicalise children. Imposing higher penalties on those who target children reflects the gravity of this conduct and sends a clear message that targeting children for violent extremism attracts serious criminal penalties.

As the Australian government announced last month, Australia has notified the United Nations Security Council of relevant actions Australia is taking under article 51 of the United Nations Charter in the collective self defence of countries in the Middle East. I table a copy of that notification.

I move:

That consideration of the documents be listed on the Notice Paper as orders of the day.

Question agreed to.

I present a report of the Education and Employment References Committee on Australia's early childhood education and care system, and I move:

That consideration of the report be listed on the Notice Paper as an order of the day.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. For Australians with significant and permanent disability, the NDIS is more than a program; it's a pathway to independence, dignity and opportunity. That's why the coalition's support for the NDIS remains unwavering, but it is also why we must be honest about the challenges the scheme now faces.

The NDIS is at a critical juncture. It was designed to support around 410,000 Australians. Today, it supports more than 760,000 Australians. That growth underscores the importance of ensuring the scheme is sustainable, because sustainability is not an abstract concept; it is what guarantees the NDIS will be there not just for those who rely on it now but for future generations. The government must bring the escalating cost of the NDIS under control before the scheme becomes unsustainable. While the need for reform is clear, the government's progress against its own targets remains uncertain.

The coalition supports the intent of this bill. We support stronger protections for NDIS participants. We support tougher civil and criminal penalties for providers who are doing the wrong thing, because any provider who exploits a person with disability or misuses taxpayer funds must face serious consequences. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour, and there is no place for it in the NDIS.

We also support the introduction of antipromotion orders. Providers must not be advertising or selling services that are outside the purpose of the scheme. We support giving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission stronger powers, including banning powers to act against providers delivering poor-quality or unsafe supports.

While we support the introduction of a 90-day cooling-off period, we have circulated an amendment to close an unintended loophole with this measure. It is a loophole that would allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme or cancel a withdrawal, even against the participant's wishes. A correspondence nominee is there to assist, not to make decisions against the wishes of the participant. If that line is blurred, it risks removing agency from the people the NDIS is meant to empower. The coalition's amendment makes it clear that these decisions must remain with the participant. We have worked with the government and we are pleased it has agreed to support our amendment. This is a sensible and practical change that will close the loophole, to protect participant choice.

In relation to the antipromotion orders, a report by the ACCC earlier this year found that providers are advertising services clearly not covered by the NDIS. These services include all-inclusive holidays, flights, cruises, dining out and even the cost of ingredients for meals. We are seeing participants being sold equipment that does not match what they were promised. With around 94 per cent of providers operating unregistered, there remains a massive regulatory blind spot. The bill fails to establish direct fraud controls for the majority of the market. Some bad actors within the system are exploiting vulnerable participants and the taxpayers who fund this support. They're getting away with it because weak checks and inconsistent oversight have opened the door. It is essential that the NDIS has greater controls to detect fraud early and to stop exploitation before it harms participants.

The Australian National Audit Office estimates that six to 10 per cent of payments could be non-compliant, incorrect or fraudulent. In 2025, $48.83 billion was spent on the NDIS. If 10 per cent of these claims are fraudulent, we are looking at a staggering loss of $4.8 billion every single year. These losses are driven by systematic misconduct, fraud, false claims or claims for services never delivered.

Law enforcement has also warned that organised crime is now targeting the scheme. In March this year, the Federal Police raided a Sydney home linked to a suspected $3.5 million NDIS fraud syndicate. In February, a Darwin NDIA employee was charged over an alleged $5 million fraud. In my home state of South Australia, a provider overclaimed and charged for services never provided. Another two men defrauded the system of over $465,000. This is systemic exploitation.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but tougher penalties alone will not fix the problem. If the system itself is weak, bad behaviour will continue. The coalition's goal is to deliver a stronger NDIS which delivers better outcomes for participants, providers and the taxpayers who fund it.

I rise to speak also on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. I want to start by acknowledging the work of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and thanking the secretariat and my fellow senators for their considered engagement. The committee's report makes it clear that these reforms are not just necessary but also overdue. It highlights persistent gaps in safeguarding and enforcement within the scheme and the need for stronger regulatory tools to protect participants and absolutely uphold the integrity of the NDIS.

At its core, this bill is something very simple but also something very important. It is about respect, dignity and safety for people with disabilities. The NDIS is one of the most significant social reforms in this country's history, and it represents a promise that people with disability will be supported to live full, independent and dignified lives. But a promise is only as strong as the system that it upholds. What we know from the royal commission, from the independent review and from the lived experience of participants is that the system has not always been safe. We have seen abuse, we have seen neglect and we have seen exploitation. When that happens, it's not just a failure of compliance; it's also a failure of justice. This bill responds directly to those failures.

When Labor came to government, the NDIS lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and noncompliance. Our government acted. We invested over $550 million to establish the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and began the work of putting the scheme back on a sustainable footing.

But there is more to do. The committee heard clearly that regulatory gaps remain and, in too many cases, the system has not been able to prevent harm or respond effectively when it occurs. There was also strong support across the sector for reforms that strengthen accountability and safeguard participants. This is absolutely what this bill delivers. It strengthens the power of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission; it enables early intervention, stronger enforcement and real accountability. Most providers are doing the right thing. They are committed, professional and working every day to support people with disabilities. But, unfortunately, some are not. Some exploit a system designed for care. Where there is fraud, there is too often harm, violence, abuse and neglect. This is why this legislation matters.

This bill introduces a stronger and more proportionate penalty framework. It includes higher civil penalties for serious breaches, new criminal offences for the most egregious conduct and real consequences for those who deliberately put participants at risk. Penalties should not be seen as a cost of doing business. They should send a clear message that harm to people with disabilities will not be tolerated. This bill expands on banning order powers. It closes loopholes that have allowed individuals to move across roles to continue operating despite unacceptable conduct. If someone is not fit to work in this space, they should not be able to re-enter through another pathway.

It also introduces antipromotional orders to address predatory and misleading marketing practices. Choice and control must be grounded in honesty and transparency. This bill further strengthens information-gathering powers; this allows the commission to act more quickly and address risks before they escalate into harm. Importantly, this legislation also includes participant safeguards. The 90-day cooling-off period for participants seeking an exit to the scheme is a practical protection. It ensures decisions are informed and are not made under pressure.

This bill is not about punishing providers. It is about protecting people, it is about restoring confidence in the NDIS, and it's also about sustainability. A system that tolerates exploitation is not sustainable, it is not financial, and it certainly is not moral. The NDIS must have a stronger regulatory backbone. It must be proactive, consistent and centred on participants' safety. The Albanese Labor government has been very clear. We will protect the integrity of the NDIS. We will support providers who are doing the right thing. We will act against those who are not, and people with disabilities deserve nothing less.

Today, I speak to the changes to our NDIS and focus on integrity and on safeguarding. Day after day, disabled people experience violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect. These injustices must be eliminated. This bill moves us steps in the right direction, and, for that reason, the Greens will be supporting it.

That said, there is still much work to be done to ensure that disabled people are free from abuse, from neglect and from violence. We must continue to strengthen our laws, and the NDIS must evolve so that participants and their individual needs are truly at the centre of the scheme. Today, I am putting forward amendments to address key gaps in the NDIS, backed by disabled people, advocates and service providers. One of the key ways that we can strengthen our NDIS is by making it easier for people to speak up when something is going wrong.

A critical reform is strengthening whistleblower protections. Right now, support workers who speak up about neglect or fraud risk discrimination, punishment or the loss of their livelihoods. That is unacceptable. Stronger protections exist in aged care, and the disability sector should be no different. People who come forward to expose wrongdoing deserve protection, not punishment.

Our amendments will allow anonymous disclosures and expand protections to more people, including former workers and participants, so that fear of retaliation does not silence them. I understand the government will be supporting the Greens's amendment. That is a positive step—one that will help more people come forward and expose wrongdoing within our National Disability Insurance Scheme—and I am proud that it will improve the safety and wellbeing of people.

We must be clear: there is still more to do. Even with these amendments, whistleblowers in the NDIS are not yet fully protected. While we have not secured every single change today, I welcome the government's commitment to further consultation. In this bill, the NDIA will get new power to request information from a participant or from a provider. There aren't a lot of guardrails around this change. That's why I'm proposing that the NDIA must consider privacy when it is requesting information. This will mean better protection for participants and those providing a service. It'll mean the participants won't have to choose between exposing their personal information and paying a bill.

Now, I must take this opportunity to raise the deep challenges that disabled people and our families are experiencing because of the significant changes to the NDIS as a result of Labor and the Liberals teaming up in this place. What I am hearing from the community is consistent—cuts, concern, uncertainty. One of the big stinkers that the Liberals and the Labor government teamed up to do was removing the 'reasonable and necessary' supports definition. This definition guaranteed that each NDIS participant would be able to argue for the individual support that they needed. In its place, we have a yes/no list. That yes/no list is too restrictive, leaving disabled people across the country without the support that they have relied on for years.

We need to return to 'reasonable and necessary', and my amendment today would make that happen. Sadly I do not expect the government or the opposition to support this. I nevertheless commend these amendments to the Senate. Each disabled person is different. The supports we need are different and unique, and that should be reflected in our NDIS.

I rise to speak on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. The coalition will be supporting this legislation while also flagging important amendments we will be moving and registering significant concerns about how far this bill falls short of what is truly needed.

The NDIS currently supports more than 760,000 Australians with disability, including our 65,000 participants in my home state of South Australia. Given the scale of the scheme and the public investment involved, it is essential that parliament continues to carefully scrutinise its performance to ensure it is operating effectively, remains sustainable and delivers safe, effective and appropriate services for participants.

The coalition reaffirms our strong and unequivocal bipartisan support for the NDIS and the role the scheme plays in enabling Australians with significant and permanent disability to live with greater control and choice. This legislation is the second in a series of changes the government has made in response to the 2023 independent review into the NDIS and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. One of the most significant, welcome measures in this bill is the introduction of antipromotion orders giving the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission new powers to address providers who advertise or sell products that are clearly inconsistent with the purpose of this scheme.

We must be clear eyed about what this bill does not do. These changes provide no direct regulation of fraud controls for the 94 per cent of NDIS providers who are unregistered, and that's not a minor gap. In my office and those of colleagues, we receive a steady stream of reports from NDIS participants who have sought quotes for basic supports like gardening, cleaning and household assistance only to find that the moment they mention 'NDIS' the price quadruples. This bill does not fix that.

The ANAO has reported that the NDIA estimates that between six per cent and 10 per cent of claim outliers could be non-compliant, fraudulent or incorrect. Law enforcement agencies have warned that organised crime is increasingly targeting the scheme, exploiting fragmented oversight. This is not a peripheral concern; this is an existential threat to the NDIS if it is not confronted directly and decisively by this government. The government cannot claim to be protecting the NDIS while billions of taxpayers' dollars are potentially leaking through fraud and exploitation. Before Labor cuts support to participants, it should start by cutting fraud.

The coalition supports the introduction of a 90-day cooling-off period for participants who wish to withdraw from the scheme. As it is currently drafted, a participant's correspondence nominee—a person appointed simply to receive copies of correspondence—would be able to make or cancel a request to withdraw from the scheme on behalf of the participant. That's inconsistent with section 79(1)(a) of the act, which makes clear that a correspondence nominee cannot act in relation to the preparation, review or replacement of a participant's plan.

The coalition will be moving an amendment to ensure that only the individual participant or their plan nominee can make or withdraw a request to exit the scheme. That's really important. It's about choice and control by the participant or their nominee—no-one else. It's critical. We urge the government to support this amendment. It is straightforward in its fix to an unintended consequence that, if left uncorrected, could expose some of our most vulnerable participants to significant risk.

The broader picture is that the NDIS is at a crossroads. The scheme has grown rapidly. Originally expected to support around 41,000 Australians, it now supports more than 760,000 participants. While it's true that this bill is a step in the right direction, the government must not make the mistake of thinking it is a step for a destination. The destination has not been reached by this bill.

I move the second reading amendment in the coalition's name:

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

(a) the Government and the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) have been unable to clearly quantify the scale of fraud within the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS);

(b) the NDIA Fraud Fusion Taskforce estimates that up to 10 per cent of NDIS claims are inappropriate, mischievous or outright criminal;

(c) the Government must do more to prevent the fraud and rorting that is rife within the NDIS;

(d) the changes in the bill will do little to remove bad actors from defrauding participants and taxpayers;

(e) the changes in the bill provide no direct regulation or fraud controls for the 94 per cent of NDIS providers who are not registered; and

(f) robust integrity systems are critical to not only protect taxpayer funds but also to protect NDIS participants from exploitation by unscrupulous providers".

In this country we apparently have a principle in the law that no-one should be tried or punished more than once for the same crime. But in 2024 this place passed an amendment bill to the NDIS, the Getting the NDIS Back on Track No.1 bill, which effectively ripped that principle to shreds. The 2024 amendment has meant that anyone convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for two or more years or crimes involving fraud or dishonesty can no longer manage their own NDIS plan or the plans of their children and family members, even after they've served the time.

As we all know—and I keep talking, to educate you fellas, about cultural awareness, to know the situation of the nation—Aboriginal women are disproportionately represented in the criminal legal system as a direct consequence of the racial and gendered violence entrenched in colonial history in this country. A lot of minor offences carry maximum penalties of two years for so-called crimes like failing to follow the direction of the police, or stealing food. What's more, 95 per cent of First Nations people appearing in court charged with a criminal offence have an intellectual disability, cognitive impairment or mental illness. This means that First Peoples and First Nations women, especially those with disabilities, are criminalised.

But instead of giving people control and autonomy to manage their own lives and their own affairs, which is the intention of the NDIS, the amendment that passed in 2024 strips criminalised people of their agency and forces them to relinquish control over their lives and those of their families. The 2024 amendment directly contradicts the push towards self-management and self-direction of disabilities and basically says to criminalised people and their families, 'We don't trust you'. Because the 2024 amendment applies to carers and parents not able to manage plans for their kids, Aboriginal mothers are further punished and Aboriginal children further institutionalised. This is a return to the old mission era: roundin' us up and givin' us our little rations—flour and sugar. The 2024 amendment has meant that family members who serve as critical safeguards and supporters for disabled people and ensure their needs are met in a culturally safe and respectful manner are stopped from managing the care of their loved ones.

I urge the Senate to pass my current amendment to repeal the changes made to NDIS in 2024, because it's not just black fellas that are affected. It's everybody who is affected: everybody who may have made a mistake, got a 2-year term and completely lost control of their own lives. If my amendment is not passed, the idea that Australia does not believe in second chances for criminalised people is further entrenched. I mean, even senators who've been to prison get a second chance! If my amendment is not passed, we entrench the idea that we must punish, and punish again, and offer no pathway to freedom—especially for criminalised First Peoples with a disability.

I rise today in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025. At the outset, I reaffirm the coalition's enduring and unequivocal support for the NDIS. It is one of Australia's most significant social reforms, reflecting our commitment to ensuring Australians with permanent and significant disability can live with dignity, independent, safety and choice. The coalition helped build the scheme and we remain committed to protecting it for participants today and for future generations.

The NDIS now supports more than 760,000 participants, far exceeding the original forecast of around 410,000. Growth itself is not the issue. It reflects unmet need and the vital role the scheme plays. However, the pace and scale of growth, combined with weak integrity settings, pose serious risks to participants, taxpayers and the long-term sustainability of the NDIS.

As the scheme has expanded, so, too, have noncompliance, unsafe practices, predatory behaviour and outright fraud, often targeting the most vulnerable Australians. In April 2023, the government committed to limiting annual growth to eight per cent, later reducing this to five to six per cent in August 2025. Yet these targets were announced without a credible plan and growth continues at close to 10 per cent per annum. That trajectory is clearly unsustainable.

Integrity must sit at the centre of decision-making. Participants must be protected from harm and taxpayers must be able to trust that public funds are being used appropriately. This bill seeks to strengthen safeguards and, in many respects, it moves in the right direction. It increases civil and criminal penalties to 10,000 penalty units and expands the powers of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner, including banning and antipromotion orders.

The coalition supports strong penalties for wrongdoing. Providers who defraud participants or deliver unsafe services must face serious consequences. But penalties alone are not enough. Without effective detection, enforcement and timely action, even the strongest penalties risk being meaningless.

The ACCC's February 2026 report found widespread misleading advertising and unethical conduct, and providers falsely promoting holidays or dining as NDIS supports, selling faulty equipment, refusing refunds and imposing unfair contract terms. The harm to participants and families is significant, and trust in the scheme is eroding. The new antipromotion powers are therefore justified. However, serious gaps remain—94 per cent of NDIS providers are unregistered, yet this bill introduces no regulatory framework for the vast majority of the market. These gaps are being exploited.

Coalition officers hear frequent reports of inflated prices for basic services once providers learn costs will be charged to the NDIS. That is exploitation, and weak verification allows it to continue. Banning powers will only be effective if the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission is properly resourced and able to act quickly. Delay too often means harm has already occurred. We also support expanded electronic claims provided non-digital options remain available, particularly for regional areas such as Tasmania, where connectivity is unreliable.

The coalition supports the 90-day cooling off period for participants seeking to withdraw from the scheme, however concerns remain about proposed section 29A, which could allow a correspondence nominee to request or cancel a withdrawal, undermining participant autonomy. This must be corrected, and the coalition has moved an amendment to ensure only the participant or an appropriate plan nominee can make such a request.

Finally, public confidence is essential. The government cannot clearly quantify fraud, yet the ANAO estimates six-to-10 per cent of NDIS outlays may be noncompliant. That's billions of dollars each year. Every dollar lost to fraud is a dollar denied to Australians with disability. The NDIS is one of Australia's greatest reforms. This this bill is a start, but much more must be done.

Australians are rightly proud of the life-changing support the NDIS provides to people with a disability. It is vital that we protect it for the long term by making sure the NDIS is sustainable, is effective, is safe and, most importantly, operates with integrity.

We know that the NDIS wasn't just drifting under the Liberal Party; it was being driven into the ground. The coalition left Labor with a mess—a mess that we must clean up brick by brick. When Labor came to office in 2022, spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme was growing by 22 per cent a year. The ANAO found that the system set up by the previous government lacked basic prevention controls for fraud and compliance. So it is this government that is restoring integrity to the scheme.

We are cracking down on fraudulent behaviour and dodgy providers. We know that every single dollar that is taken away from a participant by fraud is a dollar they are denied in the care and services they so deeply and desperately need. That is why our government has acted quickly, investing over $550 million in tackling fraud and noncompliance, including setting up the Fraud Fusion Taskforce and amending the NDIS Act. Now more claims are being reviewed every single day than were reviewed in a year under the previous government. That's more scrutiny and more integrity under this government.

Under the coalition, the NDIA required no substantiation for any claim. Under this government, we have the capability to screen every single claim for basic levels of compliance. To go to some of that compliance, let's talk about the warrants. Under the coalition, 30 warrants were issued across four years from 2018 to 2021. Under this government, 77 warrants were executed in just 2025 alone. That is more than double the number of warrants under this government, showing the level of integrity, compliance and cracking down on dodgy behaviour that we are tackling.

Under the coalition, the then CEO of the ACIC, Michael Phelan, said leakage could be as high as 15-to-20 per cent. Under this government in 2024, when he was head of the NDIS commission, he said that the estimate was conservative, but that was 2022, not now. Now, of course, the government has put in place a lot of mitigation strategies.

Unfortunately, where we see fraud in the system, we too often see violence, abuse and neglect of participants. We as a government are determined to clean up the sector and protect people with a disability. This bill will introduce: a stronger penalty framework for breaches, including failures to comply with registration conditions; banning orders; and a code of conduct. It will mean that banning orders can be issued to auditors and consultants. It will give the NDIS commission the power to issue anti-promotion orders, to restrict unscrupulous providers from promoting products or services that undermine the integrity of the NDIS. These are commonsense measures, and they are ready to go.

We know that there is still more work to be done. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS, I know the minister has referred to our committee an inquiry into fraud to recommend future measures. This is something that I know the committee is already looking at in public hearings around the country, to hear from participants firsthand about their experience, to make sure that we can continue to increase integrity, to crack down on fraud and to increase compliance. Our goal over time is to create an integrated system where compliance is easy and noncompliance is hard, because it's what participants deserve, and it's what they'll get from us.

The reforms in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025 are long overdue. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has been rife with fraud and corruption since it began. This is always what happens when the government creates a new scheme with a new pot of taxpayers' money. Governments always fail to put in place effective integrity standards and quality safeguards at the beginning. Criminals and grifters exploit the scheme, preying on the taxpayer, and the government only then realises safeguards are necessary. One Nation supports the NDIS to provide reasonable and necessary support for Australians with significant disability. We strongly believe most Australians support it too. However, that support will evaporate unless fraud and corruption are stopped. That support will disappear unless the scheme is returned to its original purpose. One Nation welcomes new requirements imposed on NDIS providers, although we believe these should have been in place from the start. This is a classic case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted.

In this particular case, billions of taxpayers' dollars have gone down the drain without providing any help to any Australian with a disability. We'll never get any of it back. The coalition turned a blind eye to it for years. At least Labor has tried to implement reforms to make the NDIS less corrupt and more sustainable, and One Nation has supported these moves. We'll work with anyone, provided it's in Australia's best interests. However, One Nation understands that much more has to be done to ensure the survival of the NDIS.

I've been out and about in South Australia and the federal seat of Farrer these past couple of weeks. Members of the community have approached me with amazing stories about the NDIS. These stories reinforce the need to overhaul the entire scheme. One of these stories involves the NDIA wanting to give a family $80,000 from the NDIS, which they did not ask for and do not need, just because their son is on the autism spectrum. I am pleased the family saw this as a rort and declined. I've heard similar stories from others whilst also hearing that participants with significant or severe disabilities are not having their more urgent needs met. The NDIS was not originally intended for people with mild autism, but now more than $10 billion per year goes to participants with autism. There's now evidence that some parents go shopping for doctors and looking for an autism diagnosis for their children just to get onto the NDIS. This is plain and simple corruption, and it needs to stop if the NDIS is going to be sustainable.

We must further limit eligibility for the NDIS to Australians with significant disability. We must also limit eligibility of certain treatments and therapies. An obvious example is the NDIS payment for sex worker services, which remains illegal in some jurisdictions. Another big factor in the budget blow-out of the NDIS is pay rates. Specialists like psychiatrists and registered nurses are paid up to three times more under the NDIS than in any other health sector. Not only is this unsustainable and unjustified but it is causing a critical shortage of these specialists in other health sectors, like aged care, disability care, veteran care and overwhelmed public hospitals.

Unskilled workers under the NDIS are being paid obscene amounts of money to do things like fold laundry or drive participants to medical appointments. The basic rate on a working day in a major city is $67 per hour, rising to more than $200 per hour in regional areas and even more on weekends and public holidays. It's no wonder that a third of the new jobs created by the Albanese government are in the NDIS itself. It's no wonder that NDIS spending will reach $52 billion this financial year—almost as much as the entire Defence budget. These are the factors One Nation demands be addressed so the NDIS can survive on the continued goodwill of the Australian taxpayers to fund it.

To listen to Senator Mulholland, who spoke before me, say Labor are the ones calling for accountability and for fraud to stop—if that's the case, why didn't the government support my inquiry last week into fraud that's happening? No, they don't want to and they won't go far enough to shut down this fraud that's happening here. We're talking about 300,000 service providers out there. Only around about 20,000 are registered. People are joining the scam because it is an absolute scam, ripping off the taxpayer, which will cost the taxpayer an estimated $100 billion by 2032.

I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved to this bill, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Integrity and Safeguarding) Bill 2025.

The NDIS has been transformational for the lives of people with disability and for their families, and I am determined to see it take its rightful place amongst the pillars of our uniquely Australian social safety net. This bill is a significant step in the right direction. I thank the thousands of people with disability, their families, support workers and providers as well as the broader community for coming forward and sharing their stories in consultations on this bill, in consultations on scheme reform and in the disability royal commission. We have heard these stories, and for many they have not been easy stories to tell. To those people: you have made a difference. We've heard your stories and we've heard the need for change. We heard that, when things go wrong, far too often vulnerable people do not get the support they need, and that safeguards around fraud and integrity in the NDIS desperately need strengthening.

Under the former coalition government, the NDIS was rendered a soft target. Fewer than 30 staff in the NDIA worked on fraud. Under this government, there are hundreds. Under the coalition, just 30 warrants were issued across four years from 2018 to 2021. Under this government, 77 warrants were executed in just 2025. Under the coalition, there were just five prosecutions in their last year in office. Under this government, 21 prosecutions have commenced already in this financial year.

We are making progress against those who prey on people with disability and the NDIS, but cracking down on bad actors trying to take advantage of the scheme requires further legislative change. This bill aims to address that. It will give the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission additional powers to be the regulator that participants and the scheme need and deserve. It will help the commission step out on the front foot by giving them strengthened regulatory powers and a long-overdue opportunity to be proactive instead of reactive. It will increase deterrence factors, with penalties consistent with our work health and safety laws, recognising that the lives of people with disability are valued as much by this parliament as the lives of any other Australians. Providers who intentionally or negligently harm participants in their care will be held accountable and feel the full force of the law.

Some senators have suggested that this bill does not tackle unregistered providers. This is false. Many of the penalties in this bill apply both to registered and unregistered providers. Banning orders apply both to registered and unregistered providers. All providers are required to adhere to the NDIS Code of Conduct.

Our message to fraudsters is a simple one. If you are banned from the NDIS but choose to contravene that banning order, you do not belong in the disability sector—you belong in prison. If you think you can get rich and cut corners by operating without registration when it is required, you also belong in prison. And, if you think you can get away with shonky marketing which tricks NDIS participants into misusing their funding, then we will fine you as much as $400,000.

We want the scheme to work for participants, not for people looking to make a buck off the back of exploiting people with disability. We know that there is more to do, and I look forward to the work over the coming months of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, led by the formidable member for Corangamite, to consider further measures the government can take to safeguard the integrity of the scheme.

I thank senators for the many sincere contributions made to this debate over the last hour. Many have indicated support for the bill, which I appreciate. I thank the Liberal and Greens representatives who have worked with my office on amendments. I've written to Senator Steele-John confirming the government's intention to consult further on whistleblower protections and can confirm our support for the amendments you intend to move in relation to whistleblowers. There are a number of other amendments that will be moved—including, I understand, opposition amendments—which the government will also support. There are others we cannot support, and I will explain that in the committee stage. Lastly, I want to thank, again, the disability community for their advocacy on these reforms. I am confident they will make a difference and I commend the bill to the chamber.

 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3718 moved on behalf of Senator Ruston be agreed to.

by leave—On the coalition's second reading amendment on sheet 3718, could I please have it recorded that Senator Payman supports parts (a) and (f) and opposes parts (b), (c), (d) and (e).

I move:

(1) Schedule 2, item 2, page 35 (after line 6), at the end of section 29A, add:

(7) Any notice given under this section to a participant must also be given to the participant's plan nominee.

(2) Schedule 2, page 35 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:

2A After paragraph 78(1)(b)

Insert:

or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A;

2B After paragraph 78(5)(b)

Insert:

or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A;

2C After paragraph 79(1)(b)

Insert:

; or (c) withdrawing as a participant under section 29A.

2D Subsection 79(2)

After "a request", insert "(other than a request under section 29A)".

(3) Schedule 2, item 3, page 35 (lines 7 to 9), to be opposed.

As mentioned in my speech, we've circulated this amendment to close off an unintended loophole with the introduction of the 90-day cooling-off period. This loophole would allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme or cancel a withdrawal, even against the participant's wishes. The correspondence nominee is there to assist, not to make decisions against the participant's wishes. If that line is blurred, it risks removing agency from the people the NDIS is meant to empower.

The coalition amendment makes it clear that these decisions must remain with the participant. We have worked with the government and we are pleased that the government has indicated that it will agree to our amendment and support this. We believe this is a sensible and practical change that will close the loophole to protect participant choice.

I can indicate, as I did in my second reading contribution, that the government supports the amendment moved by the coalition. We thank the coalition for reaching out to us and working with us to draft an appropriate response to the issue that was identified during the committee stage.

The committee identified that an unintended consequence of the way that the provisions had been drawn in the bill would be to allow a correspondence nominee to withdraw a participant from the scheme. That is beyond the scope of what was intended as the role of the correspondence nominee, and the government supports clarifying that the planned nominee is best placed to exercise this function.

The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 3719 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that item (3), schedule 2 on sheet 3719 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

I move the amendment on sheet 3687:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 3, page 38 (lines 1 to 15), to be opposed.

To facilitate the quick passage of the legislation, I'm happy not to speak to it.

The question is that part 3 of schedule 2 stand as printed.

by leave—I record Senator Payman's support for that amendment.

Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the time allotted for debate on this bill has now expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bills. I'll first deal with the amendment circulated by the government. The question is that the amendment on sheet JQ106 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question now is that the amendments on sheet 3651 be agreed to.

by leave—Could I please have Senator Payman's support for that vote recorded.

The question now is that the amendment on sheet 3751 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 2, item 5, page 36 (after line 22), after subsection 45(3B), insert:

(3BA) However, the CEO must not require under subsection (3B) the person to give information or documents unless the CEO is satisfied that requiring the information or documents would not unreasonably interfere with or prejudice the person's privacy.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to have Senator Payman's position recorded.

Leave granted.

Senator Payman opposes that amendment.

The question now is that the amendments on sheet 3758 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 38 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Whistleblower amendments

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

1 Subsection 73ZA(1)

Omit "is" (wherever occurring), substitute "is or was".

2 Paragraphs 73ZA(1)(a) to (c)

Omit "has", substitute "has or had".

3 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(b)

Repeal the paragraph.

4 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(c)

Omit "Act; and", substitute "Act.".

5 Paragraph 73ZA(2)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

6 After section 73ZB

Insert:

73ZBA Confidentiality of identity of disclosers

(1) A person (the first person) contravenes this subsection if:

(a) another person (the discloser) makes a disclosure of information (the qualifying disclosure) that qualifies for protection under this Division; and

(b) the first person discloses either of the following (the confidential information):

(i) the identity of the discloser;

(ii) information that is likely to lead to the identification of the discloser; and

(c) the confidential information is information that the first person obtained directly or indirectly because of the qualifying disclosure; and

(d) the disclosure of the confidential information by the first person:

(i) is to a person other than the discloser; and

(ii) is not authorised under subsection (2).

Civil penalty: 30 penalty units.

(2) A disclosure of the confidential information by the first person is authorised under this subsection if:

(a) the disclosure is made to the Commissioner or the Agency; or

(b) the disclosure is made to any of the following:

(i) a member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979);

(ii) a special member of the Australian Federal Police (within the meaning of that Act);

(iii) a member of the police force or police service of a State or Territory;

(iv) a prosecutor; or

(c) the disclosure is made to a legal practitioner for the purpose of obtaining legal advice or legal representation in relation to the operation of this Division; or

(d) the disclosure is made with the consent of the discloser, or the discloser has acted in a way that is inconsistent with keeping the discloser's identity confidential; or

(e) the disclosure is necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat to the safety, health or wellbeing of one or more individuals; or

(f) the disclosure is made to a court, tribunal or a Royal Commission (within the meaning of the Royal Commissions Act 1902); or

(g) the discloser elects to have the qualifying disclosure managed as a complaint, and the disclosure is for purposes relating to making, managing or resolving the complaint; or

(h) both of the following apply:

(i) the confidential information is in the public domain before the disclosure is made;

(ii) the original disclosure of the confidential information into the public domain (before the disclosure is made) was not in contravention of subsection (1).

Note: For paragraph (g), the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules may deal with how complaints may be made, managed and resolved (see section 73X).

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:

(a) the confidential information disclosed by the first person:

(i) is not the identity of the discloser; and

(ii) is reasonably necessary for the purposes of dealing with the contravention that the qualifying disclosure indicates an NDIS provider has, or may have, made; and

(b) the first person takes all reasonable steps to reduce the risk that the discloser will be identified as a result of the disclosure of the confidential information.

(4) In this section, prosecutor means a person who institutes or is responsible for the conduct of a prosecution of an offence.

7 Application

(1) The amendments of section 73ZA of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a disclosure of information by the discloser on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) Section 73ZBA of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a disclosure of information by the first person on or after the commencement of this item, whether that information was obtained by the first person before, on or after that commencement.

All those in favour, say aye; those against, no. The ayes have it? Is a division required? Ring the bells for one minute.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

by leave—We would like to cancel that division and not call for a division.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to have Senator Payman's position recorded.

Leave granted.

Senator Payman supports that question.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3647 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 2, page 38 (after line 15), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4 — Plan management

National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013

13 Subsection 43(2AA)

Repeal the subsection.

14 Paragraph 43(3)(c)

Omit "or (aa)".

15 Paragraph 43(6)(d)

Omit "or (aa)".

16 Paragraph 43(7)(a)

Omit "(2AA),"

17 Paragraphs 44(1)(aa) and (2A)(aa)

Repeal the paragraphs.

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Act 2024

18 Paragraph 132(e) of Schedule 1

Omit "and".

19 Paragraphs 132(f) and (g) of Schedule 1

Repeal the paragraphs.

by leave—I ask that Senator Payman's opposition to that question be recorded.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I present the report on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee on democracy and human rights in Myanmar, and I move:

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

I rise to speak on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026. This is legislation that affects the increasing pressure on our legal frameworks to keep pace with rapid technological change. The bill has been worked through with a number of stakeholders over a very long period of time, and, in the position of a coalition, it strikes the appropriate balance in ensuring that copyright laws keep up with technology. The coalition recognises the importance of maintaining a strong, modern and balanced copyright system—one that protects creators whilst at the same time enabling access to knowledge and innovation. Copyright law underpins Australia's creative industry and supports jobs, but, more than that, it ensures that those who produce original work are fairly treated. At the same time, though, we do acknowledge that the way Australians engage with content, through digital platforms, online education and emerging technologies, has evolved significantly. It is appropriate that parliament considers reforms to ensure that the copyright system in Australia remains fit for purpose.

One of the key features of this bill is the introduction of an orphan works scheme. In principle, this reform seeks to unlock material where copyright owners cannot be identified or located, allowing it to be used under a regulated framework. The coalition sees merit in reducing unnecessary barriers to accessing historical and cultural works. There is value in enabling researchers, educators and institutions to make use of materials that would otherwise remain inaccessible. However, we must be clear: any such scheme must be implemented with care. Safeguards are essential to ensure that the rights of creators are not inadvertently undermined. Where ownership can be established, those creators must continue to receive appropriate recognition and protection.

The bill we have before the Senate also addresses online learning, clarifying that copyright rules extend into digital classrooms. This reflects the reality of the modern education system, particularly following the expansion of remote learning in recent years. We support efforts to provide clarity for teachers, students and families. Access to education regardless of where a person lives is critical, and the law should not create unnecessary uncertainty in delivering that access. That said, we must ensure that these changes do not shift the balance too far. Educational access must be supported but not at the expense of industries that produce the very content that is actually being used. We believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring that artists and content creators are paid appropriately for their work and ensuring, at the same time, that educational institutions still have appropriate access to that content.

More broadly, this bill sits within a wider conversation about how copyright interacts with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence. These are complex and evolving issues. Whilst this legislation does take some steps forward—and that is why we are supporting it—it is unlikely to be the final word. For that reason, the coalition emphasises the importance of ongoing scrutiny and accountability. We will be closely monitoring the implementation of this legislation, and we want to ensure that: the orphan works scheme operates as intended, without disadvantage in the rights of holders; educational provisions are applied fairly and responsively; and creators and industries continue to receive strong protection under Australian law.

If unintended consequences arise, the coalition will not hesitate to advocate for adjustments. As I said, the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 does take a step forward and represent a step forward in terms of modernising our copyright framework. It reflects changing technologies—we know that's occurring—and certainly the new ways of learning and creating. But reform must always be accompanied by vigilance. The coalition will support a system that is balanced, fair and sustainable. And, as Senator Duniam knows full well, we will continue to hold the government accountable to that standard.

I rise on behalf of my party, the Greens, to indicate that we are supporting the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026, and I note that one of the key benefits of this legislation is that it provides for an orphan works scheme. But in the short time available to me I wish to read onto the record our concerns about the operation of the proposed section 28. There are competing interests at play in the debate over the proposed section 28: the interests of copyright holders, creatives and others to ensure that they are adequately remunerated for their creativity and their work as well as the interests, particularly in public education, to have clear and ready access to copyright materials for the purposes of teaching and particularly for the purposes of giving access to online education.

There is much ongoing debate about the intent and the purposes of section 28 of the bill. The schools Copyright Advisory Group—what I'll call 'CAG Schools' going forward—made it clear in their comments, which the Greens support, that remote learning reforms are vital to ensure that Australian schools can fully realise contemporary teaching methods—

Order, Senator Shoebridge. It being 1.30, we're at the hard marker, and we'll now go to two-minute statements.

Last week marked a significant moment for women's sport both in Australia and internationally. The International Olympic Committee has confirmed that eligibility for female categories at the Olympic Games will be restricted to biological females. This decision reinforces the fundamental principles of fairness, safety and integrity that underpin competitive sport. While this outcome will be welcomed by many female athletes, it raises a deeper question: should recognising biological reality really be considered a victory or simply the restoration of common sense? It is concerning that it has taken years of debate by governing bodies to acknowledge what has long been understood.

This decision has been driven not solely by activism but also by medical and scientific expertise. It reflects a growing recognition that biological differences between males and females have a direct and material impact on performance, safety and competitive fairness. As Australia prepares to host the Brisbane 2032 Olympic Games, this ruling provides clear guidance; however, there remain inconsistencies at a national level. Australia's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody, has publicly stated that she does not understand the term 'biological sex' and cannot define what it constitutes to be a biological male. That position is deeply concerning on its own. It is a clear conflict to have someone in such a position who cannot recognise the very distinction that underpins female sport. If Australia is to maintain credibility as a host nation, our leadership must align with international standards and provide clarity. Dr Cody's position as it stands is untenable. We tell young girls that hard work and dedication will lead to opportunity. Maintaining female-only categories is how we protect fairness, safety and equal opportunity for women. (Time expired)

Our government knows that families are under pressure, and that's why our No. 1 focus remains the here and now for every single Australian. The conflict in the Middle East is pushing up fuel prices here at home and putting pressure on families, farmers and small businesses. That's why our government is taking every practical measure required to shield our nation and household budgets from the very worst of this global uncertainty. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that our government is halving the fuel excise on petrol and diesel for three months to make fuel cheaper for Australians who are under pressure, and we're cutting the heavy-vehicle road user charge to zero for three months to help truckies continue their vital work of keeping Australia moving.

Despite what those opposite have said, our government has been acting, before this conflict broke out and during the conflict, to ensure that we have action on fuel. We passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies for price gouging. We have appointed a new national fuel supply taskforce coordinator and taskforce. We released 20 per cent of Australia's petrol and diesel reserves and targeted those reserves to our regional areas. We've changed fuel standards, changed diesel standards, tasked the ACCC with ramping up fuel price monitoring and engaged with international partners to keep supply flowing, including securing a supply agreement with Singapore. We've introduced laws to make companies pay truckies fairly, and we've introduced legislation to underwrite the purchase of fuel by the private sector. We want Australians to have the strongest possible plan so we're ready for what may come, and we're responding in the Australian way—by looking after people. We want to keep our people, our economy and our nation moving.

The Israeli government overnight has just locked in an apartheid death penalty for Palestinians, paving the way for summary executions through a rigged system of military tribunals, completely outside the rule of law. It is a disgraceful and profound escalation of the genocide against Palestinians, and it is spearheaded by the war criminals Netanyahu and Ben-Gvir. Yet today, the National Press Club here in Canberra is going to hand the Israeli ambassador a microphone and give him a cup of tea and a platform to advocate for genocide.

He should not be platformed in this way, but, considering he is being handed this platform, the question has to become, 'Will the Australian media hold him to account?' I say it is very unlikely that they will, because many Australia journalists and media outlets have been disgraceful and have discredited themselves in the way they have covered this genocide. They use passive language, they avoid holding Israel responsible, and they deliberately strip Palestinian people of their humanity. They take free junkets to Israel—trips that buy their silence, their complicity and their defence of a genocide. Meanwhile, journalists who speak out are pushed out or punished, and accusations of antisemitism are deployed to shut down criticism. From the way this has unfolded, many Australian journalists and many Australian media outlets stand condemned.

The Greens are here to stand up this for natural justice, to stand up against apartheid, to stand up against genocide and to say, 'Free Palestine.' (Time expired)

This coming weekend is Easter, when Christians across Australia will commemorate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on Good Friday and his resurrection on Easter Sunday. I know, for many millions of Australians, this is an important spiritual occasion. This is also an important family occasion and an important festive occasion. Even if you do not believe strictly in the story of Jesus or his resurrection, I think his life—and there is no doubt that he lived and preached and was crucified and died—and his moral lessons continue to shape the society we live in today. The things he taught—the values he taught—about the inherent dignity and rights and freedoms of each individual no matter how humble their background, the equal accountability of the powerful and the powerless, and our duty towards our neighbours and our fellow citizens are values that have shaped Australia and should continue to shape Australia. I say to those who are passionate believers and those who are just Australians: I hope you have a happy and safe and blessed Easter.

I also want to extend my Passover greetings to Australia's Jewish community, because with this calendar, as Jesus went to Jerusalem at Passover, the calendars coincide—Passover and Easter. Passover of course commemorates the liberation of Israelites from ancient Egyptian slavery. It's also a story of redemption and freedom and defiance against the powerful and survival against the odds. Many Jews celebrating Passover this year will be doing so in sad and tragic circumstances after the events of Bondi last year. They should never have to fear for their safety when celebrating and commemorating their religion. Chag Pesach Sameach.

On Sunday in Boorloo, Perth, on Whadjuk Noongar Boodja, my community came together in Forrest Place to reclaim the space that was shaken by hate. For tens of thousands of years, this place was part of a living system of wetlands, a place of meeting and belonging. Today it remains Boorloo's civic heart. What occurred on 26 January was an attack not only on First Nations people but also on a right to gather safely and belong. The racially motivated act intended to spread fear and division. When bigotry tries to silence, we speak louder. When fear takes hold, we reclaim the space through courage and solidarity. The harm was real. People were afraid to wear their colours. Elders felt safer to hide who they were. Some still replay that moment when the IED landed at their feet. The weight our mob now carries is still real.

Coming together does not erase that hurt, but it restores something vital in our community. Families, elders and young people gathered in culture and reflection to say clearly, 'This space belongs to our community, not to hate.' They stood alongside allies such as the premier of Western Australia, Roger Cook; federal Minister for Indigenous Australians, Malarndirri McCarthy; and Assistant Minister Patrick Gorman—united in support. We know there is no simple fix to racism or extremism—not a framework, not a motion, not words alone. Real change demands more, and our government takes that responsibility seriously. Leadership was shown by our community on Sunday. In a place where fear was planted, people returned with culture, pride and unity. Forrest Place will not be remembered for the cowardice of the attacker but for how our community responded, stood strong and will continue to.

One message coming through loud and clear from people here in Canberra that I represent, communities across the country and stakeholders representing them is that there's an expectation that our governments do far more in the face of the current crisis. Yes, a 26c per litre cut to the fuel excise makes a great headline, but are we actually going to see that flow through to people at the bowser? We've got politicians who get a car from the Commonwealth and get a fuel card telling people that, on Wednesday, they're going to see a reduction in fuel prices. That's not what the fuel retailers are saying. They're saying it will take quite a while for that to flow through. Is it a good headline? Yes, every cent counts, but I don't think this really cuts it in terms of our response.

People were expecting far more out of yesterday's National Cabinet. If we're going to spend $2.5 billion, surely it should be more targeted, and we need to be looking at all options. We need measures that are targeted to people who need it the most in our communities. Every time you talk about this thing, people talk about the cost. We could implement a 25 per cent tax on gas exports tomorrow, and start to bring in funds for things like immediate funding for food banks nationwide—they're asking for $5 million in surge funding—free public transport for pensioners and those on fixed incomes and discounted public transport, so we could actually save fuel where we can in the cities for regional areas. We could see immediate increases in the base rate of safety net payments and things like Commonwealth rent assistance. We could be doing more when it comes to price gouging. People know that simply doubling the fines on something that's very hard to get petrol stations on is just signalling. We can actually address the root cause of the challenges we're facing.

Well, 937 fuel stations is the number of fuel stations that have no fuel right now. That's 50 more than last week. Yet, what does the government keep telling us? 'There's not a problem. In fact, we have more fuel than we had before the crisis began.' Try telling that to farmers who can't get fuel or fertiliser to harvest or plant. Try telling that to small mining companies who can't operate their mine. Try telling that to local governments who don't have fuel to pick up rubbish. This is not a problem of supply. This is a problem of distribution, and we have been raising it for five weeks since this began. It seems unbelievable to me that the government continues to gaslight Australians, saying: 'There's no problem. It must be your problem. Maybe you bought too much fuel.' How ridiculous is that, when Australia's cost of living is already going through the roof thanks to out-of-control spending under this government. This only makes it worse, when farmers are talking about if it's worth harvesting their crop, much less sending it to the supermarkets.

This is a fuel crisis that the government is not managing. The fuel tsar, who also manages water—we all know that oil and water don't mix—tells us she'll have the report back in a month. It's cold comfort to most of us. The Prime Minister told the Australian people that he would turn up when things got tough. But now that things have got tough, the system has started to crack, and Labor is not showing up. They're choosing to gaslight the Australian people instead. The coalition believes in Australia. We will drill more, we will mine more, and we will have more domestic gas production.

One in 75 Australians carry a DNA variant, but many don't know it. I want to talk briefly about one of those Australians who I have the pleasure of recently meeting. Kara grew up knowing that breast cancer ran in her family. Her mum and both grandmothers had breast cancer. Despite that history, Kara was told again and again by doctors that she was too young to be tested and that she might consider it later in life, perhaps when she was 50.

Then Kara's dad saw a story on The Project about a world-first pilot study led by Dr Jane Tiller, who is here in the gallery alongside Professor Paul Lacaze, at Monash University—the DNA Screen program. Kara applied, was accepted and consequently learnt that she carries a BRCA2 variant. That information changed her life. It meant access to the right specialists, a clear understanding of her risk, early detection through annual MRIs and real options for prevention.

Genetic testing has extraordinary value when it is used for prevention, not punishment. It saves lives. I'm proud that the Albanese government is banning life insurers from using adverse genetic test results to discriminate against Australians for being proactive about their own health care. The Senate will consider that the legislation here tomorrow. No-one should be discouraged from undertaking genetic testing because they fear that the results will be used to exclude them from being able to get affordable life insurance. That means better prevention, earlier treatments, stronger public health outcomes and advances in scientific knowledge that will benefit every single Australian. When variants are detected early, prevention and intervention become possible. Thank you very much, Dr Jane Tiller, Professor Paul Lacaze and all involved in your team for your leadership, your advocacy and your research.

Last night the Four Corners expose revealed that in just one year universities spend $1.8 billion of public money on consultants. And what did this $1.8 billion achieve for universities? It was governance failure after governance failure, thousands of job cuts and gutting of hundreds of courses across universities.

When university councils are stacked with corporate appointees and conflict-of-interests are rife, it's really no wonder that billions of dollars of public funds are lining the pockets of private consultants. So this is not surprising, but it is actually shocking that so much public money is splashed on consultants while staff and students suffer under unfair conditions, heavy workloads and higher and higher fees. University VCs who are paid obese and obscene salaries have been all too willing to sign the cheque and implement the neoliberal corporate agenda of their consultant buddies.

The corporate university model has resulted in $50,000 arts degrees courtesy of the disastrous JRG scheme. It is a model that has turned higher education, a public good, into a market for profit-seeking firms and posterity obsessed executives, even though they are very happy to walk away bloated pay packets. The Labor government is tinkering around the edges, and that's not going to cut it. The systemic decay of consultant capture and the ruthless corporate culture need complete overhaul of governance, accountability, transparency, funding and fees. The evidence provided by NTEU staff and students, very bravely, again and again, has been damning, so I shout out all of them. University staff should be— (Time expired)

Just turning down the temperature. With Palestinian Prisoners Day coming up on 17 April, I want to speak the truth this parliament too often avoids. Since 1967 over one million Palestinians have been detained under Israeli's military system. Today nearly more than 9½-thousand, including children, are imprisoned. Many are held indefinitely without charge under so-called administrative detention based on secret evidence. Often their crime is nothing more than throwing stones or sharing a social media post criticising the genocide.

And yesterday Israel passed a new law to sentence Palestinian prisoners to death by hanging without clemency. This is not justice but oppression and apartheid. If these practices were undertaken by any other country, we would condemn them.

Last week, UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese—the real good Albanese—released a report finding that Israel's use of torture is systematic, forming part of what she identifies as a genocidal project. Palestinians are beaten, subjected to sexual violence, starvation and psychological terror, both inside prisons and across the occupied territories. This system of organised cruelty and collective punishment is designed to crush dignity and resistance and break a people.

Australia claims to support human rights while turning a blind eye. Foreign minister Wong must impose targeted sanctions on Israeli officials and entities responsible for this system, support International Criminal Court investigations and urgently investigate Australians serving in the Israeli military. Silence is complicity. We must stand for justice, accountability and the fundamental right of Palestinians to live free from occupation, apartheid and genocide. Free Palestine!

I rise to call out the Albanese Labor government for its deeply flawed rollout of its aged-care reforms. This week, I joined with colleagues from across the parliament to demand urgent action to protect older Australians from the consequences of these failures. This is a damning indictment on a government that is causing real harm. Labor promised no older Australians would be worse off under its reforms. That promise has been broken in so many ways.

Costs for essential home-care services have exploded, driven by additional red tape and rigid rules that are choking providers and denying older Australians the care that they need. The government is essentially letting a robot decide the care needs of older Australians, without any human override. Home-care funding is being rationed through the introduction of interim packages, where they are only delivering 60 per cent of the care that is needed. And the waitlists continue to grow, with more than 234,000 older Australians now waiting for support, including more than 131,000 who are waiting an average of 10 months for a home-care package that they have been assessed as needing.

This is Labor's aged-care crisis, and it is only getting worse. This failed rollout of its aged-care reforms is hurting older Australians and putting more pressure on our broader health system. Minister Rae has been completely missing in action, and it is clear he and the government have no plan to fix these issues. Instead, he is deflecting responsibility to the regulator. The Albanese Labor government must take responsibility for its own crisis, starting by immediately introducing human override to its harmful assessment algorithm.

I would like to wish a happy Easter to all Australians. This holiday is a time for family and friends to gather and reflect on their faith. In particular, I want to shine a light on the good men in Australia who are away from their families this Easter. Here in parliament we will take a break for Easter. We get to go home and spend time with our loved ones. But in my home state of Western Australia, where 80 per cent of our 60,000 FIFO workers are men, many will not have the chance to see their families. They're keeping the lights on for the rest of us, keeping the Australian economy strong and sacrificing their time for their family's sake. I want to say thank you to all you and to all hardworking Aussies, our frontline workers and people in uniform.

I also want to speak to those good men that have been separated from their children and families at this time. There are many men, good men, that have been treated unfairly by the family law system in Australia. I receive countless messages from men that are desperate after being separated from their family, their children and their support networks by family courts. We have a crisis in this country. We lose too many boys and men—one every three hours—who have become hopeless and who can't see another way out. As a country we have forgotten how to encourage and support our men. We want men that are brave and bold, men who are willing to step up and help those that need protection. We need to fix our courts to make sure that good fathers have the same rights as mothers.

My message to all good men out there that are missing out this Easter is: hang in there. I will continue to fight for you. If you know someone in this situation, reach out to them. Help me support good men.

Right now, Israel's ambassador to Australia, Hillel Newman, is addressing the National Press Club. This is a man who, just three weeks ago, questioned on live television whether the 165 girls killed in the first strike on Iran were even in the school. This is a representative of a country that has perpetrated a genocide in Gaza that continues to this day and a country that is expanding northwards, bombing the people of Lebanon and stealing their land.

Israel bombs hospitals and schools, treats non-Jewish citizens as second class and commits murder and ethnic cleansing with impunity. Overnight, Israel's parliament passed legislation allowing them to impose the death penalty on Palestinian prisoners. When it passed, Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who wore a golden lapel pin in the shape of a noose, popped a bottle of champagne to celebrate. This is the kind of racist dehumanisation that is embedded in the very fabric of our so-called ally.

It is shocking and bizarre that the National Press Club—a champion of media freedom, according to its website—would invite the ambassador of a country that has murdered 300 journalists since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza—and two days ago they murdered another three journalists in Lebanon, dropping four precision missiles on a clearly marked press car. Meanwhile, Australia is increasingly cracking down on free speech in support of Palestinians and criminalising critique of the state of Israel. It is a disgrace that the Israeli ambassador is addressing our National Press Club, and it is a disgrace that Labor has not expelled the Israeli ambassador from this country.

The GST is one of the most important pillars of our national economy. In 2025-26 it will inject more than $96 billion into the economy. This funds our hospitals, schools and essentials. For Tasmania, it is absolutely critical. With GST budget decisions ahead, I must stress that the only real option for Tasmania is full horizontal fiscal equalisation.

Tasmania is an island with a small and ageing population. We face unique structural challenges, and right now Tasmanians are being handed a poorly managed state budget heading in the wrong direction. That is not a burden Tasmanians should have to carry alone. That is why I'm advocating for a return to full HFE as a long-term sustainable policy. HFE helped save the Tasmanian economy, but since the 2018 reforms Western Australia—as Senator Sterle knows—has received $22.4 billion more in GST than under full HFE. The only thing that has minimised the effect on Tasmania is no-worse-off payments, but the necessity shows the system is not fit for purpose.

WA makes a significant contribution, and we acknowledge that, but this is a federation; strength and responsibility should be shared. Smaller states should not be left behind because of geography or circumstance. We are one country. With the right support behind it, Tasmania's economy can grow, creating opportunity in reducing inequality over time. The GST makes up more than 40 per cent of Tasmania's budget. Without it, a state budget already under strain, with debt projected to reach $13 billion by 2028, would reduce Tasmania's quality of life. The consequences would be real—weaker health services, stretched education, struggling families. I will not stand by and watch that happen. Full HFE is fair, responsible and necessary for Tasmania and for the nation.

March is Endometriosis Awareness Month. Endometriosis is a chronic condition that can cause pain, impact fertility and, too often, prevent women and girls from participating fully in their everyday lives. As is so common when it comes to women's health, those living with endo are too often left without the support they need, have had their symptoms dismissed and have had to search tirelessly for answers, empathy and solutions.

This was certainly the case for an amazing resilient young woman I met recently on a visit to Adelaide's Thrive Endo Clinic. She had for years been living with debilitating pain that was simply dismissed by those she sought help from. It wasn't until she found the right care at Thrive, one of the 33 endo clinics funded by our government, that she was able to access the quality of care and the expertise she needed. Her pain had previously been so unbearable that it caused her to withdraw from school. Now she is returning to school and planning her bright future. The treatment this young woman relies on is one of the options added to the PBS by our government which has meant a great deal to her and her family.

When it comes to endometriosis, just as with a broader spectrum of women's health issues, too often women are going unheard, too often their pain is dismissed and too often they aren't getting the care they need—and our government is fighting every day to change that. Since our women's health package was introduced last year, Australian women have saved more than $23 million on contraception and 6,000 women and girls have access endo treatment at PBS prices and have saved almost $5 million on thousands of scripts in the past year alone.

Thank you, Senator Smith. We will move to question time.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Australians are paying record prices for energy, for fuel and for groceries. Everywhere they turn, they are paying more. In the middle of all of this, the government is proposing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars creating over 40 new politicians and increasing the size of parliament. Minister, who is asking for this—the Australian people or the Australian Labor Party?

Can I say, as a general proposition, that the Australian Labor Party is pretty happy with the size and composition of the current parliament. I think that would be the approach we would take, but I am aware—was it Senator Canavan who was keen or the National Party who was keen on increasing the size of the parliament? But I think that's a matter for them.

Senator McGrath, first supplementary?

PBO costings show that expanding parliament by over 40 politicians will cost taxpayers more than $600 million. Minister, how can the government justify spending more than $600 million on more politicians when Australians cannot afford to fill their cars?

Again, I would say that we on this side are happy with the current size and composition of the parliament. It is—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

If I may—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber!

Senator Farrell, come to order. I think that's the first time I've ever called you to order. Minister Wong.

It is, of course, standing practice for the—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Oh, boy! I'll just wait.

Order across the chamber!

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm still waiting. Minister Wong.

It is, of course, standard practice that the multiparty JSCEM undertake a review after every election to consider what we can learn from those elections and the matters that affect our democracy. It's a routine process that is still underway. I don't believe it's even tabled an interim report, so I think you're jumping the gun a bit.

If I may, while I'm on my feet, I congratulate you for taking the top of the Senate ticket, Senator McGrath. But we would say to you that you probably have some self-interest in not wanting the parliament changed. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! This is question time, not yelling-across-the-chamber time. Senator McGrath, second supplementary?

Minister, no party took this to the last election, no voter was consulted and no Australian asked for this. Will the government rule out expanding the size of parliament—yes or no?

Again, we are happy on this side of the chamber with the size and the composition of the parliament. I would say to you, Senator, though, it does seem slightly odd that I have had lectures from you about being out of touch, but, in the middle of a fuel crisis, a conflict in the Middle East and the largest global shock to energy markets in Australian history, you want to talk about yourself.

Minister, please resume your seat.

Government senators interjecting—

Order, senators on my right!

On a point of order, I seek to table the costings from the PBO showing $600 million of taxpayer—

Senator McGrath, resume your seat. Minister Wong, had you concluded your answer?

Yes, thank you.

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The conflict in the Middle East is disrupting global supply chains, impacting the ability to purchase fuel on the global market. This is driving up fuel prices and compounding cost-of-living pressures. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering timely and meaningful relief to households and businesses, and how will the government's decision to temporarily lower the fuel excise deliver further relief?

I thank Senator Dowling for that question on the topic that is attracting a lot of attention from households right across Australia as they deal with the impacts, as Senator Dowling said, from the conflicts in the Middle East and the consequences they're having on the fuel markets. The Middle East conflict has caused real disruption, and Australians are feeling it at the bowser and beyond. But we, the Albanese government, have worked hard to make sure that we are responding in a timely and coordinated way to deal with the consequences of that conflict. We have passed new laws to double the penalty 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 in regional markets and protect supply for critical users; we've temporarily adjusted petrol and diesel standards; we've engaged with international partners and suppliers to support continued shipments; and, of course, we've established the Fuel Supply Taskforce to drive whole-of-government coordination—and we've provided some financial counselling support for impacted farmers because we know that pressure is hitting there hard.

Yesterday, the government took further action, including 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 any urgent and unforeseen fuel supply challenges that may arise. National Cabinet, yesterday, agreed to the National Fuel Security Plan, which has four clear areas: the first is 'Plan and prepare'; the second is to keep Australia moving, which is the stage we're currently at; the third stage is 'Taking targeted action'; and the fourth is 'Protecting critical services for all Australians'. So we are looking at how we can support industry, business and households and make sure there's a continued coordinated response across all governments across Australia as we deal with the impacts of the conflict from the Middle East.

Senator Dowling, first supplementary?

The government is clear that fuel retailers must not use global uncertainty to increase their margins at Australians' expense. How is the government protecting consumers and motorists and ensuring fair pricing at the bowser?

I thank Senator Dowling for that question. It's an important one. The Treasurer has tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel price monitoring, reporting weekly, with a focus on unusual price spikes. We've also empowered the ACCC by doubling penalties for false and misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, with legislation that passed last week.

The ACCC itself has been very clear about targeting misconduct in the fuel sector. They've also announced they're investigating major fuel companies over allegations of market misconduct. Indeed, last month, before the crisis began, they secured a $16 million fine against Mobil for making false or misleading representations around fuel. The ACCC also brought in the fuel companies, into an urgent meeting, to explain their pricing conduct. This focus is really important, and we'll continue to make sure that the decisions we've taken will flow on to motorists, when they go and fill up their car, once that excise comes off.

Senator Dowling, second supplementary?

In a volatile global environment, Australians need confidence in the security and reliability of our fuel supply. What is the government doing to secure Australia's fuel supply and strengthen reliability amid ongoing global uncertainty?

I also thank Senator Dowling for that question, because supply has been a priority, and focusing on supply has been a priority for the Albanese government since this conflict began. Indeed, there's legislation that will come to this place later today to ensure that Export Finance Australia can help industry source additional cargoes overseas. It will do that by making sure there are new powers to keep fuel flowing for Australians by underwriting the purchase of fuel by the private sector.

Already there are discussions happening with local and international fuel suppliers to help firm up and source new cargoes to ensure we're getting the fuel we need when it's needed and where it's needed. It will mean that, in cases where it would be cost prohibitive for private suppliers to source fuel on commercial terms, the government will provide that additional support. It won't subsidise fuel that importers have already contracted to supply, but it will give suppliers confidence to secure additional and discretionary cargoes, which will be used to service uncontracted demand, including regional and independent fuel suppliers.

Thank you, Minister. Senator Hume.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday, the Prime Minister followed the coalition's lead and announced a temporary cut to the fuel excise—you're welcome! But, unlike the coalition, he couldn't point to a single dollar in savings to pay for it. The Reserve Bank has been very clear: Australia's inflation problem is home grown. Inflation is well above the target band, and increasing fuel costs will push it higher still.

Minister, how much will this unfunded decision add to inflation? Or has the Prime Minister not even bothered to ask?

Senator McKenzie, you interjected the whole time that Senator Hume was on her feet, and I found it very hard to hear her question. Questions need to be heard in silence, as do answers.

I thank Senator Hume for her question. I was asked about inflation. I can advise that Treasury estimates indicate that the excise cut could directly reduce headline inflation by around half a percentage point through the year to the June quarter of 2026. I would emphasise that, obviously, the reduction in the fuel excise that is being brought forward is temporary.

In relation to how this is to be funded, I note the boasting from the shadow finance minister—who looked to increase debt and increase deficits and increase taxes—that the coalition's policy was a more responsible policy. I would make the point that the position of the coalition, in relation to what they proposed on excise, was to make electricity bills more expensive, because, in an ideological approach to energy policy, their proposal was to cut the Cheaper Home Batteries Program.

There are around 300,000 Australians, including households and small businesses, who have installed a cheaper home battery. This permanently reduces power bills. It delivers real and lasting cost-of-living relief for families and businesses and benefits everyone by taking pressure off the electricity grid. I would make the point, Senator Hume—through you, President—that the so-called savings that you describe in fact would have ensured that more Australian households had higher energy prices.

Economists today have warned that the government's $2.6 billion fuel excise cuts will add to inflation and will put further pressure on interest rates, because there is not a single dollar of savings that goes alongside them. Is the Prime Minister aware that his version of this policy risks forcing the RBA to raise interest rates and keep them higher for longer? If he is aware, why is he happy to let Australian mortgage holders pay the price for his failure to find savings in the budget?

First, cost-of-living pressures have been a priority for this government since coming into government. I don't need to remind the former shadow finance minister that in fact the inflation challenge under the government of which she was a part was much, much higher. It is the case that Australians are having to deal with higher inflation and interest rates, and we are very conscious of that, which is one of the reasons why cost-of-living measures have been such a priority for our government. I would make the point that the former shadow finance minister was part of a party that voted against a great many of the cost-of-living measures that the government put forward, including tax cuts. It is quite remarkable to record for history the Liberal party opposing tax cuts, isn't it? (Time expired)

Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Minister, Australians are being forced to make difficult choices every single day, including whether they can afford to take their Easter holiday to be with family and friends. Why is it always the case that Australians are forced to make tough choices while the Prime Minister refuses to make any and only ever seems to make the inflation problem worse?

Why is it always the case that you oppose relief for Australian families? That's really the question that Australians were asking after the last election. The economic team that now runs the Liberal Party—Mr Taylor and Senator Hume—went to an election with bigger deficits, more debt and higher taxes and now has the temerity to come in and say, 'By the way, you need some savings.'

You've been in government for four years.

Well, this was less than a year ago, Senator Cash, so you can't run away from the legacy of higher taxes, higher deficits and more debt as quickly as that. I know you want to put it in the rear-view mirror, but we all remember that this is the economic dream team that went to an election with higher taxes for the Liberal Party.

My question is to Senator Wong. Tomorrow will mark two years since the slaughter of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and her six colleagues by Israel. This was no tragic mistake. The clearly marked aid convoy was struck three separate times until they were all killed. Two years on, no-one has been held accountable. Instead of justice, your government has offered platitudes and the inadequate Binskin report. Minister, you could have referred the matter to the ICC, pushed for an international investigation, demanded the release of evidence, imposed consequences or insisted that those responsible be charged. At the very least, you could have honoured Zomi's family's wishes and demanded that Israel give a public apology and compensation to recognise her life and support other aid workers. Beyond quietly raising the issue, what concrete action have you taken to secure justice for Zomi Frankcom?

The death of Zomi Frankcom and her six WCK—World Central Kitchen—colleagues should not have occurred. I have said that clearly many times on behalf of our country to Israel and to the international community. Her tireless work to improve the lives of others should never have cost her life. We have made clear on more than one occasion our expectation that there should be transparency about Israel's ongoing investigation. We continue to press for full accountability, including any appropriate criminal charges. Most recently, the Prime Minister and I personally raised this matter with President Herzog, and we will continue to advocate on the family's behalf.

At the UN General Assembly last year, we honoured the life of Zomi Frankcom by launching the Declaration for the Protection of Humanitarian Personnel, and I thank her brother for being with us on that day. Australia brought together more than a hundred countries to commit to real protections for the people risking their lives to save others. This is about bringing the world together to protect people who risk everything to save innocent lives in war zones. I might make a comment. I don't know if I'm going to be asked this, but I saw some comments in relation to the audio recording. I want to make it very clear to the chamber that we have made representations during and since the Binskin report to Israel on this matter on behalf of the family. We will continue to engage and consult Ms Frankcom's family on their requests.

Senator Faruqi, first supplementary?

Before I ask my next question, I want to give a shout-out to the brave humans Jayden, Ethan, Zack and Anny, who are soon going to be joining the Global Sumud Flotilla. Minister, when an Australian aid worker is murdered—and it is murder; it's not just death in a vacuum—by a genocidal state and your government refuses to take any meaningful action beyond representations, isn't your rhetoric about protecting aid workers completely hollow?

No.

Senator Faruqi, second supplementary?

Minister, aid workers put their lives on the line in the world's most dangerous places. They represent the very best in Australia. Why should any Australian aid worker trust that this government will protect them when, after two years, you have failed to deliver even the most basic accountability for the killing of one of our own?

The phrase 'aid workers are the best of us' is one I have used on a number of occasions. It's one that I used when we, with 100 other countries—and I know you seek to dismiss that, but this is how you work for change: you build coalitions across countries. I know that's not your style. That's not how you—

You like to just yell at people—

but we actually engage with other countries and with the ICRC on this. I again say that the Geneva conventions and international humanitarian law remain central to how Australia seeks to engage with the world and central to the world that Australia advocates for. In the shadow of the worst war the world has known, the international community came together to establish principles of humanitarian law, and we will always seek to defend them. (Time expired)

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator Faruqi, you were heard in complete silence, and that respect needs to be shown to any minister that's answering a question. Senator Allman-Payne, not only are you out of order but I believe you are completely out of order, because that is not your seat, according to my seating plan.

My question today is to my good friend the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell.

Honourable senators interjecting—

That's right, colleagues!

The Albanese government is acting now to prepare and shield Australians from global fuel supply shocks. Last Saturday, the Prime Minister announced new fuel security powers to help keep fuel flowing into Australia. Minister, how do these new powers help secure fuel and keep our people, our economy and our nation moving forward?

I do have some friends in this place! I thank Senator Ciccone, from the great state of Victoria, for his question.

The conflict on the other side of the world is having a real impact on Australians here at home. The Albanese Labor government is acting now to shield Australians from the worst of it. Fuel is available on the international market, but it's becoming more expensive and riskier to secure commercially. That's why the government is stepping in to secure the additional fuel vital to the Australian economy. We're giving Export Finance Australia the financial tools that they need to support companies to get additional fuel shipments. They can provide insurance, derivatives, loans and other arrangements to make sure that those companies can go out and get the fuel cargoes for Australia and for Australians.

This fuel security support from the government will not be business as usual. It will be for additional supplies, and this will ensure that we have a wider range of tools available to respond to Australia's everyday needs. We will not wait for a crisis to deepen before we act. We will prepare for what may come, and we will act ahead of the curve. What we do today will shield Australians from the challenges of tomorrow.

And the government is going further than fuel. Our strategic reserve will secure the supply of strategic materials that are absolutely vital to our growing economy. These include fuel, critical minerals and other goods that may be impacted by the current conflict in the Middle East.

I draw to the attention of senators the presence in the gallery of former senator Mark Arbib.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. As we know, no country is immune from the impacts of this conflict, but the government is acting decisively to ensure that Australia remains prepared and resilient. Minister, can you please outline how the government's announcements on fuel security and fuel excise are helping to keep Australians on the road, supporting tourism that is reliant on businesses across our nation?

I thank Senator Ciccone for his first supplementary question. The Albanese Labor government recognises that global uncertainty is placing pressure on households and businesses, but we're taking practical steps to ease that burden. Our measures on fuel security and temporary fuel excise relief will help families and ensure Australians can stay on the road. Importantly, as the Prime Minister has said, Australians should continue with their Easter plans. By halving the fuel excise, we are lowering costs, we are strengthening supply and we are supporting tourism operators, small businesses and regional communities that very much rely on holiday travel. These actions are about protecting jobs and ensuring Australians can continue to travel, connect and support local economies.

Senator Ciccone, second supplementary?

Thank you, Minister. I'm sure many regional communities at the moment will welcome those people visiting over the Easter period. Australians have seen many petrol stations experiencing temporary shortages due to increased demand, and some businesses are struggling to get their products out of our country. What support is the government providing to these businesses, and what actions is the government taking to diversify trade and build supply chain resilience?

Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for your second supplementary question. I can imagine there will be a lot of people wanting to travel to the Clare Valley over this long Easter weekend. In early March, the Trade Diversification Network was established under our $50 million Accessing New Markets Initiative. The network comprises 40 peak bodies from across Australian industry. Finding options for businesses relying on the gulf is a priority for the network. In addition to whole-of-government efforts, the government, through Austrade, is providing market and logistical support and briefings for thousands of businesses, including on freight and shipping. Austrade is connecting exporters with importers, distributors and logistics providers and providing advice on alternative markets for diversification. We're talking to Australian— (Time expired)

I inform the chamber that Senator Lambie has given her question to Senator David Pocock.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. Minister, the government has made some very welcome commitments to zero new extinctions and protecting 30 per cent of land and seas by 2030, yet, according to the Biodiversity Council, just 0.1 per cent of our federal budget, or $474 million, was spent on nature protection in 2025. At the same time, on the most recent figures, $26 billion in subsidies are flowing to activities that actually harm biodiversity. Can the government meet its environmental commitments without a substantial increase in funding for nature, including the Saving Native Species program?

Thanks, Senator Pocock. It's nice to get a question about the environment, so thank you for asking the question. The Albanese government has committed substantial funding over the last four years towards the preservation of our native species. When we think about how Australia is thought about internationally, of course, very often, when people think of Australia, they think of those unique native species that we have here, whether it be kangaroos, koalas, a range of reptiles, mammals, fish et cetera. It's not only for that reason, of course, that we believe in supporting the preservation and recovery of these species, and it is exactly why we went to the 2022 election with a new funding program around saving native species. I've actually had the privilege of meeting some of the people who have played a really big role in captive breeding programs and other programs that we've been funding to aid the recovery of critically endangered species. It wasn't that long ago that I was at Melbourne Zoo, for example, seeing the good work around the recovery of the Lord Howe Island stick insect and the Victorian grassland earless dragon, just to name a couple of species whose recovery is being supported through the funding provided by our government.

Now we are of course at that point in the budget cycle where a range of groups are making a range of asks regarding funding for existing and new programs. I think this week alone I've had about seven different groups in my office asking for different funding for different kinds of programs, and we'll weigh all those requests up as we make these sorts of considerations during the budget. But whether it be through that program or through the historic environmental law reforms that this parliament passed last year, the Albanese government's record in protecting our native species is second to none.

Senator Pocock, first supplementary.

Thank you, Minister. Minister, we're hearing that the Saving Native Species program faces a funding cliff. I've been hearing from on-the-ground conservation organisations that they're already letting staff go because their funding is coming to an end. Given how critical this on-the-ground work is to the government's goals when it comes to biodiversity, can the government provide these organisations with some certainty that the Saving Native Species program will continue to be funded?

Thanks, Senator Pocock. I suspect that the groups who are speaking to you about this program are the very same groups who've spoken to me and indeed to the Minister for Finance as well, and the Treasurer, about the importance of this program. So, as I said, we are at that point in the budget cycle where all these things are being considered. It is the case that the Saving Native Species program was funded for four years after our election in 2022. That means that the funding for the current program expires on 30 June this year. And of course that, along with a range of other measures, will be considered by the government as we finalise this year's budget.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary.

Minister, as I said, organisations are having to let staff go because of that funding cliff. Does the government believe that 0.1 per cent of the federal budget is enough, given that we're a megadiverse country and a world leader in extinction?

Thanks, Senator Pocock. Well, I haven't verified that figure, and I'd want to make sure that it does truly reflect the broad range of funding programs that exist, not just in my department but in a range of other departments of this government, that go towards protecting biodiversity. In addition to those funding programs, as I've mentioned, we've reformed our environmental laws. We've put in place targets around protecting 30 per cent of—

I'm not sure, Senator Henderson, if you'd really want to be talking about extinct species. But this government has laws, has policies, has funding programs in place towards the preservation and restoration of biodiversity, and I'm sure that a range of those programs will exist post-budget.

My question is to the Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science, Senator Ayres. Minister, I'm keen to understand how the voluntary national expectations that you released last week around data centres will be enforced and big multinational tech companies held to account for complying with them, given that when it came to the under-16 ban on social media the parliament had to pass legislation. It seems to me that when it comes to data centres we have some expectations on our website. How will this be enforced?

Thanks for that question, Senator Pocock, which really goes to not just the announcement that I and the assistant minister, Dr Charlton, made the other day but also to the regulatory framework and investment from large proponents for data centres in Australia.

My starting proposition and the government's starting proposition on this is that we want to see not just investment here in Australia but investment that delivers for Australia. That means engaging with and making sure we capture the opportunities of artificial intelligence for the Australian economy in terms of not just data centres and digital infrastructure but also the rest of the technological stack, and the opportunities for Australian businesses and households. We released the National Artificial Intelligence Plan some months ago, and we indicated to the community that we would announce the investment principles, which we've called the expectations, a few weeks ago. We did that.

They go to prioritising our national interest, supporting energy investment, water sustainability, investing in skills and jobs, and strengthening research innovation and local capability. Of course the compliance rubber hits the road in the states, so the engagement with the states on their planning approvals is fundamental to us achieving our objectives here, particularly in terms of electricity. What this plan sets out very clearly is additional net electricity investment in terms of power purchasing agreements that provide for additional electricity in the system— (Time expired)

Senator Pocock, first supplementary?

Minister, just to clarify, you're saying that the states will enforce your expectations and that there is no federal mechanism to enforce the expectations? I'm concerned about that because Aussies also expect things like a return on our gas but don't get it. How are you actually going to enforce them?

The enforcement proposal is simple. These companies are seeking the federal government's support. Proposals that align with those expectations will receive the support of the federal government. Proposals that don't align will not receive the support of the federal government. The expectations will work alongside existing state and territory legislation, where the majority, as I started to say in response to the first question, of planning approvals—that will require the states and territories meeting with the plan and adopting those principles themselves.

The discussions that we've had as we've consulted with them about this and what they have had to say publicly about this give me a lot of confidence that the states—there will not be a race to the bottom amongst the states and territories. They are backing those principles and backing those expectations.

Senator Pocock, second supplementary?

Minister, I think Australians don't have much faith in big tech companies at all. These are companies that are happy to screw people for profits. I'm interested—if the proposal aligns, how do you ensure that the proposal then meets its commitments around water, around energy, around jobs? It's all well and good to say, 'Yes, we'll do that,' but how are you actually going to ensure that these companies are actually meeting what they say they are going to do?

We'll work with states and territories and market bodies to embed those expectations into, in particular, planning approval frameworks so that Australians can have confidence that a data centre that consumes a certain amount of electricity will underwrite power purchasing agreements that deliver additional electricity to what they consume, that there will be real and practical benefits for Australian companies, particularly in terms of research and development—building out own tech centre.

This technology is important for Australia's competitiveness. It is important for the health of Australians. It is important for our strategic position in the region. I accept absolutely that the reason the government has introduced the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute, the reason we have announced these expectations and will embed them with the states, is to make sure that artificial intelligence investments deliver for Australians.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. Last November, I asked you about the country of origin of refugees in your government's refugee visa program. Your response on notice stated, 'There were no visas granted to citizens of Nigeria or South Africa through the offshore refugee program.' In my question, I pointed out the reason why we're not taking in Christian refugees is that your government is taking refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries or communities. Minister, why is your government not offering refugee status to Christians currently being subject to persecution, violence and murder in Nigeria and South Africa rather than taking the people who are propagating the culture of violence?

I'm always careful, Senator Roberts, to not concede that what you put forward as facts are actually facts, particularly on matters relating to migration because we know that you and your party seek to divide Australians based on the issue of migration. If any evidence of that is needed, it's the conclusion of your question which yet again seeks to tar all Muslim Australians and Muslim migrants with the action of a small minority who do the wrong thing. It wasn't that long ago that your party leader, Senator Hanson, effectively said that there was no such thing as a good Muslim, a statement that we utterly reject and, in fact, Senator Whitten rejected, to his credit.

Senator Roberts?

I have a point of order. That's not accurate; she did not say that. That was a media beat-up.

Senator Roberts, thank you for sitting down when I requested it. Minister Watt, please continue.

Senator Hanson's comments on Muslims were so outrageous that Barnaby Joyce distanced himself from them and Senator Whitten distanced himself from them. I don't recall you distancing yourself from those comments, Senator Roberts, and it's a matter for you to determine how you feel about those statements.

Senator Roberts?

I just did distance myself because the comments weren't accurate.

Senator Roberts, that's not a point of order; it's a debating point. Minister Watt, have you concluded your answer?

What I've said repeatedly in answer to questions from One Nation on the issue of migration in this chamber is that the Albanese government proudly has a policy of not discriminating against migrants based on their religion or other personal attributes. We will always consider the merits of every migration application. Each and every day, we reject applicants who are seeking to move to Australia and migrate to Australia on the basis of character checks and other reasons, but we don't have a blanket rule of stopping all people from a certain faith in the way that One Nation seeks to do.

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Minister, the Syrian Islamic regime of President Abu Mohammad al-Julani is conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites in Syria to turn Syria into a caliphate. The videos are all over social media, and, yes, we have checked them, and they have been authenticated. Minister, will you reduce your Islamic refugee intake and at least balance it with Nigerian and Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite refugees before they too are killed at the hands of Islamists?

Again, Senator Roberts, to your deep shame, you are equating every Muslim who seeks to move to Australia with the actions of what sounds like a reprehensible organisation, and that is not a position that we accept. Our position is that anyone who seeks to get a visa to migrate to Australia should be assessed to ensure that they are of good character, that they don't present a security risk to Australians wherever they're from and whatever their faith is. Senator Roberts, I might need to remind you of the comments of your leader, Senator Hanson. She was asked whether there are good Muslims out there, and she said: 'How can you tell me there are good Muslims?' If that's the kind of language and rhetoric that you think is going to help bring this country together, then that's on you.

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Minister, in your written reply dated 4 November, you twice refer to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and admit that it informs and 'manages' your resettlement intake. Why is your immigration program risking the safety and security of everyday Australians?

It's not, and, Senator Roberts, I know you and your party have sought to profit politically from the awful tragedy we saw at Bondi just before Christmas. It's worth remembering that one of the people involved in those attacks migrated to Australia during the Howard government's period in office and the other of those people was born in Australia. But let's just ignore the facts for a minute, Senator Roberts, hey? That's the way you operate. The way this government operates is that we make decisions about individual applicants based on their character, based on whether they're going to make a positive contribution to Australia and whether they represent a security risk to Australia. We do not have the kind of approach that you are encouraging us to take, and we will always, proudly, stand up for Australian values in terms of who is admitted to this country.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. The price of fuel and fertiliser for regional communities and farmers is rising due to the conflict in the Middle East. In some areas there are shortages. In response, a key focus for the Albanese Labor government is ensuring Australia's supply of fuel and fertiliser is secure and that supplies get to where they are needed. What is the government doing to protect regional communities and businesses from energy and supply chain shocks?

Thank you, Senator Whiteaker, for that question. The first thing I should say particularly for regional communities is that yesterday, on top of a series of other measures that have been undertaken over the last three or four weeks, the Albanese government halved fuel excise. In terms of regional communities, where more fuel is used, obviously, and households have disproportionately lower incomes than in big cities, this has a disproportionately positive effect. We on this side are very proud of that decision.

Secondly, we've cut the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months and will delay the planned increase in that charge by an additional six months. Logistics for regional communities make up a larger proportion of goods prices, so it will have a downward effect on what is happening in terms of goods prices in country communities where, because of increases in the cost of fuel, they are facing sharper increases than city communities are facing.

On fertilisers, our new EFA powers will enable suppliers to meet uncontracted demand, keeping the domestic fertiliser market well supplied and flexible—as flexible and well supplied as we can make it—to meet farmers' changing needs. These are challenging times for Australian agriculture on the back of a series of record years in terms of production, broadly, in Australian agriculture. We are determined to do what we can as a government, working with the states and territories, to support our farming communities, particularly as we approach—

Thank you, Minister. Senator Whiteaker, first supplementary?

Thank you for that answer, Minister. The new underwriting powers for Export Finance Australia will enable suppliers to secure additional shipments of fuel and fertiliser. Why are the new powers for Export Finance Australia particularly important for protecting regional communities?

In particular in relation to fertiliser but also more broadly in relation to fuels, this is a very important set of actions for regional communities. We are not here undercutting the domestic market. What the government is doing is de-risking additional fertiliser shipments for private suppliers that are otherwise, in their judgement and the feedback we've got from industry—very clearly—sometimes too risky to order without firm contracts. It will keep the fertiliser market more flexible and mean that Australian procurers overseas are in the front of the queue instead of the back of the queue because they have that support from Export Finance Australia and from the Australian government. It puts Australian suppliers and Australian farmers in a stronger competitive position. (Time expired)

Senator Whiteaker, second supplementary?

The Albanese Labor government has prioritised strengthening Australia's sovereign capability. What has the government done to make sure Australian supply chains are more resilient?

If I can take one example, the intervention by the Albanese government jointly with the Crisafulli government in Queensland to support the copper smelter operations in Mount Isa means that Australia's only domestic manufacturer of monoammonium phosphate and di-ammonium phosphate is open today. Despite those opposite saying they would not have done that intervention and criticising it up hill and down dale, we have domestic fertiliser production in Australia for two reasons: (1) our Future Made in Australia agenda is making Australia stronger and supporting businesses like that specific business; and (2) the decision by the government to announce a gas reservation strategy supported the ongoing operations of that business. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Saturday, at a press conference in Sydney, the Prime Minister said:

I was with the head of Bunnings just last weekend, had a discussion with him. They've run out of jerry cans. That's not sensible. People need to act responsibly at this time.

Is the Prime Minister correct that Bunnings has run out of jerry cans?

This is—okay—the question on the economy. I am not across Bunnings' inventory, but I can say to you that—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

But I am across why—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! I do need to hear the minister's response. Minister Wong, please continue.

But I am across the circumstances which led a number of Australians to buy jerry cans and to fuel up, and they are, of course, the conflict in the Middle East. I know the opposition appear to not want to treat this seriously today, but there is a serious question about how we deal with the largest global shock to energy markets since the 1970s. That is a serious economic and policy question, and it is an important issue for public figures to manage responsibly.

What I'd say to the opposition is: we laid out yesterday a very clear plan that responded to the growing challenges in global energy markets. We have obviously been acting prior to this. You've seen the release of 20 per cent of the minimum stockholding obligations. You've seen changes to the fuel regulations, to enable more fuel produced in Australia to be used here. You've seen the way in which the government has sought to deal with this issue. Then, on Saturday, you saw the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen make a very important announcement, which Senator Farrell was also engaged in, which was about more supply—to use Export Finance Australia to de-risk some of the purchases on the private market to increase supply. These are serious matters involving serious considerations. (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that entirely non-responsive answer. A spokesman for Bunnings told Samantha Maiden from news.com.au yesterday:

Bunnings has not run out of jerry cans.

As the Prime Minister said himself, people need to act responsibly at this time. How is it responsible to add to Australians' anxiety with baseless misinformation like this?

There's conflict in the Middle East involving around 12 countries, Iran is holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, 20 per cent of the global supply of oil is affected—70 per cent of the oil coming to our region—the largest shock in energy markets since the 1970s, and they want to ask an inventory question. This says something about—you are not serious. You are not a serious opposition. You started this question time with a question about the parliament because you can't think of something to ask about fuel, and now you are asking about inventory, not about the global energy problems, not about the Iran war—but now about inventory. It says something about your lack of standing, Senator Paterson.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thank you, Minister. That was a truly disgraceful response—

Opposition senators interjecting—

when the minister was on her feet. No. Senators on my left! Order! You may joke to and from and across the chamber; you don't joke with me. That was disorderly conduct by those on my left when the minister was responding, and you will come to order. I am not in a yelling competition with the whole of the opposition. Senator Paterson, second supplementary.

How can the Australian people trust anything the Prime Minister says about the fuel crisis when the government first denied there was a crisis, then dragged their feet to act and now can't even get basic facts right?

How can the Australian people trust an opposition who so clearly is not up to the job? How can the Australian people trust an opposition when you've got the leader and Mr Hastie—I'm sorry, what is his portfolio? Defence!—contradicting each other on policy quite openly and leading to Mr Taylor saying, 'I'm going to counsel him,' and then Mr Hastie saying, 'Well, actually, it was more like a chat between mates.'

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Paterson, a point of order?

It's on direct relevance. I'm not sure what the minister's observations about people in the other House have to do with the Prime Minister getting massive fact wrong.

I have reminded the chamber over and over—there is no need to have an explanation. You've called a point of order. I'll remind the minister of the question. Minister Wong?

I'm asked about what the Australian people can trust, and I am simply saying that those opposite have demonstrated recently but also in the election, as I said—the party of higher taxes, higher deficits and more debt—that they are not to be trusted. So if we want to talk about trust, I think we know which party is serious— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Environment and Water, Minister Watt. Since 2022 the Albanese Labor government has been focused on fixing the decade of coalition neglect, dealing with the challenges of the present and delivering on our promises to build Australia's future. Increasing the supply of new homes is a challenge the government is tackling head on through the establishment of a housing strike team to speed up project approvals. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of the strike team, including how many new homes have been approved since its establishment?

Thanks, Senator Walker, who I know is a fierce advocate of the needs of younger Australians when it comes to housing. The Albanese Labor government is taking decisive action to cut through the red tape and delays in approvals that have held up the construction of more homes. After a decade of delay under the coalition where we saw no investment in social and affordable housing, we're speeding up approvals to build homes more quickly. For too many builders in Australia, it takes longer to get approval for a home than it does to build one, and this has held back housing supply and made it harder for ordinary Australians to get into a home of their own. Our reforms to the EPBC Act will speed up environmental assessments and approvals while strengthening environmental protections.

But we're not waiting for those reforms to commence; we're taking action now. Last year we established a new housing strike team within my department to accelerate assessment of the more than 26,000 homes that were with the department for assessment. Since the announcement of the housing strike team in late August 2025, tens of thousands of new homes have been approved by the Albanese government.

How many have been approved?

Senator Bragg, we're always happy to answer a question about housing and the environment, but you just don't seem to make the cut, so we'll take the questions and let you know. In total, the government has given 26 housing projects the green light since that time, supporting 19,889 new homes. The projects include 15 metropolitan developments, supporting 16,210 new homes, and 11 regional developments, supporting 3,679 new homes. Most recently, approval was given to our new housing development in Thurgoona, in an electorate that we know quite a few people over there have got an interest in—it's the electorate of Farrer. And that development will include 425 homes, roads and infrastructure and a school. We're on track to deliver on our goal from the economic roundtable of assessing 26,000 new homes by July this year.

Senator Walker, first supplementary?

The Albanese government's housing strike team is paving the way for the development of thousands of new homes for Australian families. How is the government ensuring the environment is being protected while still approving the homes Australians need?

Thanks, Senator Walker. In delivering new homes, the Albanese government is getting the balance right by also ensuring that Australia's spectacular natural environment is protected. The approval for the development I mentioned in the electorate of Farrer earlier includes targeted conditions to protect listed threatened species. The conditions include strict clearance limits and a management plan to create, enhance and protect habitat for the endangered Sloan's froglet and the critically endangered regent honeyeater.

It's a pity you're not running in Farrer!

The poor old Nats have already conceded defeat in the electorate of Farrer because they didn't deliver any new homes, unlike the Albanese government. Our approach to speeding up environmental approvals stands in contrast to what we saw in the coalition's decade of housing roadblocks. At one point during the coalition's term of government, they provided no funding whatsoever for housing approvals in the environment department. Their neglect meant that not a single approval was made on time. So dire was the situation when we came to government, there were nearly a hundred housing projects sitting unapproved by the coalition. (Time expired)

Senator Walker, second supplementary?

Last year, the Albanese Labor government passed once-in-a-generation reforms to Australia's environmental laws. How will these changes smooth the approval pathways so that housing projects can be approved even faster than is currently occurring while still ensuring strong environmental protections?

I understand why the Nationals get a bit toey when we talk about electorates like Farrer. It's because their new position in Australian politics is to be a preference distributor to either the Liberal Party or One Nation. That's how irrelevant the National Party has become.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Watt does not need the yelling that's going on. You are to listen in silence.

Thank you for your protection, President. The housing approvals process is only going to get faster from here under the Albanese government, as well as simpler and more reliable, with the rollout of our landmark national environmental laws well underway. We'll see faster approvals via a new, streamlined approvals pathway, better and more enduring bilateral agreements between federal and state governments, and improved strategic assessments and bioregional planning. What a far cry from the situation we inherited from the coalition when we came to office. There were nearly 100 housing projects sitting unapproved and not a single dollar provided to the environment department for environmental approvals for housing. Since then, we have approved 79 housing projects totalling 62,000 homes, and there are more to come under the Albanese Labor government.

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the deployment of the Australian Defence Force, as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

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

On 10 March 2026, the Albanese Labor government made a decision to deploy the Australian Defence Force into the United Arab Emirates in a military operation as part of an armed conflict. The Memorandum on Government Conventions Relating to Overseas Armed Conflict Decision Making was adopted by the Albanese government in November of 2024 in order to avoid supporting Greens legislation requiring parliamentary approval.

That memorandum adopted by the Albanese government requires a government to take a number of actions within 30 days when deploying the ADF overseas, including the Prime Minister and the leader of the government in the Senate delivering a ministerial statement; providing an unclassified written statement to both houses of parliament outlining the objectives of the deployment, the orders made and the legal basis; and requiring that the first appropriate day within those 30 days be set aside for the consideration of the ministerial statement and that that debate take precedence.

It requires the leader of the government in the Senate and the Prime Minister to keep the parliament regularly apprised of military deployments. And what has this government done? The first time they confront this very modest requirement for transparency, they trip over it and land flat on their face. Why hasn't the government complied with its own rules? Why is the government breaching it? No doubt, it's because, if the government had to table their legal advice on being part of Donald Trump and Netanyahu's illegal war, it would look bad for them. Or they would admit that they have no legal advice setting out any lawful basis for complying with this illegal war.

The government has been avoiding any kind of debate on the war in this place. What is the legal basis for the deployment? What are the goals for the 85 Australians, the Australian military aircraft or the air-to-air missiles that have been deployed into the war zone under the control of the US Central Command? Will that aircraft be withdrawn? Will those troops be withdrawn if Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu launch a land invasion of Iran? What are the plans to ensure that the Australian deployment isn't destroyed on the ground, like we've seen happening to US aircraft in the region? While, on this long weekend, Australians across the country are worried about whether or not they'll be able to afford or find fuel to go and visit family and friends, to go on the Easter break, we have this government not even having the courage to explain why they supported and why they continue to support Donald Trump's illegal war.

It is amazing, isn't it, that the Labor government was the first government on the planet to come out of the blocks four weeks ago and support this illegal war? They were cheered on by the coalition, who continue to want to congratulate Donald Trump on his reckless war and Benjamin Netanyahu. The now silent One Nation cheered on the war in the first 24 hours, saying how much they love Donald Trump, with the leader of One Nation wanting to go and visit Trump again, to be flown over in a corporate jet from Gina Rinehart. Where is One Nation now? Where is One Nation? They are in hiding, trying to pretend to the Australian people that they care about the impacts of this conflict while they've cheered it on the whole way through. Those are the three war parties in here. There is Labor, hiding from accountability, not even meeting their own requirements for accountability, too frightened to even have a debate on why they're contributing to Donald Trump's illegal war and why they cheered it on in the first place. Now, no doubt, they are embarrassed. They have probably got a focus group going around where they've asked the Australian people, 'What you think of Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, being the first leader on the planet to support Donald Trump's war?' I can imagine what the focus group says to that: 'You have got to be effing kidding. How could this possibly be what our prime minister did? Does he not care about Australians?' Why is this government putting Donald Trump first every single time? Come and explain yourself. Meet even your low bar. Don't hide. Come and table the documents. That's what this motion calls for. (Time expired)

I move:

That the question be put.

The question is that the question be now put.

by leave—I ask it be recorded that Senator Payman supported that question.

The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

by leave—I seek to record Senator Payman's position. Firstly, to clarify, her position on the previous question was to oppose. Her position on the question that has just been resolved is to support.

Happy to record that. I would note that generally speaking we record votes on substantive issues rather than on procedural motions, so I think in future it would probably be better if we just recorded substantive positions as opposed to procedural votes. It would help the clerks.

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in accordance with informal arrangements agreed by the whips.

I move:

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

Here we have the government today, again, with more of the same. What we are talking about is their response to fuel: 'Don't go out and get fuel.' We're out of jerry cans all across Australia, apparently! But we're not. It's, 'Any answer will do,' on this matter. 'Any answer will do—we'll just chuck it out because we want to be seen to be doing something. This is what we're going to get out there.'

I must say I do want to congratulate the government on fixing the longevity of the particle board in kitchens that I raised earlier, because we're going to run out of polypipe well before we will ever before we run out of kitchen stuff. We have a business in Newcastle today—I was out there; I was talking—who have 20 electricians on site. They are cleaning the yard and their equipment because there is no polypipe to go out and do jobs—no construction work getting done. What we have is slabs not getting laid, because the plumbers can't put in the underground infrastructure to build this.

The other question I note, from another senator today, was a question about housing approvals. It wasn't housing completions or housing starts; it was about approvals—because we can't get the polypipe, we can't get the equipment, we can't get the particle board and we can't get anything that is petroleum based into the construction industry to actually build the homes. That's why there was a question about approvals today. But here we are. We're talking about everything else in this place.

What we're really talking about is this government making Australia weaker through poor decisions. We're talking about the things that they do to look good out there in the public but not actually improve Australia when we get there. What a great way we have to solve the glue issue on policy—not even by getting a house far enough along, by building a slab or by building the stuff to get it better. We deserve better. We've got prices going up all over the place. We have all this sort of stuff. But what we had was a discussion that they ran away with at a million miles an hour about increasing the size of the parliament. Sure, we may have briefed people. We may have briefed the press. A minister may have gone to the Press Club and talked about how all great Labor prime ministers have increased the size of parliament, but we'll run away from that today. We'll just run away. We had gaslighting people like no tomorrow, because that is what this government does.

We aren't talking about increasing the size of parliament—$600 million worth of expense. We're pretending that never happened. We're pretending the Prime Minister didn't say we're running out of jerry cans, because apparently we're not running out of jerry cans and that's being backed up by everything else. All we go through is deflect—it's like dodgeball. What is it? 'Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge' are the things to get through dodgeball. That's what we're doing on this issue. We are avoiding the substantive things of this issue because we know the real consequences are out there in the public. We see the issues going on, but we talk about these side matters because they are. When you get caught talking on a side matter, like increasing the size of parliament—$600 million more for us, for this class, to continue over the future—we pretend. We run away when we get caught deflecting.

It is time for real answers. It is time for real solutions. Australia is a strong energy company, a strong energy country, but we have made decisions over years and years going back 20 years to make us weak. All we do in this parliament—so many people have sat in the corner like a cuck as we've made decisions to make this a weak country, and it is no longer. Australia and Australians cannot get screwed over by sitting back and doing nothing. It is time to harness what we have. It is time to free what we can be and be strong—to do anything more than make decisions as we go forward—and make Australia strong, so we can make decisions in our best interest, not anyone else's but Australia's best interests.

We are weak. So let's get back to that sovereignty position. Let's make decisions that make Australia a stronger and better country so we can help those that need help, so we can help those in Australia that need our help and so we can make decisions based on making Australia a better country. (Time expired)

Wow! Here's an opportunity to talk about the most important period this country is facing at the moment and the world is facing—the Middle East crisis—and they want to talk about jerrygate. They want to talk about Bunningsgate. The most ridiculous questions about what is actually going on right now—trying to actually unleash some good, credible answers that this government have been putting forward in the era of dealing with the fuel challenges that we have at the moment.

Of course, then they start raising some questions about what's happening regarding excise and the excise cut. Now there's some problem with it. Why you do want to start looking the case of inflation, where the advantages are of this decision that we've made? Not only will it help mums and dads and make their fuel cheaper and not only will it decrease petrol and diesel prices; it will also turn around and decrease, by half a percentage point through the year of June 2026 on Treasury estimates, inflation. It will reduce inflation.

If you want to start coming here and asking serious questions about what is going on, then you'll get some serious answers—because you start talking about what we are doing about the cost of living. When we start asking ourselves questions about the cost of living, you have to ask what the alternatives are. What we've been doing on cost of living is not only making sure we put the correct policies in place to deal with the fuel challenges that the world is facing and that this country is facing as a result of the Middle East War but also bringing a whole series of critically important strategies in to deal with the cost of living. Those strategies have gone to Medicare, urgent care clinics, women's health, minimum wage increases and the list of the things that we've brought to the table to make sure that Australians who are doing it tough have an opportunity to get a fair response from this government and from policy goes on and on.

But we can't hear anything sensible for those across the way. We hear, as we say, the inventorygate. When we start looking at the sorts of solutions the opposition have put forward—when they say this is all costing too much to reduce fuel excise—for example, then shadow treasurer and now opposition leader, Angus Taylor, was the key architect to hike up income taxes for over 14 million taxpayers. That's his answer to how you do cost relief when you're not giving people cost relief. He also went on to be one of the key architects of their $10 billion taxpayer funded long-lunches policy. This is another cost relief. I don't know how that's a cost relief but, you know what, they've worked out somehow that that's going to help productivity and the cost of living. It will certainly help for well-paid, well-heeled bosses. It won't help every ordinary Australian, every middle Australian or low-income earner. Of course, in the past, when they think about cost relief, they thought about things like sacking 41,000 frontline workers and gutting essential services like Medicare to pay, in that case, for $600 billion worth of nuclear fantasy. I guess, in this case, they want to give it with one hand and take it away with the other.

What we're facing with those on the opposite side is no coherent strategy about how to deal with either the fuel crisis or cost-of-living challenges. Every proposition they put up mean there are more costs to the Australian public. The government has put forward a critical strategy for fuel, a critical strategy for cost of living, and it's about time you got on board. (Time expired)

Australia is already in a cost-of-living crisis, and that was before this Middle East energy shock fully hits us. Since the Labor government came to office, we've seen electricity rise by 38 per cent, seen gas up by 42 per cent, food up by 16 per cent, health up by 15 per cent, education up by 17 per cent, education up by 14 per cent, insurance up by a massive 39 per cent and rent up by 22 per cent. Cumulatively, the average prices in the Australian economy that are measured by the consumer price index have gone up by 12 per cent over the past four years. That is significantly higher than any long-term inflationary increase in the Australian economy.

We're not on top of inflation. The February figures showed annualised inflation running at 3.7 per cent here in Australia. That's slightly better than the January figure of 3.8 per cent, but, if you compare that to the rest of the world and to other advanced economies who have also been through the COVID pandemic and who have also been hit by the Ukraine war, it's one to two percentage points higher. Right now, inflation in the United States is 2.4 per cent. In the UK, it's three per cent. In the Eurozone, it's 1.9 per cent. In Canada, it's 1.8 per cent. In Japan, it's 1.3 per cent. We're already, before this crisis fully hits us, a full two or so percentage points higher for the inflation we are running in Australia.

That is why, when our Reserve Bank met a few weeks ago, it made the second increase in rates in as many months. That's two rises in two months. Other central banks around the world, who met the same week as our Reserve Bank met, kept their rates on pause because they have inflation under control. Australia, as the Reserve Bank governor said, has inflation that's already out of control. That is before this shock hits us. The government's response to the Middle East oil shock, parts of which we support in the coalition, is to reduce the fuel excise. I think that is a good and worthwhile measure because it does recognise the unique circumstances we are facing, and the massive, one-off pressure that this is putting on household budgets. Where we differ is how we pay for this. The government's cut to the fuel excise is going to cost $2.6 billion but is not going to be offset by cuts in government spending elsewhere, which means all it is going to do is add to aggregate demand. The Reserve Bank has already been quite clear that inflation is continuing to rise and that the Reserve Bank is tightening monetary policy because aggregate demand, public and private demand, is growing faster than aggregate supply, and in that situation you are going to have prices rising. The Reserve Bank has been raising interest rates to try and rein in private demand because it doesn't have any say in public demand; public demand is the government's choice. We already have government spending at a 40-year high outside of the pandemic. The last budget papers showed government spending growing at four times the rate of the economy. We've got debt growing significantly and now close to $1 trillion.

Senator Sheldon, speaking before, made the point that this intervention will reduce inflation. Well, no, all it will do is mask inflation. It is adding to inflationary pressures in the economy because this $2.6 billion is not fully offset. They will be felt, and the Reserve Bank—as it always does, just as it did with the electricity rebates—will look through the one-off effects of this rebate and look through the change it delivers in headline inflation to look at the long-term price pressures, and it will see that demand is still growing faster than supply. That is why the coalition's proposal was to fully offset this so that we sanitise the impact on aggregate demand whilst providing households budget relief. (Time expired)

I hope there weren't too many people watching at home this question time because it was pretty extraordinary that, in the midst of conflict in the Middle East, in the midst of extraordinary pressures facing Australians, the first-order question from the opposition—the biggest concern on their minds—was the composition of this place and what it means for the Liberal Party, followed by a question on the inflationary impact of a policy that the Liberal Party apparently supports and claims to own—and that's from the same Liberal Party that took to the election higher debts, bigger deficits and greater taxes. Then they finished off with a question about the number of jerry cans at Bunnings.

To be clear, if there are people who watch question time at home, this is the largest global shock to energy markets since the 1970s. It could not be more serious. Twenty per cent of the global supply of oil and 70 per cent of oil coming to our region has been affected. The fact is these are uncertain times. They are difficult times for many Australians. I've spoken to many people in my community over the past few days who have shared their anxiety with me and who are thinking about changing plans or cancelling holidays; they're readjusting family budgets and feeling very uncertain about what lies ahead. Those opposite can show those people respect by showing up here seriously—not coming to question time with a first-order question concerned about the future of their place here and the composition of Liberal seats in this parliament but showing up here and putting a first question on the economy and on the very distressing times our country, and indeed the globe, is facing in this fuel security challenge.

We know the ongoing conflict in the Middle East is causing petrol prices to rise, which is being felt by many people, including families, farmers and small businesses, and it is impossible to predict what will happen next. But our government is taking responsible action. We are coordinating nationally with the states and territories, and we are doing what we can to ensure Australians get a fair go. We're doing what we can to get more fuel here and to get fuel to those who need it.

Just this week the Prime Minister convened a second National Cabinet meeting since the conflict began, and we've taken swift action on fuel across the board, including, as we've heard today, halving the fuel excise for diesel and petrol for three months. We've announced a cut to the heavy vehicle road user charge, to zero for three months. We've passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies price gouging. We've appointed a national fuel supply taskforce coordinator. We've released 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves targeted at regional areas. We've temporarily changed petrol and diesel standards to get more fuel flowing. We've changed diesel standards so Australia's refineries can supply more diesel. 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 and activating the National Coordination Mechanism, which has met twice. And we've unlocked $2 million in financial counselling funding for impacted farmers. That's not to mention the legislation that we've seen come through this chamber this week and through the House of Representatives as well.

That's what it looks like to show up seriously for our communities, who are concerned in the midst of the challenge we're facing in light of this Middle Eastern conflict. We're not coming in here with questions about your own future and the composition of this place. We're showing up seriously, asking serious questions and taking serious action which takes these concerns seriously.

This is a government that has mastered the art of blaming others, even though it's been in government for four years. The actual issue is not the inventory of Bunnings but is what the Prime Minister said and why. On Saturday, at a press conference in Sydney, the Prime Minister told Australians that Bunnings had run out of jerry cans—not that it had a lot of them, not that it was running low, but that it had run out. A spokeswoman for Bunnings then told news.com.au just yesterday, plainly and unambiguously, that Bunnings has not run out of jerry cans. In fact, worse than that, Bunnings said that telling people that they've run out of jerry cans was actually more likely to trigger panic buying.

When Senator Wong was asked about this today, what did we get? What did we get from a government that promised Australians it would be all about accountability and transparency? It blamed consumers again. First, consumers in Australia bought too much fuel. This was all about them; there was not a supply issue. It's now about jerry cans. Australians are buying too many jerry cans. Again, it's all about someone else. If the government cannot get the facts right on jerry cans, how on earth can Australians have any confidence that they get the facts right on fuel supply, on pricing and on what is actually happening in servos around the country?

Today, the number of fuel stations out of one type of fuel was actually up, not down. Right now in South Australia, my home state, they're paying between $3.19 and $3.26 for diesel. In Port Augusta, that's around $3.30. It's $2.59 for unleaded petrol, and people are driving around to make sure they can find the fuel they need. In the APY Lands, fuel costs are approaching $4 a litre for diesel. They are looking soon at shutting off bowsers within a week to preserve what little fuel remains for diesel generators and essential transport—not for cars but for generators, for their very survival. These are people in remote areas that actually do need and often travel with jerry cans. So don't tell them there are none.

While the Prime Minister is making inaccurate claims about jerry cans at Bunnings in Sydney, communities in remote South Australia are days away from losing fuel. I want to talk more about them in this place—the forgotten people, the people out in the regions. They are worried about how to get from A to B. They are worried this Easter holidays about where they get fuel when they're at their destination. Can they even get back? That's the reality when you actually talk to people on the ground, and they've had not a single assurance from this government that the fuel will be there. That's if they can already afford to get where they wanted to go. How out of touch can you possibly be?

On the move to expand parliament, can you believe that there's even a conversation other than security of Australians in this country and about fuel? We don't need to be talking at this time about more parliamentarians in this place, particularly at a cost of around $600 million. Australians, you better believe it: this government's priorities are wrong.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the government to questions without notice I asked today relating to .

Two years ago, on 1 April, Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom was killed by Israel. She was not caught in a crossfire. She was not lost in the fog of war. It was not a tragic mistake. She and her six colleagues were hunted and murdered. Two years on, there has been no justice. There has been no accountability. The Labor government has failed Zomi and it has failed all the brave Australians who put their lives on the line to provide humanitarian aid in war zones. The government says it has raised concerns, it has made representations, it has pressed for accountability. How? Words without action are meaningless. It has outsourced responsibility to a deeply flawed process, the Binskin review, which failed to secure even the most basic evidence, including the drone strike audio. This was a review that asked the accused murderers to investigate themselves. Israel has lied consistently to justify its genocide of the Palestinian people. Why would we expect them not to lie about the murder of Zomi, one of more than 500 aid workers now killed by Israel in Gaza?

Let's be clear: this government had options. They could have pushed for an independent international investigation or referred the matter to the International Criminal Court or imposed consequences like recalling our ambassador or expelling Israel's. They could have demanded charges. They did none of that. We all know the pattern. When Gaza was systematically starved, Minister Wong 'raised concerns'. When civilians were bombed, Minister Wong 'raised concerns'. When Israel invaded Lebanon, displacing hundreds of thousands, Minister Wong 'raised concerns'. Now, as the war against Iran ricochets out of control, killing thousands and throwing the world economy into crisis, what does the Prime Minister do? He 'raises concerns'. But we all know what those concerns are worth: nothing. They are worth nothing. They disappear into the rubble along with all the bodies.

Meanwhile, aid workers, journalists and healthcare workers, the very people that carry humanity through the darkest moments, have been systematically targeted. Hundreds of aid workers, journalists and health workers have been slaughtered. That is not collateral damage. It is a campaign to extinguish truth and survival itself.

Consider the difference between the concerns expressed by the government and its actions. They roll out the red carpet for those responsible, feting the Israeli president. They ship weapons components that will be used to kill civilians. They sign up to yet another war. They pass laws to criminalise criticism of Israel. They have turned their backs on Zomi, whose life represented the very best of us: courage, compassion and commitment to humanity in the face of unimaginable suffering. And this government has repaid that courage with cowardice. It has failed her family. It has failed every aid worker who put their life on the line. And it has failed the basic test of whether it will stand up for justice when it counts—because justice is not something you quietly raise in meetings or memos. Justice is something you fight for.

But Zomi's memory will not be in vain. Every day, aid workers and humanitarians continue her mission, showing the courage this government could never even dream of. At the moment, 17 brave Australians are preparing to join the next Global Sumud Flotilla to deliver food, medicine and critical supplies to Gaza. While ministers tremble at the thought of being called a 'bad friend' by Israel, ordinary people are putting their bodies on the line for humanity. As long as that courage endures—as long as there are those who refuse to look away, who refuse to be silent—the fight for justice for Zomi and for so many others will never be extinguished.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Industry and Science (Senator Ayres) and the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to questions without notice I asked today.

I had the rare opportunity to ask the government two questions today, and my thanks to Senator Lambie for allowing me to ask a question in her absence. I want to acknowledge all the young people in the Senate today watching us through question time and as we discuss these matters.

I asked Minister Ayres about how government expectations around data centres will actually be enforced. It seems like these expectations are, at the moment, nothing more than something on a website. And the answer was as clear as mud. It seems like we're simply shifting this onto the states, somehow, and they are going to deal with this.

People are concerned about the huge energy and water use that come from the development of data centres. In the next decade alone, data centres in Sydney are expected to use more drinking water than Canberra currently uses. This is something we actually need to be planning for. We need to be thinking very clearly about it, because, for very good reason, there is very little trust in big tech. We've seen what they've done with surveillance capitalism; we've seen how they've profited off our data—how, at every turn, they've minimised their tax and they have not protected Australians. These questions need to be answered by the government. How are you actually going to put Australians first?

To my question to Minister Watt: our investment in biodiversity in this country is tragically low, any way you look at it. Figures are from 6c in every $100 in the federal budget to 0.1 per cent of the federal budget. It's not good enough. We live in such an incredible place and we're not living—we're not making decisions—like we plan to be here for a long time. And, obviously, money is not everything. But it is incredibly important when it comes to boots on the ground and to our scientists that are working at solving the huge problems: everything from invasive species to the changes in our Alpine areas and the dieback of snow gums due to climate change. We need to be backing them in and actually funding nature in this country.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today.

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, 'Islam will enter every home in Australia'—and he doesn't mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.

Question agreed to.

The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, 'Why does One Nation want to ban cash?' Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does. Right now, today, if any Australian walks into a Coles or a Woolworths anywhere in our country, that store, because of the regulations that One Nation is seeking to disallow, is legally required to accept your cash. So, Mum and Dad, if you go down to your local Woolies or Coles today and you want to hand over a $50 note, you are entitled to. It's the same with a fuel station. If you fill up your car at a BP or an Ampol or a Shell, you could actually walk into one of those servos and hand over your $50 note or $20 note and, because of this regulation, they are legally required to accept your cash.

That is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow. So if this motion passes the Senate, when you walk into Coles or Woolies and when you walk into Ampol or Shell or BP, then, because of the actions of One Nation, when you pull out your wallet and pull out your 50 bucks or your 20 bucks and seek to provide that as legal tender, they can look at you and say, 'Thanks to One Nation, the bad news is, we no longer have to accept that.'

I honestly do not understand why, when cash is still so important to so many people in Australia, a political party—in this case, One Nation—would seek to disallow a regulation that does what we all want to do: ensure that as much cash as possible is required to be accepted as legal tender in Australia. If this motion passes, as I said, the obligation disappears—immediately. Don't try to walk into Coles or Woolies with money in your wallet, because they will not be legally required to accept it. They do not have to take that money.

And what replaces it? What is One Nation's big plan to replace the obligation on these big companies to take your money? What replaces it? Well, nothing. So the bad news, for those people who still like to use cash to fill up their tank or nip into their local Coles or Woolies, is that they will not be able to, because those places do not legally have to accept it. No alternative regulation has been put forward. There's no bill on the Notice Paper. However, the coalition, the Liberals and the Nationals, will be seeking to address that. But there's no framework suddenly sitting in the top drawer of Treasury.

The effect of this disallowance is that we would go back to the position that existed before 1 January this year, which is that no company in Australia has any legal obligation to accept cash for anything. Quite frankly, that is unacceptable. So if the Senate supports One Nation's disallowance motion today, Woolworths and Coles can literally turn around tomorrow and say they are 100 per cent cashless. So can the fuel companies. They can turn around and say: 'We are 100 per cent cashless. You cannot use that $50 note or that $20 note here as legal tender'—because for some strange reason One Nation wants to ban cash.

So I'm going to ask again: why would any senator who says they care that there are people who use cash in the economy actually want to remove the only cash acceptance obligation that has ever existed in Australian law? Quite frankly, the tactic of One Nation is bizarre. It's a bit like a politician complaining about getting only $15 million in funding to fix roads in their electorate when $50 million is needed and saying, 'I'm not going to take any money.' Well, guess what? You now have zero.

So let me be very clear about the coalition's position. Is the cash mandate adequate? No, it is not. And we have been very clear on this. It does not go nearly far enough. We agree with Senator Roberts on that point. The government themselves failed when it came to bringing in a regulation that aligned with the promise they'd made to the Australian people, which was a broad mandate covering essential goods and services. In fact, the Treasurer himself said in 2024 that pharmacies should be covered. The original consultation paper included medicines, utilities and children's clothing. For some reason—and we would like to get to the bottom of this—all of that was quietly dropped. That is, quite frankly, unacceptable.

What we did end up with was a mandate covering supermarkets and fuel retailers—and nothing else. That is plainly too narrow. The coalition have said so, we will continue to do so, and we will be bringing in a private senator's bill to address this issue.

But where we have to part company with Senator Roberts is on what you do about it. You do not fix a mandate that is too narrow, one that says Coles, Woolies and the servos have to accept cash, by abolishing that mandate. Quite literally, you would then be at the whim of the Australian government; Australians would have no protection at all. I have to say, Senator Roberts and One Nation, I think it's great that you live in hope, but hope is not going to be good enough for these people who are going to turn up to a supermarket, Coles or Woolies, and be told, because of your actions, 'You cannot use that here'—that $50 note, that $20 note, that $10 note—because that is exactly what the law will entitle them to do.

If you go back and review the submissions that were presented when this was looked into—let's have a look at what those organisations themselves, which actually represent some of the greatest cash users in society, said. National Seniors Australia are the peak body for nearly nine million Australians over 50. They described the cash mandate as 'a step forward'. They're happy with the cash mandate, because, as they pointed out, there is currently no obligation at law on any retailer to accept cash. In fact, the recommendation of National Seniors Australia to the inquiry was to actually expand the mandate, not to scrap it.

CHOICE, together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and three other community organisations, admitted, just as the coalition does, that the government has 'watered down' its original proposal—as I said, shame on the government for doing that—but they did say that the mandate itself does, at least, cover supermarkets and petrol stations. They did underline how limited it is, but, again, their recommendation was not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It was to support the mandate—even though, yes, it is in a limited form—and to restore the original scope and strengthen it.

COTA Australia are the leading advocacy body for older Australians. Do you know what they called the mandate? They called it 'sensible reform'. But, yes, they did say it needs to go further, and we agree with them. Not even the business groups—COSBOA, MGA, ACAPMA—called for the mandate to be removed, not one of them.

So I have to say this to One Nation: Which consumer groups support what you are proposing? Which seniors organisations? Which disability groups have called for the answer to a mandate that does not go far enough to be no mandate at all? The answer is none of them—not one.

There are currently 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. One in two Australians over the age of 65 uses cash regularly. In regional and remote communities, as we all know, cash is not a convenience; it is the payment method that works when the power goes out, the internet drops or the card terminal fails. These Australians absolutely deserve better than what the Albanese Labor government has given them, and the coalition will continue to press for the mandate to be extended.

But I have to say I am surprised that anybody in this chamber would actually support the disallowance of a regulation that—if it were the will of the Senate today to take it away—would make Australians immeasurably worse off. You would be taking away the one legal protection that Australians currently have. It may not go far enough, but, at least, tomorrow, when they front up at Woolies and Coles and the servos, they will still be able to use cash. It won't be because the One Nation, and it won't be because of the Australian Greens. A vote for this disallowance doesn't send a message to the government—for goodness sake. Seriously—it doesn't pressure the government to do any better. All it actually will do is remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their groceries with cash at Woolworths and Coles. It'll remove the legal right of Australians to pay for their fuel at the servos, at BP, at Ampol, at Shell and at others. The reality is: it doesn't matter how you argue for this disallowance.

You can live in hope that the government will do something, but you will then need to go and answer to CHOICE, Financial Counselling Australia, National Seniors Australia, COTA and all of the others who have said: 'The mandate doesn't go far enough. But, please, for the sake of our members—the people who do use cash each and every day—do not get rid of it. Do not take away the ability for them to pay for their groceries. Do not take away that legal right that they have when they walk into Coles, when they walk into Woollies and when they walk into their servos to pay that bill. Please ensure that, when they open up that wallet, there is a legal mandate on these companies to say to them, "Yes, that is legal tender, and we have to accept it."' As I said, we will oppose the disallowance. Why? Because we actually believe in the right of all Australians to use cash. It is legal tender in this country. We do not agree with the Australian Greens—this is going to be very ironic because I'm saying it in the same sentence—and One Nation, who want to take away the one protection that these people have. In particular, again, when I look at the statistics, one in two Australians over 65 use cash regularly.

Well, guess what? The coalition today is going to stand with the 1.5 million Australians who use cash for more than 80 per cent of their in-person transactions. We are going to stand with the one in two Australians over the age of 65 who use cash regularly. We are going to stand with National Seniors Australia, the peak body for nearly 9 million Australians over 50. We are going to stand with CHOICE together with Financial Counselling Australia, the Indigenous Consumer Assistance Network and other community groups who have said: 'Please. We are with you that the cash mandate does not go far enough. We absolutely agree with you there, but please. You are the Australian parliament. Do not take away from us, when we so desperately need it, that one legal right that we have, and that is the ability to walk into Coles, to walk into Woollies, to walk into the servos and to actually use cash.'

To the Greens and to One Nation who mock me and laugh at what I say: shame on you. The outcome is: you don't support cash, and you don't support the right of those Australians.

Firstly, I want to be very clear that the Australian Greens will be supporting this disallowance moved by One Nation. It's fair to say that we don't often agree with One Nation, but, on this very narrow circumstance, we absolutely agree with One Nation. We agree on this because cash is absolutely critical in our society and in our economy. Cash matters, and it matters because so many different people rely on cash for inclusion. They rely on cash for choice. They rely on cash to purchase the essentials of life. Cash is necessary to ensure basic resilience in our society and our economy when digital systems fail as they inevitably do from time to time.

Let's just rewind to when Labor put out the consultation paper on cash. That proposed a far broader cash mandate than the one Labor actually bought into the parliament with the instrument that this debate seeks to disallow. So Labor watered down their own original proposal. As a result they've presented to this parliament a cash mandate that is extremely narrow in scope.

The Greens will vote to disallow this instrument because it would have forced the government back to the table to introduce a cash mandate that was more broad and that provided greater protections and a broader mandate for the use of cash in our society. It would have done except for one thing, and that is the speech we just heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.

I don't know who wrote that rubbish for Senator Cash, but let me be very clear: everyone in this chamber knew the Liberals were supporting this disallowance last week. My first question is how did you get bought off? What did the government buy you off with to make you change your position from last week?

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

Impugning motives. I would like to know what the Greens got for their $22 billion—

Senator O'Sullivan, let's not play games. Senator McKim.

I withdraw. What I will say is this. Everyone knew that the Liberals in this place were supporting this disallowance last week, and now, today, we find out that they are not going to support it. In doing so, the Liberals are letting the government off the hook. Let me explain exactly why that is. It's because, in an attempt to make it seem like they're not letting the government off the hook, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has just revealed in her speech that the Liberals are going to table a private senator's bill on this matter which will no doubt contain a broader cash mandate then currently exists.

We all know what's going to happen there. If it's a decently drafted bill and it does contain a broader mandate, I'm not going to speak for One Nation, but you'd assume they'll support it. We'll have a look at it; you could assume we'll support it too. It will get through the Senate, and do you know what's going to happen then? It's going to go down into the House, and it's going to die a miserable, lonely death down there. It will never be brought on for debate, because the government has the numbers down there, so it will never become law.

What you could have done was vote for this disallowance today and force the government back to the table to bring in an appropriate mandate on cash, one that was far more broad in scope than the one that they're currently proposing. And the reason they are not going to be forced back to the table is that the opposition have squibbed it today. That's why. That's why the government has been let off the hook.

Senator Cash can spare the chamber her crocodile tears and handwringing about cash, because the very reason that cash is not going to be mandated for things like data, communication services and energy bills is that the Liberals backed down and squibbed it today. When people contact us—and, boy, are the emails flowing on this issue, I can tell you—you can be very sure we'll be explaining exactly why the Greens supported this disallowance to force the government back to the table and bring in a far more broad mandate on cash. We'll be explaining exactly why the government is not being forced back to the table, and that is the opposition completely squibbed it.

I'll keep my remarks quite short. I want to thank the Greens for their support for this motion that Senator Roberts has brought in, and I want to thank the crossbench. I also want to thank the coalition for their support as of 24 March 2026, when they stood in this chamber and argued that we were right. I will quote Senator Brockman:

The coalition will be supporting this motion, and I will explain why. We just saw from Senator Whiteaker how unseriously the government takes this issue, and it is a serious issue. It is a serious issue of economic freedom. It is a serious issue that other countries are taking very important notice of.

That was from the coalition as of 24 March 2026. I'll also point out that in his remarks Senator Brockman explained:

What we have from the Labor Party is a deal done behind closed doors with no transparency, no consultation.

I can't help wonder what's occurred in the last week behind closed doors with no transparency and no consultation, because last time we checked with the coalition they did support this, and since that time they've changed their minds. Did they consult with you, Senator Roberts?

No. I'm not sure what happened, but it did happen behind closed doors.

According to CHOICE, 65 per cent of Australians still carry cash. It's an everyday support for people in regional areas, for older Australians and for people with a disability. This cash mandate that's up for disallowance, as has been discussed, declares that only large supermarkets and petrol stations are essential. That doesn't cut it. The power of the Senate is to disallow this and send the government back to the drawing board to ensure that the people who currently still want to use cash, still need to use cash, can do that.

Why does the government and now the coalition through their vote—they may say otherwise, but, in not actually sending the government back to the drawing board, they are essentially saying one thing and doing something very different. Why don't they think medication and medical supplies are essential? Public transport—not essential. Utilities—not essential, according to them. Children's clothes—not essential. If you are in the ACT, you can't go to Access Canberra and pay with cash. That just seems totally ridiculous to me. If you are living on the street and need to get an ID or do anything at Access Canberra and don't have a bank card, what are you meant to do? We can say: 'Oh well, it sucks to be you. It's a cashless society.' That does not cut it. We have to actually ensure that we're looking after people who currently use cash, want to use cash or do not have the ability to tap and go like everyone in this place, I'm sure, does.

When you look at this mandate and the impact that it has on regional communities and First Nations communities, you have to say it has a disproportionate effect. We've seen in the other place the member for Kennedy, Bob Katter, talk a lot about the need to protect the ability to use cash. Along the 1,200-kilometre stretch of the Sturt Highway in the NT, as I understand it—senators from the NT will be able to correct me here—there's only one large supermarket; otherwise, it's small grocers. So there's only one place along that 1,200-kilometre stretch that's mandated to take cash. Why do we not have a plan to protect access to cash?

Disallowing this forces the government to go back to the drawing board. It's amazing hearing from former Cabinet ministers arguing that that's not how things work and that, if you disallow this, nothing will ever replace these regulations. Everyone knows that isn't the case. Everyone knows that there have to be regulations in place. So let's do that as a Senate.

Since 2017, 2,000 bank branches have closed; more than 8,000 ATMs have disappeared. Yes, for many, using a card or using your phone is more convenient, but for many other Australians that simply isn't a possibility. I do thank Senator Roberts for bringing this forward. I think it's important that this Senate actually looks after the Australians who currently want to be able to use cash.

The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to.

by leave—President, I would like to record Senator Payman's position on that question. Senator Payman supported the disallowance.

I give notice in general terms that, tomorrow, I will move:

The motion was unavailable at the time of publishing.

I'm assuming there's no objection. The business is postponed.

I move:

That the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 be considered on Wednesday, 1 April 2026 at the time for private senators' bills.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Dean Smith for 1 April 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Lambie from 23 March to 31 March and for 1 April 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payman from 31 March to 1 April 2026, for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 November 2026:

The suitability of current Commonwealth Government guidelines regarding gender dysphoria for minors, with particular reference to:

(a) the science behind medical intervention;

(b) alternative treatments including counselling;

(c) international trends in treatment;

(d) lived experience of transitioners;

(e) other reviews that may be underway or recently completed; and

(f) any other related matters.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Protecting the welfare of young Australians is possibly the most important role we have in this place, and I respect the positions of colleagues across the chamber. I agree with Senator Roberts that we should be looking at the suitability of current Commonwealth guidelines. The coalition supported the Albanese government's decision to task the medical experts at the NHMRC to develop new national clinical practice guidelines for the care of people under 18. We await the public release of its interim advice, due in the middle of this year. However, I oppose the motion for the simple reason that I do not believe that a Senate committee is the appropriate place for the discussion to take place at this time in the absence of that interim advice from the NHMRC. I call on the government to expedite the final guidelines to ensure the welfare of vulnerable Australians. I call for respect for those colleagues who are exercising their conscience, and I am grateful to my party for allowing a conscience vote on this matter.

I seek leave to make a statement of no more than one minute.

Leave granted.

Colleagues may or may not know that today is the Trans Day of Visibility. It's a day when we ask our community to celebrate trans folks, to show our love for trans people and to show our support for trans people. That we would have to, on this day of all days, vote down yet another attempt by One Nation to create a platform for transphobia, using the Senate to provide parliamentary privilege for people to pile on to trans kids and trans people yet again and cause them even more suffering and pain, is beyond the pale. Trans rights are human rights. Trans people deserve our love and support, not being piled on in a culture war. (Time expired)

The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Procedure Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2026:

The appropriateness of amending standing order 35 to reduce witness filibustering and deflection in committee hearings, with particular reference to:

(a) the appropriateness of adding the following provisions to standing order 35:

"(4) A questioning senator may at any time interrupt a witness and take back the call from the witness for the purpose of either pressing for an answer or to ask another question.

(5) The witness must cease speaking whenever a senator reclaims the call.

(6) Any interjections after a senator reclaims the call are to be ruled disorderly by the chair.

(7) Witnesses are entitled to write to the committee furnishing any relevant additional information that was unable to be presented because of a senator reclaiming the call."; and

(b) any other related matters.

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

At the request of Senator Payman, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, by no later than 5 pm on Tuesday, 19 May 2026:

(a) copies of all emails, letters, instant/electronic messages, records of conversation and other correspondence between the Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) and Commonwealth agencies and departments contacted by the DTA regarding the failure, or apparent failure, by the agency or department to comply with the policy for the responsible use of artificial intelligence in government relating to the failure, or apparent failure, to comply with the policy;

(b) copies of all internal documents, including spreadsheets, held by the DTA which track compliance with the policy by Commonwealth agencies and departments; and

(c) copies of all DTA weekly updates created after 24 March 2025 which mention the policy.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 383, made on 4 March 2026, relating to the process of verifying the claim by the Government that 4.7 million under-16 social media accounts had been deactivated, removed or restricted under its ban, has not been complied with;

(b) notes the response of the Minister for Communications, tabled on 26 March 2026:

(i) indicates that responses from 10 social media platforms to compulsory notices issued by the eSafety Commissioner informed the Government's announcement, and

(ii) stated, at a general level, that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the specific information obtained by eSafety or in its subsequent work on the basis that disclosure may prejudice eSafety investigations; and

(c) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Communications to, by no later than midday on 28 April 2026:

(i) fully comply with the order, or

(ii) table any documents, or parts of documents, within scope of the order that would enable the Senate to verify the claimed number of accounts deactivated, removed or restricted under the social media ban, or

(iii) table a list describing each document within scope of the order with an explanation for each document as to why it is not in the public interest to disclose the document.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Payman, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 5 pm on Wednesday, 15 April 2026, copies of all ministerial submissions, records of conversation, letters, briefing notes, meeting agendas, file notes, meeting invitations, meeting notes, meeting minutes, emails and instant/electronic messages between the Minister for Defence and/or his office and the Department of Defence in relation to the development, implementation and enforcement of the Department of Defence's policy settings for responsible use of artificial intelligence in Defence.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to A Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

This Bill establishes a Commission of Inquiry into the behaviour, practices and performance of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder who is the entity responsible for managing billions of dollars' worth of environmental water under the Murray-Darling Basin framework.

At its heart, this Bill is about accountability. When you are managing one of the most valuable and contested resources in this country, our water, you should be able to demonstrate clearly, transparently and honestly what you are doing, why you are doing it and whether it is working.

The Communities of Albury-Wodonga, Mildura, Renmark and many others across the Murray-Darling Basin are asking these questions and they are not being answered.

Regional communities are watching as environmental watering is being suspended due to regulatory failures, precious water is taken out of productive system and billions of dollars is being spent on water recovery.

The people of Deniliquin, Bourke, Finley want to know what is the benefit? Where is the transparency? Does this system actually deliver for the environment they live in and love?

Water is being removed from our irrigation regions and irrigators are told it is for environmental benefit, however they are not seeing clear evidence that those outcomes are being delivered. This Bill seeks to address this issue.

This Bill is not asking whether environmental water should exist, it should. We need to know whether environmental water is being effectively and transparently managed in a way that actually delivers outcomes.

The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder sits at the centre of this system.

It controls vast volumes of water and makes decisions that affect river systems, wetlands, farms and communities, however there is limited visibility over how those decisions are made. Limited transparency over the trade-offs involved and limited accountability for the outcomes. This is occurring under the current Government's watch.

Labor has been quick to pursue more water buybacks, more recovery and more centralised control, they have been far less interested in answering "Is the water we already hold being used properly?" This is a simple question, without a simple answer and we owe it to our communities that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin an answer.

This Bill says that question must be answered by establishing a Commission of Inquiry with the powers to do it. It has the power to compel evidence, to require documents and examine decisions and outcomes in detail.

Now, some will say why not a Royal Commission? A Royal Commission depends on the Government. This Commission of Inquiry depends on the Parliament.

When the Government refuses to act, the Parliament must step in.

These communities deserve a Royal Commission. Let's not pretend they don't. What they don't deserve is a Commission controlled by a Labor Government that does not have any respect for these communities and their concerns. A Labor Government that appoints an Independent Reviewer to lead the Water Review Act on 5 March 2026 to manage "…Australia's largest water resource—the Murray-Darling Basin—in the national interest, as well as for providing information on national water resources." Two weeks later they give her a second job overseeing Australia's current national fuel crisis. Water and fuel—two national crisis issues getting part time attention from this Labor Government.

This Commission of Inquiry is important as we cannot allow the terms of reference to be dictated by a Labor Government who voted to remove the dedicated "Water Day" at Senate Estimates and cancels the appearances of the water agencies due to lack of time and quite frankly, what seems like a lack of interest. Labor's own comments on water at Estimates were they "just became more and more irrelevant through that time, because we didn't have the right people turning up."

A Commission of Inquiry will ensure we have the right people turning up. These issues have never been more relevant as we approach the negotiations of Murray Darling Basin plan 2.

A Commission of Inquiry is practical action for communities who are exhausted from "consultation fatigue". It's a Commission with power, with intent and focus.

Communities put forward submissions to inquiries begging the Labor Government to stop water buybacks, stop over-regulating their water, stop flooding waterways with environmental water flows, or stopping flows. Communities in drought, patiently waiting for the environmental flows to be released so they can have water for crops and stock. Marshes drying up as the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder suspends flows and ecosystems dry up.

Our people of the Murray-Darling Basin are begging to be allowed to farm and care for their land as they have for generations, only to be told the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder knows better—but these communities are telling us—it is not better.

They want scrutiny. Local Councils, industry groups, irrigators, horticulturalists, the local businesses who rely on the health and vitality of the Murray-Darling Basin to sustain their economies.

This Commission of Inquiry is not an attack on environmental protections. If environmental water is not delivering environmental outcomes, then the system is failing both the environment and it's the Murray-Darling Basin communities who are being asked to carry the cost. This Bill recognises the greatest threat to environmental protection is not scrutiny, it is a lack of accountability. It is billions of dollars of water being managed without clear evidence of impact and the growing loss of confidence in the institutions responsible for delivering it.

This Bill provides a practical, targeted and proportionate way forward by focusing on the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.

This Commission of Inquiry will focus on outcomes, on restoring trust, because without trust the Basin Plan cannot succeed. We want to see the system working—for the environment, for our regional communities and for the future of the Basin.

In electorates like Farrer, these issues are front and centre and the people of Farrer, and all the other electorates who rely on the Murray-Darling Basin, deserve transparency and answers.

Our regional communities deserve to know the water that is taken from their regions is delivering the outcomes they have been promised and we want to provide those answers.

This Bill will ensure environmental water policy in this country is not just well intentioned, it is actually effective.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

by leave—on behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on Monday, 2 March 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 347, relating to Housing Australia's expenditure on furniture, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply by midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026,

(ii) on Thursday, 5 March 2026, the Minister for Housing provided an interim response stating that additional time was required to finalise the response to the order and advising that the order would be responded to as soon as practicable, and

(iii) the order has not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 472, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

by leave—On behalf of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 391, relating to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regulatory Guide 97, with a compliance date of midday on Wednesday, 11 March 2026,

(ii) on Wednesday, 11 March 2026, the Minister representing the Treasurer provided an interim response from the Treasurer stating that additional time was required to comply with the order and advising that the order would be responded to as soon as practicable,

(iii) on Tuesday, 24 March 2026, the Senate agreed to a further order requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the original order by midday on Thursday, 26 March 2026, and

(iv) the order has still not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate after question time on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that:

(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and

(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The government tabled these documents today. Senator Bragg's office was notified that the government had complied with this motion. In light of this information, I urge senators to consider voting against this motion.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 473, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) order for the production of documents no. 371, relating to Housing Australia staff surveys, required the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by midday on Wednesday, 4 March 2026, and

(ii) the order has not been complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to comply with the order by no later than midday on Wednesday, 1 April 2026.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 474, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.

Senator Payman has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, as shown at item 14 of today's Order of Business:

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

The need for the Australian Government to address the increasing accessibility and affordability issues that are preventing Australian families from accessing quality early childhood education and care by imposing a 25% tax on gas exports".

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 the motion standing in Senator Payman's name:

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

The need for the Australian Government to address the increasing accessibility and affordability issues that are preventing Australian families from accessing quality early childhood education and care by imposing a 25% tax on gas exports".

It's not all that often that two of my favourite topics—quality education and care and taxing greedy corporations—converge in this place, but I guess today's my lucky day. Yesterday, we took a significant step towards what the Australian public agrees makes sense, what experts know make sense, what pretty much everyone knows makes sense except for the major parties, One Nation and, of course, the gas lobby. Our inquiry into the taxation of Australia's gas resources will be short and sharp, but it will dig deep. It will dig into the excuses that massive gas corporations have used for decades—excuses that successive weak governments have used for decades to avoid paying what they owe on tax on exports. Our message is simple: the free ride's over.

Australians are fed up with the gas industry's greed. They are fed up with a system where multinational corporations make billions exporting our resources while people at home are struggling to pay their bills. And they are fed up. They have absolutely had a gutful of Labor's refusal to take on these corporations and to tax them properly. This is money that belongs to the Australian public. It should be helping people afford the basics and transition off gas, not padding the profits of some soft wealthiest companies in the world.

A minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports would raise at least $17 billion every year. That is $17 billion a year that we are currently missing out on, 17 billion bucks that could be used to improve people's lives, to improve our energy security and to compensate households, because this inquiry comes at a crunch moment. The gas cartel is poised to cash in on global conflict—blood-soaked dollars—while Australians are being smashed with rising costs at home. These companies are rubbing their hands together with glee as prices surge. And the revenue we're talking about—there's no shortage of ways it could be used: immediate cost-of-living relief, free public transport, rapid electrification to protect households from exactly this kind of global energy shock in future, or even—I don't know—free, universal, high-quality early education and care.

Today the Senate Education and Employment Committee has also tabled its report into the quality and safety of early childhood education and care, an inquiry initiated by the Greens. Over the past year the sector has been through one of its most difficult periods. Families have been through one of their most difficult periods. We have seen serious safety failures, an exhausted and underpaid workforce, and families being priced out of the system they desperately depend on. At a moment like this we need bold structural reform. Instead, we've been given a report from a Liberal-controlled committee that barely tinkers at the edges. It's a disgrace. It focuses on short-term fixes while sidestepping the core issue: early learning in this country is still treated as a cash cow, not a public service.

Until we confront that, until we stop putting profits before kids, we'll be letting families and children down across this country. Just as we guarantee universal access to schoolchildren, we should be building a universal, high-quality early learning system—one that works for every child, every family and every educator. The Greens' dissenting report, which I am proud to have tabled, sets out a different path. It calls for a national ECEC commission—real action to lift wages, measures to rein in excessive profiteering and a clear transition to a universal system.

And $17 billion in tax from the greedy gas corporations could deliver truly universal, high-quality early childhood education and care. We can afford it, but it will require this captured government to stare down the vested interests that call the shots and finally put Australian families first. If we had the courage to take on the gas cartel and implement a fair export tax, we could fund the services Australians rely on. We could ease the pressure on households and we could finally build systems like early education that are designed for people, not for profit. This is a moment for people to pick a side. The Greens know which side we are on, and it sure as hell isn't the side of the gas cartels.

I rise to speak on this urgency motion before us today—the need for the Australian government to consider the increasing accessibility and affordability issues that are preventing Australian families from accessing quality early childhood education and care by imposing a 25 per cent tax on gas exports. Well, we don't need to introduce a 25 per cent tax on gas exports to fix our childcare and early learning system. We do need to address the deficiencies in our early learning and childcare system, but we don't need to impose a tax on gas exports to fund that.

What the government needs to do is to stop trying to impose a one-size-fits-all system on Australian families. Australian families need flexibility. They need choice when it comes to how they care for and see their children cared for. We don't need to see this one-size-fits-all system further expanded and developed in a way that would lock that in. We need to ensure that families are provided with that choice and that flexibility.

I think Senator Payman always brings really interesting motions into this place, and I appreciate that she brings them. It gives us a chance to actually have a debate, to have a discussion, about what's right and what's necessary for this country. But I've got to say, in this sense, she's channelling the Australian Greens when she brings a motion like this before the Senate.

The Greens's solution is to impose new taxes on everything. I guess they have to because, if they were to implement everything that they have on their agenda, then they would have to increase taxes all the way right through the economy because there's no way you could possibly pay for it. They're never happy in this place unless they're taxing something. In this case they're wanting to tax something in order to increase the big expenditure that would be required to achieve universal child care. That means we're going to get rid of the means testing for early learning in this country. It would mean that people on $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 a year would get the same subsidy as someone that was on a lower or more modest income. Surely that's not the sort of system we should have.

The government needs to come clean as to whether or not that's what they mean when they talk about universal child care, because that's the only way you could interpret it. The Productivity Commission talks about this and says that, if you were to impose that—if you brought that in—it would cost up to $8 billion to the budget, and it would mean that you're not directing the support and the services towards those who are most in need. We've got to think about the most vulnerable families in this country. We've got to think about those families that need child care and that need access to good quality child care, those that are living in a childcare desert. If there's going to be any sort of funding, it needs to go towards where the needs are. Simply providing universal access would just mean that we're not really directing it in a way that it should be. Of course the only way you could do that is to raise taxes. That's what Senator Payman, and the Greens in supporting it, are proposing here today—that we just impose those sorts of taxes.

Now Australian families are paying more for child care than ever before, even though we've heard, for two elections now, that the government are going to make childcare cheaper. They said they're going to make child care cheaper but all that's happening, all we know, is that parents are paying even more for it. This is the problem. You throw subsidies and you throw money at these sorts of things. Unless you deal with the underlying issues then you don't really address the challenges that are in this system.

I was proud to put my name to the committee report today that was tabled that addressed the issues around childcare safety. There was a chapter in there also about choice and flexibility, because we must provide choice and flexibility in the childcare system. Only about 50 per cent of children are actually in centre based care. What about the other 50 per cent? What sort of support is there for those families? This government needs to do more. That's why the coalition is taking this on as a challenge—to ensure we provide choice and flexibility to families who really need it most.

The early years represent the most powerful lever we have to shape the kind of Australia we want to become. Investing in the early years is the single most important thing we can do to build a fairer nation and to ensure that every child, no matter where they live or what their parents do, can thrive. Access to high-quality early education and care should be available to all families who seek it, without cost, availability or quality concerns presenting a barrier.

I am proud to be part of a government that sees the extraordinary potential of high-quality early education and care and that is matching that with investment. We are committed to delivering high-quality early education and care to every family who seeks it, to every family who needs it. We're backing in families with our three-day guarantee and the cheaper childcare reforms. Our three-day guarantee gives 72 hours per fortnight of subsidised care to children who need it. We've scrapped the punitive activity test, which locked children out—children who often can benefit most from a high-quality early education—and locked out families who weren't able to comply with its strict application. We're improving access by building quality supply where it is needed most. The $1 billion Building Early Education Fund will build and expand more quality not-for-profits and more centres co-located at schools to help families avoid that double drop-off.

We've announced our four agreements with the states and territories to deliver almost 2,000 new early learning places for families. Eighty per cent of those will be co-located, with more agreements to follow soon. But, of course, we're improving not just access but affordability too, making early education cheaper for more than one million families thanks to our policies. On average, this has meant families paying $3½ thousand less over a year because of the reforms.

We've capped the amount early learning centres can increase their fees by through the worker retention payment, and we're building a sustainable work force, led by a minister who has spent much of her working life fighting for these very workers. We've funded wage rises for early childhood education and care workers, with the second instalment of the 15 per cent wage increase delivered in December last year. We want to keep our highly skilled educators in the sector for years to come and train a new generation of educators, too. As I have said in this chamber many, many times before, our early childhood educators do life-changing, nation-building work every single day, and for too long in our country they have been underpaid and undervalued for the extraordinary work that they do. That has to change. It is changing, thanks to the investments of our government.

There could be no more important lever, no more important investment, than in the early years. Through investment in the early years, we don't just change individual lives and we don't just change opportunities and trajectories for families who can then work; we actually change the potential of our entire nation. Investing in the early years is the single most important foundational decision you can make to improve a child's whole education. When you improve a child's whole educational opportunity and potential, it's extraordinary. You can see and map out in a child's brain what happens when they have access to early childhood development opportunities. The simple act of counting fingers and toes and singing songs to a child sees an extraordinary change in the child's brain and development potential. We're investing in the early years because we know it matters. We're also investing to expand parental leave because we know those critical early months between a mother or a parent and a child are absolutely essential too for sparking those brain connections, for fostering that sense of security, for setting the foundations for an extraordinary educational potential going forward.

These are some of the most important policy issues facing our nation, in my view. Our government is investing in them. Our government is making the decisions we need to make to ensure more families who want to access the extraordinary potential of early education are able to do so. That ambition needs to be limitless. Of course there is more that we can do, and I look forward to working with senators in this chamber who share that passion on the path forward.

Are we seriously being asked to believe that slapping a punitive tax on the gas industry will somehow deliver better early childhood education and care for Australian families? This is just fantasy. It's not grounded in economics, evidence or even basic logic. It is quite simply madness dressed up as moral virtue. This is just an ideological hit job on an industry that employs thousands of Australians, keeps the lights on and underpins a large part of our economy. To casually propose taxing it into submission in pursuit of a completely unrelated policy goal is economic sabotage. Supporting early childhood education is a worthy objective, but hijacking it to justify dismantling a critical sector is as cynical as it is absurd.

The real problem here is there is no credible link—none. The motion asks us to draw a straight line between two entirely separate issues and just pretend the unrelated link between the two doesn't exist. It is just a hand wave and a promise that, if we squeeze one sector hard enough, everything else will somehow fall into place. By that logic, why stop at gas? Why not tax air? Perhaps breathing is the hidden obstacle to childcare access. Or walking—yes, maybe families would finally get relief if we taxed every step they took! It sounds ridiculous because it is ridiculous, yet it is no more detached from reality than the argument being put forward here.

This chamber is supposed to stand for serious, evidence based policymaking. Families facing skyrocketing childcare costs deserve real solutions, targeted investment, workforce strategies and reforms that actually address access and affordability. Instead, we get economic sleight of hand: tax one thing, promise another, and hope no-one looks too closely. I have heard some astonishing arguments in my short time in this chamber. This may not win outright, but it's certainly a finalist. This motion belongs in the bin.

I rise to make my contribution to this debate, too. I'd just like to say that I listened intently, Senator Whitten—it's not very often we're on the same fence on everything, but I do agree with you wholeheartedly on the nonsense of this one that's been put forward to us today.

I'm not going to attack Senator Payman—not at all—but I will say this. It's very easy, and she doesn't enjoy the support of a massive political machine behind her like she used to, but this is the sort of thing that you would hear around a barbecue when someone's on about their eighth or ninth or 10th beer, particularly someone who has not come from Western Australia. This is what really confuses me. Coming from the state of Western Australia—I'm not bagging Senator Payman out, and it's unfortunate she's not here to defend herself. But to fall into this ridiculousness of thinking, after about the eighth drink, 'How can we whack the living daylights out of a predominantly Western Australian industry?'—although it's all around Australia—to attack—

South Australia—in the basin.

You have got a little bit down there; I agree. Thank you, Senator Farrell—and Queensland and New South Wales.

First, to pull this one out and think this is quality policy that all Australians would fall over—I'm not one that attends all the football grand finals and everything with the oil and gas industry, but I will say this, coming from WA: you go through the airport in Perth, and what are you looking at in the airport in Perth? It's not full of tourists, unfortunately; it's not. We'd love more tourists. It's full of fluoro vests, and a lot of those fluoro vests are engaged in hard-rock mining. I don't have a lot of friends in hard-rock mining, but in gas—I have the greatest respect for the gas industry. Do they pay their way? One can argue, but I will say this: we have the PRRT. Could it be brought on earlier? There are all those sorts of arguments that we can have, but, yes, they employ a heck of a lot of Australians. Yes, they are working within the taxation realms that this nation has set for them. The first thing is, I think, if you were to raise this argument just to kick the living daylights out of the gas industry in Australia, there'd be a lot of opposition.

But, more importantly, let's talk about childhood. Early childhood care is important, and Senator Marielle Smith put it succinctly. She put it better than anyone that I've heard today. We know that this government has done so much for early childhood, and we know that every child deserves to have access to quality care—there's no argument. It doesn't matter what your postcode is. We also know that the government are backing in families with our three-day guarantee and cheaper childcare reforms.

I mean, this government is investing no less than $1 billion to build more centres in more places. We are doing that. We are investing $1 billion under our Building Early Education Fund. We're building more early learning centres where families need it most, including in the outer suburbs and in the regions. I know because I've seen what we've been doing in the Kimberley, and in May we went to the election proposing for the Pilbara, which is all good stuff. We're building more quality not-for-profits. We're building more centres co-located with schools—heaven help us!—to help families avoid a double drop-off while we're strengthening the sector to improve quality.

We've announced four agreements with the states and territories to deliver almost 2,000 new early learning places for families. Eighty per cent of those places will be, once again, co-located with schools. If you were to listen, or if you had no idea what was going on in this nation and you read Senator Payman's proposal, you would think that nothing is being done about early childhood. For goodness sake, this Albanese government's been groundbreaking. We've got more agreements to follow soon.

Just like every child has the right to go to school, every child now has the right to three days of the child care subsidy, and every parent has the subsidy support they need to get back to work when they're ready. Our parents would have loved that, Senator Whitten! Wouldn't they have loved to have had that opportunity? I think my parents would have put me in care for more than the three days if they'd had their opportunity! We have cut the cost of early learning for more than one million Australian families. On average, families will pay $3½ thousand less this year because of our cheaper-childcare reforms. We've capped the amount childcare centres can increase their fees, through the worker retention payment, and because of that fees have gone up by 3.5 per cent for those services in the last year. That's the sort of practical support parents need. Thought bubbles like we've seen today from Senator Payman—well, maybe keep them around the barbecue, and we'll put some serious policy in place with the Albanese government.

The question is that the urgency motion be agreed to.

I believe the whips have agreed to this. I seek leave to table the costings document that I referred to in question time today. It was lost in the repartee of question time.

Leave granted.

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator McGrath, which has been circulated and is shown at item 14 of today's Order of Business:

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to outline how it will ensure fuel is delivered to Australians where it is needed and rule out heavy-handed mandates.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

I move:

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

The need for the Albanese Labor Government to outline how it will ensure fuel is delivered to Australians where it is needed and rule out heavy-handed mandates.

We are in the middle of a fuel crisis. It's not being helped by a prime minister who is living in this self-induced bubble of Canberra and the world in which he likes to mix.

I don't think the Prime Minister or the members of the Labor Party who sit in the cabinet realise how tough people are doing it out there. We've got a cost-of-living crisis, and on top of the cost-of-living crisis we now have a fuel crisis, which is only adding to the pain that Australians are feeling when they pull out their purse or wallet and get their card out and do a swipe, or when they pay on their phone for items. Everything is costing more—and we all know the maxim 'Labor will always cost you more'—because of the Labor government. We note the government has announced a temporary cut to the fuel excise for three months—and that relief is welcome. I note that is something the coalition first called for, and it got pooh-poohed by the commentariat and also by some members of the Labor Party as not being needed—which just goes to show how out of touch this Labor government is.

What is surprising is that this fuel crisis should not have come as a surprise to the Labor government. Anyone with half a modicum of interest in world affairs would have known and seen that the United States and Israel have a particular interest in relation to the nuclear capability of Iran. Iran is in the middle of the Middle East, and the Middle East is famous for many, many good things, including oil. In particular, 20 per cent of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. If a conflict were to kick off over there, it would obviously have an impact upon Australia. This government didn't do any of the planning in relation to that.

If you fail to plan, you effectively plan to fail. If the government were taking out diplomatic staff from the Middle East from certain countries five, six or seven weeks ago, why weren't they making similar plans in relation to ensuring we had fuel security in this country?

The issue goes to this. If you're in regional Queensland, if you're in regional Australia, your access to fuel under this government is quite limited because across the country hundreds of petrol stations remain dry. What this means is that farmers can't run their machinery. Their seeding plans are at risk. This is not just an economic issue; it's actually a security issue in terms of the security risk of the lack of fuel and in terms of food security for Australia. It is well known that Australia is a food bowl and that, with a population of 28 million, we can comfortably grow the food for three times our population. However, this is not going to be the case if farmers cannot plant the seeds. So supply chains are under real pressure.

Without fuel, parents can't get to school. At the Liberal National state council on the weekend, the feedback from state council delegates from around the state—

Very sound judgements made.

Very sound debates were going on; thank you, Senator Bragg. The debates were going on and the conversations were being had in relation to how the lack of diesel in regional Queensland was impacting everything from parents being able to get their children to school to people just getting on with their lives. The No. 1 job of any government is to keep Australians safe, and this government is not keeping Australians safe because it is not ensuring that Australians have adequate fuel supply, a fuel supply that is within the means of the average Australian, who is already combating a cost-of-living crisis.

Senator McGrath asks for an outline of what the government is doing to boost fuel security in this nation. He doesn't need a motion in the Senate; he just needs to read the newspaper. I appreciate he's had a few things on his mind lately, so I am happy to catch him up on what's been going on.

Yesterday, the Albanese government announced the fuel excise will be halved from 52.6 cents to 26.3 cents per litre. This will take effect from tomorrow, providing relief against peaks in demand for fuel for the next three months. Further, the heavy vehicle road user charge will be reduced to zero for the same three-month period, providing immediate financial relief to the freight industry to the tune of $2.55 billion, reducing operating costs by 32 cents per litre.

On top of this, yesterday we passed a bill to give the Fair Work Commission the power to hear urgent applications to protect truckies and trucking operators from peaks in fuel demand. And on Monday the Prime Minister convened National Cabinet, and a four-stage National Fuel Security Plan was adopted. This is a plan that was adopted by all states and territory premiers and chief ministers, including Senator McGrath's own Premier in Queensland, David Crisafulli.

We've also begun the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves. We've changed petrol standards to get more fuel flowing. We've appointed a national Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator. We've tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel price monitoring and to issue on-the-spot fines to dishonest operators, and more. This is the kind of action you can expect from a serious party of government, not the One Nation tribute band we've seen the Liberal Party turn into. Labor understands the importance of fuel to keeping Australia moving, especially in Australia's most decentralised state, Queensland. Queenslanders depend on reliable fuel supply, not only for cars and trucks but for freight that keeps our state moving. Fuel is what gets our farmers' products to market, keeps emergency services operating and keeps our remote communities connected.

So the concerns of Australians and Queenslanders around global fuel security are real, and this government takes them seriously. What we will not do is treat an urgency motion as a substitute for policy, as Senator McGrath is doing today, or as a reason to run out the tail end of a preselection pitch. What Senator McGrath is not telling the Australian people is that the fuel security issues we now face were a deliberate policy design when the Liberals left office. Senator McGrath, you were the assistant minister to Scott Morrison when you closed our oil refineries in this country. I can't remember how many secret ministries the bloke had. I think it was five, at last count.

Six.

Six—thank you very much—and I'm pretty sure energy minister was one of them, too. And you were part of the Liberal-National government that walked away from our sovereign fuel capacity. You were sitting beside Australia's other worst energy minister, the member for Hume, Angus Taylor, when he drove this country into the ground. He hollowed out our domestic fuel supply, he closed our refineries, he made Australia dangerously dependent on global supply chains, he abandoned our sovereign fuel capacity, and he allowed national fuel reserves to fall to alarming new lows.

You left the future of Australia's refining industry hanging by a thread. In fact, only two of Australia's refineries are left, in Brisbane and in Geelong, and they are producing around 20 per cent of this country's fuel needs. Those refineries only survived thanks to the Australian Workers' Union standing shoulder to shoulder with the refinery workers, saving those refineries from closure. The AWU and this side of politics have always campaigned to secure a future where Australia retains the industrial muscle it needs at uncertain times. We saved the Mount Isa smelter and we saved the Boyne smelter, and coalition senators in this chamber mocked us this week.

If you assumed that the opposition might have learnt something after their decade of damage, you'd be wrong. Instead, Angus Taylor and opposition Treasury spokesperson Tim Nicholls today announced that they want to cut $2.6 billion from the budget—more Liberal Party cuts, cuts, cuts. They want to kill off the very things that are making energy more affordable in this country and making us less reliant on overseas fuel capacity.

I make the point that we are living through a period of very low ambition for our country, and I feel really sorry for the people we are sent here to serve, because this government has left the nation totally unprepared for this current challenge. And it's not as if this is a new thing. It is not as if we haven't had supply chain challenges in the last five years. People with some reasonable sense of a memory will recall the COVID-19 pandemic. So here we sit, at the bottom end of the South Pacific, at the end of the supply chain, which has been designed to work on a just-in-time basis, totally exposed, completely weak and unable to respond in a way that is befitting of such a strong nation, a nation that should be prosperous nation.

I've asked myself, where did this all go wrong? I think there has been way too much ideology in the energy debate over the years, and my views haven't changed, other than to the point that I do think that we fundamentally have to be honest with the Australian people that we need more of everything. We are going to need more fossil fuels. We're going to need more renewables. Unfortunately, I think we have a situation where different people in different political parties have decided that there's a particular form of energy purity that they like to talk about to the exclusion of all others, like there's some energy that's good and some energy that's bad. Well, the truth is that we are endowed with all these resources—whether it be uranium, whether it be sunshine, whether it be wind, whether it be coal, whether it be gas or whether it be oil. We have 40 years of oil in the ground in this country and we can't get it out because of the environmental laws. That tells you that we're making a very big mistake. The idea that we are not going to use our own resources for our own benefit, while almost every other country continues to use our resources—either we export resources to them or they dig them up themselves—is just insane. It's unfair on our people. It is the most vulnerable people who won't be able to afford fuel because of the unusual ideological bent that has permeated our energy policy.

I make the point that Minister Watt has declared himself king of the environment and that he has fixed the environment laws. My sense is that he is not a very good king of the environment, because I don't think we're going to be able to get any resources in Australia in a timely fashion. The fact that it took seven or eight years to get the Browse and the Woodside developments going in the North West Shelf Project—God knows how many others gave up in that process—is a very bad sign.

The test, going forward, is: how can we get a more reasonable public debate going on in this country? We are going to need to use more fossil fuels. We're going to need to use more renewables. We're going to need more of everything. It would be insane to not use the things that we have, here in this country, while everyone else uses similar energy sources. We can't punish people; we can't punish Australians for being Australian. That's what I feel like we have been doing, certainly given the lack of preparedness the government has shown in the last few weeks. At the end of the day, yes, there are tactical judgments the government has made to respond—too slow, I'd say—but these are ultimately short-term measures.

The bigger question is: are we going to have the long-term energy abundance that we need to maintain our First World status economy? I'd say that it's very uncertain because one of the biggest drags on getting the energy resources approved and up to scratch has been these environmental laws. Given the Senate's extensive investigation of these bills, I would say, almost definitively, that there won't be any improvements under these laws, because all of the principal things, in the main, are in the regulations. So I don't think we're going to get fast approvals anytime soon. That's bad because we need more energy and more fuel right now.

It's always interesting to hear from Senator McGrath and get yet another of the opposition's logical inconsistencies on the public record. On the one hand he calls out the Albanese Labor government to outline how it will ensure that fuel is delivered to Australians where it's needed. With that bit, absolutely, I agree. Then he goes on to call for the government to rule out heavy-handed mandates. I get the message, Senator McGrath. It's: do something, but, whatever you do, don't do anything. It's a totally confused message, and that's what we're getting consistently from those on the opposite side. We know why the LNP is sitting over there and why this government is on the Treasury benches. It's because we are a government that will responsibly, carefully and logically get things done. Australians know that the global circumstances that we're dealing with are really pressing hard on every single economy across the world and pressing hard on the delivery of the fuels that we have always expected would flow. There is an unprecedented conflict in the Middle East. It's absolutely pushing up prices everywhere around the world. Here, in Australia, that's putting pressure on families, on farmers and on small and large businesses. When you go to the servo to fill up and they're out of fuel, of course that can be really, really worrying, and that's why our government is hearing from Australians, accepting the reality and getting on with taking careful and necessary action calmly and methodically to get the fuel we need restocked as soon as possible, and when that fuel gets here, to get it to where it needs to go.

Now, despite a stable national fuel supply, we know that the global price pressure and the doubling of demand in some areas has seen parts of the regional fuel market—the spot market in particular—come under significant strain. It's had an unacceptable impact particularly on regional customers, who source their fuel this way as the most common way. This is especially affecting farmers. That's why we're working collaboratively and practically with the states and the territories to fix these supply chains and get the fuel where it needs to be. Now, we've undertaken this task carefully. We've introduced legislation that is really vital to making sure that we underwrite additional fuel cargoes and other vital strategic reserves that will help to acquire additional supply. We've got more fuel, and diesel in particular, into the Australian market by temporarily amending the fuel standards to help respond to the reality that Australians are facing. We've released 20 per cent of the baseline minimum stockholding obligation for petrol and diesel, which has further boosted fuel supply.

In New South Wales, my home state, we are working together with the state government to deal with the realities of significant additional demand. At Newcastle terminal, as one example, diesel sale volumes have been up to 36 per cent more than was forecast during March. The state government of New South Wales has announced it will require major fuel companies to provide information on their plans for supplying the additional fuel that's needed, particularly to regional communities, and the state government will establish a liquid fuel emergency operations centre to track any shortages, to coordinate fuel direction and to forecast future supply needs.

There's evidence that this minimum stockholding obligation release is already beginning to flow into regional communities. One company's sales to independent distributors that supply regional and rural areas is up to 33 per cent of the normal average monthly volume after only 25 days of sales. In the Central West and south-west of the state, an extra 1,200 kilolitres of diesel is flowing to agricultural and regional independent retail networks. There's an extra 400 kilolitres heading to the Dubbo region to fill bulk tanks. At a national level, the legislative changes that will be coming to this place in just a couple of hours, relating to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, will bring the deal-making expertise of Export Finance Australia to the challenge to make sure we can enable the purchase of cargoes and support those companies to continue to address the supply shortages.

This is a significant problem that Australians are facing. The cost of fuel and the fuel shortages in our country have impacted Australians in a very big way, and this isn't an isolated impact. I think that, if we hadn't had the cost-of-living struggles in our country that we've had for the last four years, if we hadn't had the housing crisis in our country that we've had for the last four years and if we hadn't had the broader inflationary challenges in this country that we've had for the last four years, as well as the increase in interest rates and the increase in rents, maybe this would have been felt differently by Australians. But, on top of everything else that Australians are paying more for, this is just another punch in the guts.

I did the math on it before. The average price of diesel fuel in February was $1.82 a litre. The average price this week is $3.07 a litre. On a 60-litre tank, that's an increase from about $110 to about $185. That's an almost 70 per cent increase in a matter of weeks. I know those opposite will say that it's not their fault and that it is a global shock, and I acknowledge that that is the case. But the issue is that this is on top of all of the other homegrown shocks, and Australians have just had enough. They can't take it. This is yet another thing that they have to cop and that they have to deal with. Every time that they feel that they're getting one step ahead, they have to take two steps back.

It's particularly hard for young Australians who are struggling to start out. I've said it over and over, and I'm going to say it again. They believe, no matter how hard they work, they will never be able to own their own home. There's actually nothing there for them in that social contract. They're missing out across the board. That's a failure of the people in this place. We have to do better with that. We have to change that. We want to restore those standards of living for Australians. We want to restore the dream of homeownership.

The other thing I want to reflect on in my comments—and I acknowledge that the government has now decided to adopt the coalition's policy of reducing the fuel excise by some 25 cents a litre—is that, a couple of weeks ago in this chamber, when we talked about fuel shortages and when we said that petrol stations were running out of petrol and diesel, those opposite laughed at us and said we were scaremongering and that we were causing people to panic buy. But it was true. We were being told by people, particularly in regional areas at that point in time, that they were going to petrol stations and there was no fuel. Those opposite denied it; they said it wasn't true. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy and the Prime Minister said: 'It's not true; it's scaremongering. You're causing people to panic buy.' Within 24 hours of that, the energy minister came out and said, 'Actually, we do have a crisis.'

The point I want to make here is that, for some reason, those opposite—the Prime Minister particularly and, in this case, his energy minister—have their heads in the sand when we have significant problems, and they are in denial about the scale and the significance of those problems until they can no longer deny them. Australians deserve a government that is proactive, will lead and will plan to navigate challenges like those which we are facing today. They do not deserve a government that has its head in the sand, particularly on the back of all of the cost-of-living pressures that Australians have been under for the last four years. Not least among those is yet another interest rate rise, announced a few weeks ago, which, once again, means a greater impost on family budgets, a greater impost on small businesses that are trying to work out how to make ends meet and a greater impost on the tradie who's trying to work out how much diesel they can afford to put in their truck to go to the next job, on top of the soaring prices of all the materials that they need, whether they be a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter, a bricklayer or a builder. This is the reality that Australians are facing, and this government needs to step forward and lead proactively, not reactively.

Question agreed to.

I move the second reading amendment that was circulated in my name and which makes clear that there is much more work to be done when it comes to the section 28 issue in relation to the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026:

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

(a) notes that the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 permits teachers to use copyright material in online lessons delivered via platforms such as Zoom;

(b) calls on the Government to ensure that copyright law delivers genuine clarity for educational institutions operating in a modern learning environment by progressing amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act 1968 to allow lessons to be recorded for a limited period, with appropriate access controls and destruction requirements in place, so that students who cannot attend lessons due to illness, disability, or other reasons are able to catch up; and

(c) notes that ensuring educational institutions are able to operate in rapidly changing digital environments will be critical going forward".

When we've been speaking with stakeholders in this space—and I particularly want to reference the education providers—they point out that so much of what happens now in universities and in TAFEs is education that is provided online. Often there'll be a lecture recorded in real life. It is beamed out, sometimes, and put live online so that students can remotely access it while the lecture is being delivered. We understand that the proposed section 28 amendments would largely capture that and ensure that copyright isn't payable for copyrighted materials that are transmitted live.

But, of course, Acting Deputy President, as you would know, as would anyone who's spoken to students studying at universities and TAFE now would know, quite often what happens is, if students are unable to access the lecture in real life and unable to see it when it's being broadcast—they may be ill, they may have a clash in their timetables or they may have work—they rely upon a recording of it. They log in using their student ID; they access the recording of the video.

As I understand it, the government doesn't intend section 28 to provide protection for education institutions when students are accessing their educational materials from a recording. There is no mechanism in place currently to provide for payments for that because it hasn't traditionally been the provision of copyrighted material that copyright owners have previously sought to recover payments from education providers. Our second reading amendment on behalf of the Greens addresses that pretty fundamental problem in section 28.

I want to be clear on the part of the Greens. We believe that we should be removing all barriers we possibly can so that public education providers—our universities, our schools and our TAFES—can have as great a penetration as possible into the community and the community can have as great an access as possible to education resources. It should not be constrained by arcane provisions in copyright law. I don't know why it is that the Labor government doesn't also back in public education like the Greens, but it's for those reasons that I commend the second reading amendment as moved.

(Quorum formed)

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that's existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.

The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what 'reasonably diligent' means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it's quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.

The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It's the copyright owner's discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there's that word again. There's a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I've seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like 'reasonable' to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.

One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.

The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI's output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google's page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.

The Copyright Amendment Bill 2026 is a good bill. I thank the government for bringing it forward, and all the public servants who worked on it and those in the minister's office.

I want to talk briefly about copyright at this critical point in history, where we're seeing AI companies and big tech hoovering up copyrighted works to train their models with what seems like no regard for copyright holders. This is the role of governments—to step in and say: 'We have a system of copyright, and it's served us well. We have it in recognition of people who create works—artists, authors, and others—in recognition that their work is theirs. They own it. Utilising that work should be a negotiation, and they should be paid for the use of that work after the negotiation.'

It seems there are only two instances in Australia where we infringe upon that right. One is with artists, when it comes to the cap on what commercial radio and the ABC have to pay artists. There's no negotiation there; we have a one per cent cap. The other is when it comes to AI—and I have very serious concerns about what artificial intelligence means for creatives, for copyright and more broadly for our economy. I just haven't seen anything from this government—or both the major parties in this country—that shows they are willing to stand up to big tech, particularly in the time of President Trump and his relationship with big tech, and what that means for our ability to stand up to big tech given our reliance on the US when it comes to AUKUS and other things.

There are many Australians both questioning AI and questioning why we aren't allowed to stand up for our own artists in this country, for creatives here in Australia. It is important that the Senate says, 'We will protect copyright of creatives.' It's not good enough that you are a multibillion dollar company that has a huge amount of clout; that doesn't matter. You've got to pay copyright holders to use their works. I think it will get caught up in the guillotine, but I foreshadow a second reading amendment that very simply states that—and I would urge Senate colleagues to back copyright holders in Australia and back that second reading amendment.

We need to stand up to AI companies. We need to stand up to big tech. We need to stand up to this surveillance capitalism that is not working for us. They are monetising our attention. They are making, when it comes to big tech, extraordinary profits and finding some pretty creative ways of not paying us here in Australia. My sense—and we canvassed this a little bit during question time—is that some expectations from the government are not going to cut it. We need a government that is willing to stand up to big tech, to stand up to the AI giants who are in this arms race to develop the best model, to develop artificial general intelligence, and what that may mean for our economy and for societies around the world. We haven't even got into the some of the potential job losses from artificial intelligence; I don't think we're even tracking them at the moment here in this country—no safeguards, let it rip. It really doesn't cut it more broadly with AI. When it comes to copyright, we need to reaffirm that we believe that copyright is a really important part of how we deal with people's creative works in this country.

I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on the Copyright Amendment Bill 2026. This bill implements two priority legislative reforms. Firstly, there is the establishment of an orphan works scheme, which will facilitate publicly beneficial use of genuinely orphaned materials by reducing legal risks for good faith users without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners. Secondly, the proposed amendments to section 28 of the Copyright Act will ensure copyright material is treated consistently, regardless of whether it is used in a physical, online or hybrid classroom, so long as the other conditions of that section are met. They will also promote collaborative learning, involving parents and members of the community, without impacting existing licensing arrangements.

The bill will also strengthen and modernise the Copyright Act through various minor and technical amendments to simplify, update and clarify certain provisions. I thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, expertly chaired by Senator Jana Stewart, for its inquiry into the bill over the recent months. The government agrees with the committee's sole recommendation that the bill be passed.

I do want to assist the chamber in some way, given the motion's time of an hour is upon us, and address some of the second reading amendments, if that's helpful. The government opposes the amendment put forward by the Greens. The government has been clear that the bill is intended to achieve outcomes that stakeholders agreed could be progressed with broad support. Stakeholders have broadly agreed that section 28 of the Copyright Act could be clarified to ensure that it applies in the same way to an online remote class as to in-person classes. The bill has been carefully drafted to achieve this intent.

Additional measures to extend section 28 to cover recording of lessons for later viewing do not have broad stakeholder support. Rights holders remain strongly opposed to such an extension, evidenced through a joint media release issued by several rights holders representatives on 20 March 2026. This is a complex area of law and a contested policy space; we accept that. It requires careful consideration and detailed analysis to balance the interests of all stakeholders and to avoid any unintended consequences.

This is what the bill, as currently before the Senate, achieves. It represents several years of work with key stakeholders to achieve pragmatic outcomes that benefit the education sector, while not impacting rights holders' legitimate interests, and it has broad stakeholder support. This is not the case for the amendment moved by the Greens, and, for this reason, the government opposes that amendment.

The government also opposes the second reading amendment foreshadowed by Senator David Pocock. The government has already been clear in strongly supporting Australian creators and media organisations. That is why the Attorney-General announced in October last year that the government is not considering a text and data mining exception. Under such a proposal, artificial intelligence developers would be able to use the works of Australian creatives for free, and without permission, to train AI systems. The government stands behind Australia's creative and media industry. The Australian government has consistently said that there are no plans to weaken copyright protections when it comes to AI. The bill will implement important reforms that update and clarify the Copyright Act, reducing legal risk and promoting modern, collaborative learning for the benefit of the Australian community, without unreasonably prejudicing the interests of copyright owners.

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

I move:

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

(a) reaffirms its support for creators and rightsholders and the fundamental principle that they should control, and be fairly paid for, the use of their works; and

(b) rejects any proposal to introduce text and data mining exceptions or any other provisions that would allow Big Tech to use copyrighted material without authorisation or payment".

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? No. In that case, I will call the minister.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—Senator Payman supported the Greens's second reading amendment, Senator Pocock's second reading amendment and the second and third readings of the bill.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT (STRATEGIC RESERVE) BILL 2026

The events of the past few weeks have been a reminder to us all that while Australia is an island, we are not removed from the world.

Right now, a war being fought on the other side of the world is having a real impact on Australians here at home.

No country will be immune from the impacts of this conflict. But what Governments can and must do is act.

That's exactly what this Government has done. Acting decisively and planning for new challenges that might arise.

We have boosted fuel supply by releasing up to 20 per cent of the baseline Minimum Stockholding Obligation for petrol and diesel. Those stocks are now flowing across the country to the areas that need it most.

We've acted to get more fuels into the Australian market by temporarily amending the fuel standards.

We've fixed refinery support to underpin the important role these facilities play in domestic supply.

We've appointed Anthea Harris as Fuel Supply Taskforce Coordinator to support coordination across governments and sectors.

And we are working directly with international suppliers to keep scheduled arrivals on track; But we cannot afford to be complacent.

The longer this war goes on, the more severe the impacts will be.

Today we take the next step to ensure Australia remains prepared. Our focus is on acting now to insulate Australians as best we can from what's ahead.

The fact is that the broader international environment is becoming increasingly volatile.

Cargo is available on the international market—but it is becoming more expensive and riskier to secure commercially.

Oil prices are moving sharply.

The risk premium for purchasing discretionary cargoes is rising. Work to scope deals and secure additional fuel is already underway.

That's why today's bill is so urgent. This Bill creates a Strategic Reserve to secure the supply of strategic materials that are vital for Australia's economy.

These include fuel, critical minerals, and other goods and materials that may be impacted by disruptions to supply chains.

The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 will ensure Australia's preparedness to address supply chain disruption of materials, goods or things.

This includes fuel and other commodities such as fertiliser, experiencing disruption as a result of market volatility and geopolitical events including the current conflict in the Middle East.

Specifically, through this Bill, the Albanese Government is taking steps to shield Australians from potential future fuel supply chain disruptions.

This bill establishes a new fuel security trading power to acquire additional fuel in the international market for domestic use.

This fuel security support from the Government will not be business as usual. It must be additional supplies that are available on the international market.

It will underwrite the purchase of shiploads of fuel to get here to Australia.

Export Finance Australia will have a very flexible suite of measures to work with companies.

It can provide insurance, derivatives, loans and other arrangements to make sure that those companies can go and get those cargoes for Australia and for Australians.

These new fuel security powers will put Australia in a strong position, securing fuel supply where it may be cost prohibitive for private suppliers to source on commercial terms, without government support.

Building on Export Finance Australia's expertise as Australia's export credit agency, the Bill provides Export Finance Australia (EFA) with the commercial and financial functions necessary to deliver on the Strategic Reserve's objectives.

The legislation will give EFA a broad financial toolkit to use on the National Interest Account (NIA) that will go beyond the debt and equity tools it currently has available on the NIA.

On behalf of, and at the direction of the Government, EFA will have the ability to secure supply, sell and selectively stockpile fuel, critical minerals and other strategic materials.

These powers will help secure Australia's fuel supply, address regional shortages or supply gaps impacting critical services, and position Australia as a trusted and stable partner in high-value, vulnerable supply chains.

As outlined, this Bill responds to the immediate challenge of fuel security.

But it will also include measures to strengthen Australia's economic security in the medium to long term.

This bill also gives legislative effect to the Government's election commitment to develop and implement a new $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve

This will cement Australia at the forefront of global efforts to stabilise critical minerals markets and shore up reliable access to critical minerals vital for Australia's economy, national security and our Future Made in Australia ambitions.

Australia has some of the largest deposits of critical minerals in the world—minerals vital to renewable energy and defence technology supply chains.

The Bill provides Export Finance Australia with the commercial and financial functions necessary to construct complex financial arrangements that deliver on the objectives of the Reserve.

These new tools will allow EFA to construct financial arrangements via:

The Bill will ensure the Reserve can help meet critical minerals demand, support offtake, stockpile critical minerals, if needed, and help to provide price certainty.

As the Government announced in January, the Reserve will initially focus on antimony, gallium, and rare earth elements.

The integration of critical minerals into today's Strategic Reserve builds on the Albanese Labor Government's work to secure investment in Australia's critical minerals sector.

This will create more high-paid jobs for Australians and deliver resilient and sustainable critical minerals supply chains.

In addition to safeguarding Australia's economic and national security, the Reserve will position us to collaborate even more closely with key international partners to develop integrated, end-to-end critical minerals supply chains.

Further development of Australia's abundant supply of critical minerals will diversify global supply chains and strengthen economic partnerships with other nations.

We look forward to working with the United States, Japan, Republic of Korea, Europe, Canada and the UK as we implement the critical minerals Strategic Reserve.

Our Government is undertaking every practical measure to shield our nation from the worst of this global uncertainty.

While Australia continues to receive sufficient fuel overall, this Bill will help position us to manage fuel supply chain disruptions and ensure we have a wider range of tools available to respond to Australian's everyday needs.

Establishing this Strategic Reserve is in our national interest, now, and in the future.

We will not wait for a crisis to deepen before we act. We will prepare for what may come, and we will act ahead of the curve. What we do today will shield Australians from the challenges of tomorrow.

Finally, colleagues, the Labor Party has realised that oil, diesel and petrol are strategic commodities. What the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026 does—what the Labor Party are doing at the last minute as we enter perhaps the worst energy crisis since the 1970s—is finally, belatedly recognise we need fossil fuels to keep our country moving. It's taken them awhile; they have, for their first four years in government, run a war on fossil fuels, and that war, which they have won some battles at, I must say, has meant Australia is entering this energy crisis in a much more vulnerable state than we should otherwise , because the Labor Party just don't like fossil fuels. They don't like oil. They don't like petrol. They don't like diesel. And now they expect us—they expect the Australian people—to trust them to deal with a major oil shortage.

I welcome this bill. I welcome the belated recognition of the importance of fossil fuels. I've been trying to scream this from the rooftops for my whole political career, because the basic facts are things don't get done in our economy unless we have a balanced mix of energy sources, and that does and must include the application of liquid fuels, because liquid fuels are what moves the trucks. They are what helps our tractors plant our food, what keeps our major export industries going and what helps transport the things we in this country need to import from overseas. Without them, our country stops. Without them, people will suffer. There's no doubt about that.

What the bill does, as I was hinting at, is establish strategic reserves or a list of strategic commodities that can be added to a strategic reserve. The government has used this as a backdoor to establish a strategic critical minerals reserve; I'll give them that. There is the ability to add other materials, I note, including, as the government has flagged, fertiliser and PVC, which are also things that are made from petrochemical products, from these so-called evil fossil fuels that help feed us and help house us. We do very much need them.

Surprisingly, the government has not put solar panels or wind turbines on the strategic reserve lists. I thought we had been told for years that all we had to do was capture our sun and our wind and everything would be rosy. Again, we're getting a lesson from the school of hard knocks that the fairytales the government have told our country have turned out to be that very thing.

So welcome back to the Labor Party. Welcome back to the land of common sense and the planet called Earth. It's just a little bit late, and I do think there are still shortcomings with this approach, which, unfortunately, may cause issues for us in the future. As I say, we will happily guide the Labor Party back to planet Earth. We've been here. We never left, so we know the way around here, and we'll help them get this bill through the Senate at the last minute. But, in doing so, I want to flag that we will move some amendments that would, once and for all, see Labor's war on fossil fuels end. If the Labor Party doesn't support these very reasonable amendments, we will see that their last-minute conversion to these issues is fake one. It's not real. They are just trying to manage themselves from one political crisis to another, not to really solve the issues ahead of our nation.

One of our amendments will, very simply, get rid of the damage the Labor Party did just a year ago. Right here tonight they're saying: 'Oh, we love fossil fuels. We want to bring these ships in. We want to ensure them.' You'll hear them speak about that tonight. But just a year ago the Labor Party changed the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act to ban Efic from supporting coal, oil and gas. That is in section 23C of the act. We'll move an amendment to remove that.

If the Labor Party is serious about solving this oil crisis they will support us in removing the very damage that they did just last year. We know what the Labor Party did last summer. We know that last summer the Labor Party sought to kill our coal, oil and gas industry. So it's a bit rich for them to come in here tonight and say that somehow they now support it.

Finally, we'll give the Labor Party the opportunity to unwind the dodgy deal they did with the Greens just four months ago. Just four months ago the Labor Party moved an amendment to the EPBC Act, to environmental laws, to exclude the ability of the environment minister to approve a project if it involves fossil fuels. Amazingly—absurdly—we're about to go into the worst energy crisis since the 1970s, we're about to leave this place for five weeks and the government, thanks to its deal with the Greens, has no ability to approve a project that might help us bring more oil online, because they have excluded the ability for that to be in the national interest. Surely it is in our national interest to approve a project that underpins our liquid fuel security in this country. (Time expired)

While I appreciate the drama and rhetorical flourish of contributions here in the chamber, Australians need fuel. They're not interested in words being issued with passion and vigour that actually mean nothing to them when they get to the bowser. They need a responsible government that's actually doing what needs to be done.

I want to put on the record that, in the preparation of the vehicle that is going to allow us to get the fuel in and secure the continuity of fuel supply for Australians, the government has been working very carefully, consulting to make sure that what we do for our fuel sector as well as the critical minerals sector is supported. Looking at the stakeholders who have invested time in making sure the legislation that is coming to this place today—which has long been in preparation—we have the support of the critical minerals strategic resources sector itself. Those opposite will misrepresent our relationship with that very important part of Australia's economy, but the reality is that they support this piece of legislation.

Since the war broke out in the Middle East with Iran, Israel and the US, and the subsequent impact on all parts of the Middle East, major fuel retailers and refiners have been consulting with the government. Let me tell you, in those meetings there's a lot less rhetorical flourish and a lot more 'Let's deal with the reality,' in a truly Australian way: we've got a few challenges; let's get on with the job.

What is happening with this particular piece of legislation is part of our carefully calibrated National Fuel Security Plan. We want to keep Australia open, and we want to keep Australia moving. There are four phases that the government has outlined in the responsible management of the challenges we face right now in 2026—no looking backwards, only looking forward, to make sure Australians' needs are fulfilled. Phase 1 is plan and prepare; that's what we're doing, that's what we've been able to undertake to get to a point where this legislation is now responsibly before the parliament. Phase 2 is keeping Australia moving; that is what this vehicle will enable. At stage 3, there will be targeted opportunities for taking action. And at stage IV—a responsible government prepares—we will make sure we are there to protect critical services for all Australians. We can pray for peace in the Middle East, and we will all benefit from that, not just in the Middle East but right here in Australia, in the re-establishment of the processes of peace that deliver prosperity and certainty into our market.

Export Finance Australia needs new powers to finance the import of fuel and other necessary goods. In this parliament we talk all the time about making sure our farmers have urea. We've heard from the housing industry that we need things like PVC piping, and more and more conversations with stakeholders will reveal critical things that need to come into the country. This very elegant vehicle will allow Export Finance Australia to: provide financial derivatives; provide price support; purchase, sell and stockpile fuel and other necessary goods to ensure domestic availability as and when directed by government; and financially hedge resulting exposures as appropriate.

This is a degree of flexibility built in here to make sure that, if a big company like Viva finds that there is a whole cargo of fuel on the spot market that can come to Australia but the market is so volatile that they are not willing to take the risk—or, in the case of a small provider that really services regional Australia, they simply do not have the financial resources to manage the risk—the government will underwrite and support that company in undertaking that business, bringing the fuel to our nation. This is not a replacement for good business decision-making, but it is a vital support to the supply to our nation.

And let me clear: it is only possible because this excellent vehicle, as I know, has been the work of Minister Madeleine King for a long time. She has been able to successfully work with her colleagues Mr Bowen and Senator Don Farrell to bring about this important tool to provide Australians with the certainty that we need and deserve. (Time expired)

I thank Senator Waters and Senator Bragg for their courtesy in allowing me to speak earlier in this debate. This is a bill about Australia's economic resilience, and I thank Minister Farrell for his work to deliver this important legislation. The current conflict in the Middle East is an unprecedented shock to global energy markets. Iran's weaponisation of the Strait of Hormuz has severely disrupted global supply chains, including fuels and other critical supplies needed here in Australia.

We recognise that these disruptions have real consequences for Australian businesses and Australian households, so we are doing all that we can to bolster the supply of fuel for Australians, and I'm pleased that one of our portfolio agencies, Export Finance Australia, is playing a critical role in this. Economic resilience contributes to Australia's security and strengthens Australian sovereignty. I have spoken about using all tools of statecraft to maximise our national power, especially in these turbulent times. Through this bill, Australian agency EFA will continue to support businesses across the materials they need to keep Australia moving in this time of disruption.

This legislation provides the government with a strategic reserve function and empowers EFA to help secure, supply, sell and stockpile strategically and to access a broader financial toolkit including insurance guarantees, loans and other arrangements. What does this mean? Practically, it means that these tools enable EFA to step in and support businesses purchasing critical supplies in the national interest. We are under no illusion about the world we face, and our government is focused on building our resilience to withstand global shocks, make sovereign choices and keep our people and economy moving no matter what the world throws at us. Importantly, this bill builds upon the actions this government has engaged in over the past four years to build Australia's resilience in an ever less stable world.

We want a peaceful, stable, prosperous region where no country dominates and no country is dominated, and we are working to achieve that. We want a region in which the collective prosperity and collective security of our partners and neighbours are tied to our own, and we know we cannot just rely on the old model to keep Australia secure, which is why we have worked to secure, strengthen and diversify our relationships in the region, making the right investments with the right partners at the right time. It is why we are developing the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve, which will cement Australia at the forefront of global efforts to diversify supply for critical mineral markets during a period of significant market uncertainty and volatility. It is why we launched Invested: Australia's Southeast Asia Economic Strategy to 2040, which has seen more than $2 billion in trade outcomes since 2024.

This government has supported over $1.2 billion in Australian investment into the region, and investment from South-East Asia to Australia has increased by more than $650 million. Our $2 billion Southeast Asia Infrastructure Financing Facility is working with Australian investors to support new opportunities in renewable energy, telecommunications and infrastructure. All of this means more opportunities for Australian businesses to grow, more Australian jobs, more economic prosperity and more resilience for our country. For the past 3½ years, the Albanese government have been building Australia's future in our region. This is what we rely on in challenging times.

The government has been clear: the longer this war goes, the worse the impacts will be. We are acting now to prepare and shield Australians from the worst of it, ensuring our farmers, our regional communities and the services all Australians rely on can continue to access the fuel they need and using all tools of national power to make ourselves stronger at home and more resilient to future disruption.

I thank the officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and from Export Finance Australia who worked around the clock to deliver this key piece of legislation so quickly. This bill is a testament to what can be achieved to advance Australia's national interest when we bring together all arms of statecraft. This bill is an act of economic resilience, and I encourage all in the Senate to support this legislation.

I rise to speak to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill, which has been raced through parliament in the last 48 hours. I want to make it clear at the outset that the Greens share the concerns of many in our community that the war in Iran is much more serious and long lasting than many in this place thought it would be when we questioned them just a few weeks ago. The dangerous actions of Trump and Netanyahu have been visible and painfully real to anyone who's had to fill up in the past few weeks. While I've condemned our government for their so early support of this war—first out of the blocks—and their lack of preparedness for another oil shock, I have shared their concern that we need to take actions now to ensure we can buffer against the risk that it gets worse as the months go on.

I feel for our community. The cost of living was already out of control, particularly for those renting, for those on pensions, for those studying and for those with older, less well-insulated homes or no homes at all. The cost of living was skyrocketing because of corporate profits and price gouging, while wages were flatlining, so our community was already at its limits. There's nothing spare for another shock. So I agree it's critical to pull all levers now, not wait until things get worse to act. However, it is deeply disappointing that, in the four years since Labor took government, they have not prioritised learning the lessons of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent economic pain that it caused our community and turning that into a commitment to a faster transition away from foreign fossil fuels, given how readily available those alternative technologies are and how we have those resources in spades here onshore. It is deeply disappointing that we're authorising up to $3 billion today to go to this project and we're not simultaneously speeding through a minimum 25 per cent gas tax on the likes of Santos for the obscene war profits that they are making to help offset the expense of this.

The Greens support emergency measures to make sure Australia has enough fuel and enough of the resources that we need to keep freight and food moving around this country during the crisis. But this bill does a hell of a lot more than just that. This bill grants a range of broad and unchecked powers to all future ministers well after this crisis is over, in perpetuity, and in particular category (c) in this bill would give the government of the day the power to funnel public money into anything at all that the minister determines unilaterally is in the national interest. I want to put that clearly on the record tonight. The government have inserted into this legislation the ability of Export Finance Australia to invest, via contract, loans, guarantees or equity, into 'any material, good or other thing that may be imported' and 'is experiencing, or is vulnerable to experiencing, supply chain disruptions'. That category is very, very wide. Theoretically, almost any importable good experiencing supply disruption could qualify as a category (c) item. This is effectively a blank cheque for this government and all future governments. None of that comes back to parliament to decide on or to consider or even to disallow if it's an egregious use of public resources.

The government clearly have a mindset of 'Don't waste a crisis', and they're using the urgency of the fuel crisis as cover to give themselves sweeping powers to invest in anything at all in the future, and that could include things like weapons manufacturing. I will point out that this is not limited to the duration of the fuel crisis; they are forever powers. That's why the Greens have asked the government to make these emergency measures temporary and sunset after six months. That's why I will be moving an amendment to do just that. The government has not made the case to extend these measures any longer, nor have they made the case that a minister should be able to make these decisions without bringing them back to parliament for a review, as is the normal role of the Senate, which is why I have a second committee-stage amendment to correct that. Our third committee-stage amendment seeks to rule out any use of this new power to perpetuate war or to invest in weapons—very commonsense guardrails that I urge the Senate to support. People deserve support. They didn't ask for this war. They definitely didn't ask for the chaos that it's causing. And here we are still so desperately reliant on foreign fossil fuels when we have an abundance of renewable energy that we could be electrifying our transport fleet with, making sure that people's daily needs are met and we have safe renewable energy independence. (Time expired)

There is one clear fact that comes out of this crisis, and that is that Australia is massively underprepared for what are very dangerous times. We live in extremely dangerous times, where we have a slew of countries that hate our democratic traditions and hate our free societies. Do you know what the best insurance policy for dangerous times would have been? An abundance of energy, all forms of energy—all the stuff that is underneath our feet in this country or even in the sun above us. We should have had an abundance of energy, because this is going to be a massive race over the next 20 or 30 years, as to who can get the most energy. It is an insane position for Australia to be a massive exporter of fossil fuels but not use them ourselves, just as it is insane for Australia not to be able to use renewables on an industrial scale just as we do in households. So we need more of everything, but this government has had no plan to protect Australia against the disruption that we now see in the Middle East, which was entirely predictable.

I want to touch on this oil issue because I think it is a matter of great public importance. We should have been able to get oil out of the ground. We have 42 years of oil in this country underneath our feet, but we haven't been able to get to it, because of the crazy environmental laws, under which it takes up to eight years to get an approval. Most companies, most people, would give up. It's amazing that some companies have pursued their oil and gas developments on the North West Shelf and the Browse. It's amazing that they were prepared to go with it—incredible. But it raises the question about the viability of future projects. The fact that we haven't been able to get oil out of the ground really does concern me. It concerns me that now developments like the Taroom Trough might not be expedited as they should be. Most people would look at this and say, 'We need a lot of oil because we have petrol and diesel cars and vehicles needed for primary production and other reasons, and we're importing it all.' There's nothing wrong with importing things, but, on an industrial scale like this, it's insane when you've actually got the resources yourself. There is this bizarre purity test people want to impose on politicians as to what sort of energy sources they like. Well, I like everything. I want to see more renewables, and I want to see more fossil fuels, because that's power, and, right now, that's the best form of insurance.

Mr Albanese and Mr Murray Watt declared themselves the kings of the environment when they passed the environmental laws through their deal with the Greens. That was six months ago. They promised we'd be able to get more approvals for major projects, including energy production, and, after six months, we have seen nothing. We saw a shell of a bill passed through this joint, and then, after that, we saw a proposal that maybe we'd see a few draft regulations. Fill in the detail as you go! Just write on the pieces of paper, and then make the rules one day and change them the next day! That's a good way to do business, isn't it? The guts of this proposal is in bilateral deals between the Commonwealth and the states. How many of those have been done? How many do you think have been done, Deputy President? There are eight states and territories. Guess how many he has done? He has done none. He is on a duck. He has done no bilateral deals with the states and territories. So the guts and the promise of the environmental laws that were supposed to make it easier to get stuff done will never be delivered under this minister, Minister Watt, who is a good politician but seemingly a bad administrator, like the rest of this government, which has left Australia totally underprepared for this crisis.

I say to you, Deputy President, there is no guarantee about prosperity. There's no guarantee, because we need a lot of capital, and we need a lot of help if we're going to get this stuff out of the ground and we're going to actually make the most of our natural resources, whether they be renewable or fossil fuels. We need clear thinking, and we need clear laws where people know what they can and what they can't do. Right now, there's no chance of people having any idea what the hell they're allowed to do under this boondoggle of an environmental law system brought to you by Minister Watt.

The other thing we don't need is more taxes. If you entertain this crazy, populist view, this gimmicky idea, that more tax will bring you more energy or more tax will bring you more houses, then you may as well and go and live under a mushroom somewhere, because none of these things are going to do any good for the country. This just reminds me again of how badly we are serving the Australian people. No wonder people hate politicians.

This fuel crisis is a very loud wake-up call. Australia has been left at the mercy of global events. Our lack of influence on the world stage, our poor defence capabilities and our extreme dependence on global supply chains have been all exposed. Australia should never seek out wars, but we must always be prepared for them. It is now beyond any doubt that Australia wasn't prepared for the impact of the current conflict in the Middle East. This failure lies squarely at the feet of successive Labor and coalition governments. The warnings have been there for many years.

As much as the Greens and Labor demonise fossil fuels, Australia cannot function without them. Without petrol and diesel we cannot produce enough food, we cannot operate mines and we cannot get food from the regions to the cities. We can't get most goods or services we have taken for granted. If we don't have fuel, Australia literally stops. We literally begin to starve.

Any conflict involving Iran was inevitably going to threaten Australia's fuel supplies. Australian governments were told many times to increase our onshore reserves of fuel. They didn't. Our farmers, our miners, our truckies and every household or business which uses fuel are the victims of this neglect. Diesel prices have soared past $3 per litre. This adds to the cost of everything that moves on a truck. It adds to the cost of producing food and the cost of extracting our mineral and energy wealth. It's adding more to every household budget.

It didn't have to be this way. Increased onshore reserves of fuel would have given us some breathing room. They would have allowed us to cushion the impact of the war on fuel prices. Increased domestic production of oil would have further cushioned the impact. We have the resources, about 17 billion barrels worth around $1.7 trillion, which could be easily developed. We could make diesel out of coal or gas. Many other countries do this. But we've had no political leadership or will to make these resources work in the national interest.

We've had no long-term vision from the so-called major parties. One Nation has always put forward a vision for a self-sufficient Australia: a country which produces everything it needs right here in Australia, a country which gets a fair dinkum return for the exploitation of our mineral and energy wealth, a country which invests this return in nation-building infrastructure in Australian communities, a country which makes its own way and its own decisions. This fuel crisis is the wake-up call for a good old-fashioned streak of Australian nationalism. It's time to put Australians first.

One Nation calls on the government to cut the fuel excise by 100 per cent for three months or remove the GST on fuel. We call for the declaration of a national liquid fuel emergency to stop more price gouging and force fuels to regional and rural areas. We call for the development of plans to ration fuel in order to prioritise essential sectors like emergency services, food production, hospitals and defence.

These measures will help address the current crisis, but we need to go much further to make sure we're ready for the next crisis, because if you think this current crisis is bad then just wait and see what will happen to Australia's economy and trade if communist China makes good on its threat to attack Taiwan. We can fix this vulnerability, but we must act quickly. We must scrap net zero. Not only does it cost us trillions of dollars and cripple our economy, with no impact on global emissions increases; it prevents us from investing in development of our own sovereign fuel industry and creating the energy independence needed to keep Australians moving.

It was brought to my attention that, when the fuel excise is 52.6 cents per litre, the farmer pays that at the bowser and claims it back at BAS time, because it should never have been charged. When the excise is halved to 26.3 cents, the bowser price drops to 26.3 cents, but the amount the farmer can claim back also drops by exactly 26.3 cents automatically. The net result for a farmer is zero. The price paid for diesel to grow your food is exactly the same today as it was before today's announcement. But here is the part that makes it even worse: the farmer pays the full price, including the full excise component, the moment the diesel is delivered. That money leaves the farm account immediately. The correction only comes back when the quarterly BAS is lodged, meaning the government holds the farmer's money for up to three months before returning it. What we're doing is not looking after the farmers. They don't get the diesel rebate at all; that's only in the BAS statement. So our cost of farming is going to go up. The fuel excise is not a rebate to them because their tractors are not used on the roads. It's a shame. We don't get it right, do we?

Australians need to understand just how serious this moment is. The crisis we are in, that we're dealing with right now, has been caused by Labor's failure to prepare and Labor's failure to act swiftly. But this crisis is also only a drop in the ocean compared to what One Nation fears is coming down the pipeline. What we are seeing today is the result of the Albanese Labor government's choice to ignore the warning signs and waste precious time, and their choice to refuse to act until this crisis could no longer be denied. And they did deny it; they denied this crisis for a month, as One Nation warned them what was happening.

Now we are moving emergency legislation to respond to this crisis that they wanted to pretend wasn't happening. If not for us fighting them tooth and nail, forcing them to act, I don't know if we'd even be here today, moving this legislation. It was a complete failure of leadership. That delay, that denial and that incompetence matters. It matters because a month wasted matters. It's a month too late now for farmers who were unable to plant their crops on time or harvest their crops on time. It's a month too late for transport operators, trying to keep goods moving across this country, who are now facing exorbitant bills. It's a month too late for regional communities who are already being smashed by higher fuel costs. And that delay means they will be facing higher costs for longer. It's a month too late to shield Australians from the absolute worst of the fuel shock that has now flooded through this economy. If we'd acted sooner, the problems would have been less severe.

At One Nation, we saw this coming. We were the first to call for a cut to fuel excise because we understood that every extra cent on fuel hits families, small businesses, freight and food prices. We knew this. We advocated for this. We said this was the solution. It's good that the government is now adopting this, but they were too slow to act.

I will also point out that One Nation was the first to raise the fact that, off these soaring prices, the GST revenue is increasing up to $300 million a month. I will give credit to the state premiers who are now raising this and talking about it at National Cabinet to see if there's a way that they can look to forgo some of this revenue. They've raised that, and credit to them, because it is what we have been pointing out and what we have been calling for.

We have put forward commonsense steps early. Labor chose to ignore them until it was too late to stop the worst of the pain being inflicted. And the truth is simple: if our fuel is insecure, which it clearly is, that means our nation's food security is insecure. Farmers need diesel to plant, irrigate, fertilise, harvest and transport. Truckies need fuel to move supplies. Regional businesses need fuel to operate. Without reliable fuel, the whole chain starts to break. And the cost does not stay at the bowser; it hits supermarket shelves, family budgets and, ultimately, the entire nation's economy.

But, as serious as this crisis is, Australians must not fool themselves into thinking that this is the full extent of the danger, or that these measures that we're putting through today will solve the danger. They will not. What we're dealing with now is only a warning. The current disruption has exposed just how fragile Australia has become. We are too dependent on overseas supply chains. We are too slow to prepare for shocks. We do not have the resources. We can no longer make the fuel we need in our own country to protect ourselves from these predictable crises. And that is because of Labor's obsession with net zero, which is why One Nation's position is clear: we must scrap net zero now. Net zero is making Australia weaker, not stronger. It is making energy dearer, industry less competitive and our country more exposed. It punishes every sector that keeps Australia running, while forcing us towards unreliable systems and imported food—everything. And it leaves us completely dependent on other countries. That is not a responsible way to run a country. That is an act of national self-harm.

As Senator Hanson rightly points out, if we wind up having to deal with the conflict in Taiwan it will make the crisis we are dealing with now look like nothing. We are woefully unprepared to deal with that, and nothing we are doing today is going to help us prepare. So we must take steps to prepare. We must scrap net zero. We must move to more refining, proper storage of our fuel. If we don't act now, the next crisis will be infinitely worse.

Let me begin by saying that we support the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026. But it should never have been necessary. The Labor and coalition governments of the past decade have failed to take fuel security seriously. This is a belated measure to safeguard Australia's fragile fuel supply. And let's be clear: this bill will not lower the price at the bowser, will not save small businesses that are already on the brink, and will not help families, tradies, couriers or anyone who relies on fuel. This is not a cost-of-living measure that will help the people of Australia fill their tanks. But it will potentially increase our fuel supplies.

The bill equips Export Finance Australia with new powers to underwrite strategic materials, like diesel, petrol, jet fuel, crude oil, fertilisers and other vulnerable commodities. These are sensible, targeted tools. With global prices swinging wildly, private industry is, understandably, not wanting to put their capital at risk. This bill will likely cost the Australian people when the war finishes. It should at least bolster Australia's supplies in the short term by purchasing the risk of importers and allowing them to bring in cargos that they otherwise might not have.

Yet support for this bill must be accompanied by blunt honesty. This legislation is necessary only because successive governments, Labor and coalition, have spectacularly failed to develop the very natural resources that should have made Australia a price maker, not a price taker. Who loves the Paris Agreement now? For decades we have sat on some of the world 's largest endowments of iron ore, coal, bauxite, lithium, rare earths and gas. High global prices have delivered windfall royalties. Yet we have not built the downstream capacity that would turn these royalties into sovereign capability. Refineries have closed under Labor and the coalition, while regulators have tied new projects up in green tape. Processing capacity remains offshore, overwhelmingly in the hands of one strategic competitor. We are a resource-rich nation. We have an entire continent to explore and develop.

So, what do we have after decades of Labor and coalition leadership? We have two refineries. We hold just 30 days worth of diesel and kerosene and 39 days of petrol—if you can find it. Wouldn't it be nice to have the recommended 90 days right now? Ninety per cent of our refined fuel is imported. We have governments who think in election cycles instead of thinking in terms of generations. This has left us with no ownership of our own future and resources. Successive governments have been adversaries of our industries rather than partners. After all, without the expertise of industry we have no extraction, but without our resources there is no industry.

The relationship should be a partnership, like we see abroad. Norway has worked with its industry and invested in its natural resources. As a result, their sovereign wealth fund is the envy of the world. They have secured the future retirement of their people, while here in Australia we have vastly more resources. We have squandered the opportunities.

When commodity prices surge we should be banking profits and expanding production. Instead, we are forced to use taxpayers' money to buy risk off private companies so we can supply the very commodities we once exported. We've become a quarry that imports back finished products at a premium. The explanatory memorandum itself admits that the reserve is a response to 'market volatility and geopolitical events'—market volatility that should benefit those holding resources.

This legislation would be unnecessary under a competent government. A serious long-term resources policy would have kept refineries open and fast-tracked critical minerals processing hubs. We should have used the boom years to build strategic stockpiles from domestic production, rather than supporting foreign purchases. Instead, we now legislate a bureaucratic workaround. None of this excuses delay. The bill before us is urgent. It is a responsible step to shore up supply. The review will ensure that these powers do not become a permanent crutch.

We support the bill because fuel in the tank is non-negotiable for national security, but at what cost? We will not pretend that this legislation is anything other than a second-best remedy for policy failure. The real test of this parliament will be: what do we do next? Will we slash the red and green tape that has strangled new exploration and refineries? Will we build the processing capacity that turns our resources into high-value Australian-made products? Will we be a partner of industry to get the most from our resources instead of a roadblock? Or will we simply congratulate ourselves for patching the holes in the ship? This bill deserves passage, but it's a long way short.

Straight up, I'll be supporting the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026, which will create strategic reserves for fuel and critical minerals and give the government the ability to better respond to future disruptions to supply chains.

Australians need to know the government can and will step in to protect us from supply problems. We shouldn't be punished for a stupid decision halfway across the world. Whilst the intent of this legislation is good, we need to be careful about how much executive power we are giving to ministers. We've seen when executive powers are exploited and abused during serious crises. During COVID, we saw former prime minister Scott Morrison abuse his role and swear himself into multiple ministries. That was wrong. We can't let legislation be abused like that again. No minister, including the Prime Minister, should have so much power, even during a crisis. We need to ensure we have the right checks and balances to protect us from these powers being abused in the future.

What I do like about this legislation is that it recognises that there are things other than oil and fuel that are strategically necessary and critical to Australia's safety and success. Just about anything can be dubbed a strategic material and eligible for support if it's vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. That's smart flexibility for the future.

The Minister for Resources should quickly use this power to recognise helium as a strategic mineral. Helium is totally and entirely vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. Last week I met with the Minister for Resources to advocate for helium to be added to the critical minerals list. Australia doesn't create any of its supply. We import all of our helium, which also goes through the Middle East to get here. Helium is a vital ingredient to make our MRI machines work. Without it, these machines simply stop, delaying diagnoses for cancer, strokes and heart disease. Right now, our hospitals are vulnerable to global supply disruptions entirely beyond our control. A domestic helium supply is fundamental to a resilient health system.

We also need natural helium for renewables and the technologies needed for the green energy transition. Natural helium is essential to the growth of Australia's tech sector. It's needed for data centres and quantum computers for its high-performance cooling and ultra-low temperatures. Projects like the Firmus AI data centre in Launceston show the highly skilled jobs and economic growth that are possible when we invest in advanced technology. We need those regional jobs. But those opportunities disappear without access to critical inputs.

Finally, helium is integral to the AUKUS agreement. We're committing billions of dollars to submarines and systems that rely on helium. If we're serious about a future made in Australia, natural helium must be part of the plan. We must reinstate helium onto the critical minerals list to unlock investment, fast-track projects and de-risk our domestic natural helium projects.

Since the conflict began, we've seen helium prices double. The crazy thing is that we know that Australia doesn't

need to pay this high price and bring helium in from other countries. We know we have enough helium in the ground to extract and provide for our own domestic use, as well as provide to the global market and make money. We know that we have it back home in Tassie, with enough for Australians and for the world.

I also want to make it clear that helium isn't like oil. It doesn't have cheaper alternatives, in the same way that oil and gas can be replaced by renewables. We also know we can use green hydrogen, which is extracted through hydrogen, not through mining for gas like in the past. That, right there, is a climate-friendly solution. We need helium for what it is—a critical mineral for our MRI machines, for our defence systems and for our tech to function.

So I welcome this legislation. It will give Australians peace of mind to know that the government will be able to step in and help the fuel cargo ships to keep coming and to shore up our supply. I also welcome that the legislation will allow for the resources minister to recognise helium as a critical mineral and help secure our sovereign domestic helium supply.

I rise to speak in support of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026. When supply chains are disrupted and prices spike, Australians expect their government to act—to step in where markets fall short and to protect the national interest. That's why this bill has my support, and I commend the government on bringing it forward so quickly. In times of heightened geopolitical uncertainty, there is a clear and legitimate role for government to stabilise outcomes and maintain supply of the things that we need.

But support for action is not the same as support for unchecked power. While I support the bill, like Senator Tyrrell I have concerns about the breadth of the powers it creates and the need for greater transparency in how these powers are used. When parliament extends broad authority to the executive, and when public money is used to underwrite private risk, Australians deserve to know how decisions are being made and how their interests are being protected.

This bill significantly expands the role of Export Finance Australia. As a result, EFA will be able to support the supply of fuel in addition to critical minerals and other strategic materials. I understand the rationale. In a crisis, importers may hesitate to purchase supply at elevated prices, fearing losses if conditions change. That hesitation can worsen shortages, and government stepping in to reduce that risk is a reasonable response. Fuel security matters, and, when supply is disrupted, the impacts flow through the entire economy, from transport costs to grocery prices, so there is no question that government has a responsibility to act.

But we must legislate carefully in this place, particularly when it comes to handing the executive even more power, and this bill raises three concerns. The first concern is about scope. This bill is not narrowly confined to an immediate crisis; it creates broad, ongoing powers with significant discretion and a wide definition of what constitutes a strategic material. Flexibility may be necessary, but, without clear guardrails, it risks becoming overreach. Australians should know when and why these powers are used and what limits apply.

My second concern is about transparency. If taxpayers are underwriting downside risk, there must be clarity about the terms of that support. Australians should not be asked to carry private risk without confidence that the public interest is being protected. If public money is exposed to losses, there should also be a mechanism to share in any upside.

My third concern is about the open ended provisions of these powers. There are significant changes to the role of government and to EFA's mandate. These warrant close scrutiny and timely reassessment. I welcome the fact that a review is written into the legislation; however, the first review should be brought forward from late 2029 to the end of 2027. For these reasons, I will support amendments to the bill that are proposed by the Greens.

This bill is, rightly, a short-term measure, but there is a broader issue that we must address. We are hopelessly exposed to fuel shocks. We are vulnerable to global disruptions, as was exposed after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine and, now, by this conflict in the Middle East. True resilience means reducing our exposure to these shocks by improving our energy security and our energy sovereignty. Electrification and the development of renewable energy have to be priorities, to reduce our reliance on imported, expensive, volatile liquid fuels.

While I support this bill, I would like to see more done to address the underlying issue, and that must be a project for many years to come. I urge the government to turn this massive challenge we face into an opportunity to turbocharge the work of electrification and ensure that Australians are not left behind in the transition. Australians want a government that can act decisively but also one that explains itself, accepts scrutiny and takes measures to address the underlying problem.

Can I thank my colleagues for their contribution to this debate. The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill gives Export Finance Australia new powers to help ensure Australia's preparedness to address supply chain disruptions. This includes fuel and other commodities such as fertiliser experiencing disruption as a result of market volatility and geopolitical events, including the current conflict in the Middle East.

The bill also gives legislative effect to the government's election commitment to develop and implement a new $1.2 billion Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve. The world needs critical minerals; Australia is lucky to have some of the largest deposits of critical minerals in the world. These are vital to everything from energy to medicine and advanced computing technologies. We must make the most of the opportunities to further develop our own critical minerals industries. It's in our national interest to do so. Importantly, these new financial tools will be provided for the Critical Minerals Strategic Reserve and are also available to help protect against other supply chain vulnerabilities, such as what we are experiencing now with fuel and fertiliser.

On behalf of the government, EFA will be able to underwrite the purchase of shiploads of fuel to get them here to Australia. It can provide insurance, derivatives, loans and other arrangements to make sure that those companies can go and get those cargoes for Australia and Australians. These new fuel security powers will put Australia in a strong position, securing fuel supplies where the cost may be prohibitive for private suppliers to source on commercial terms without government support. We will not wait for a crisis to get worse before doing what is needed. We are preparing for future challenges and getting ahead of the curve to shield Australians from the worst of this global uncertainty. Establishing these strategic powers is in our national interest and must pass the parliament today or tonight.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

As I indicated in the second reading debate, the coalition will support this bill, although I have been a little perplexed by the government's rapid backflip on these issues. As I said earlier, it's great to see the Labor Party come back to planet Earth after a journey through the green universe chasing hydrogen, batteries and all sorts of other madcap schemes that we're throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at to no effect, so it's great to see them come back and say, 'We want to invest in liquid fuels, and we'd like to try and secure our nation's energy needs,' on the eve of the worst energy crisis, perhaps, since the 1970s. The question I have, though, is about how committed this government is to that because, while these changes to support fossil fuels are welcome in this bill, it still retains a panoply of prohibitions and restrictions across various acts to support fossil fuels that the government itself has introduced in the past few years. It can't sit there and say, somehow, it's not the author of the problems we're about to face when it did the very thing over the past few years that it's now trying to unwind. It, in the last few years, did introduce a variety of restrictions and prohibitions on fossil fuels. In fact, it's demonised the industry. It really has demonised coal, oil and gas. People who work in that industry feel belittled, often, by the Labor Party's constant talking down. They talk about coal-fired power stations as if they're old and ageing, even though the hardworking men and women in those stations are what keeps the lights on tonight in this building and keeps our electric cars charged. I know the minister across the table doesn't share all these views, but unfortunately he's been tied to a government that does, and it's implemented that through changes in our laws.

The first question I have of the government is: despite this conversion—despite this Damascus-style awakening from this government on fossil fuels—does the government still support the Belem declaration on the transition away from fossil fuels? Just four months ago, in late November last year, the energy minister, Minister Bowen, who is now spruiking the benefits and needs to import liquid fossil fuels, was over there. I think he visited Belem. I don't know. Is that where he was? It was at COP30. Yes, Belem. I think that was the one where they carved out half the Amazonian forest to carve out a road to the climate change conference. He was over there in Belem, and he signed this agreement, which was for a 'just, orderly and equitable' transition away from fuels. That was just four months ago, and here we are passing special legislation to bring them in by the billions. Just four months ago, the government said, 'No, we don't need them; we want to walk away from them.'

This agreement went on to say that these governments, including Australia's, supported the call to advance a road map for the transition away from fossil fuels. Australia signed the agreement, along with other countries including Austria, Belgium Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Kenya, Luxembourg, the Marshall Islands, Mexico, Micronesia, Nepal, the Netherlands, Panama, Spain, Slovenia, Vanuatu and Tuvalu. I don't see any of our major trading partners on that list. There are 24 countries, making up less than 10 per cent of world GDP. They include none of the Middle East countries that we're so reliant on for our liquid fuels and our fertiliser. Indeed, yes, I'm right. I remember doing this work at the time. None of these 24 signatories were among our top 15 trading partners. Why would the government sign such a ridiculous agreement to say we don't need these things just four months ago and now have to scramble around like headless chooks in this Senate trying to fix up the mess they have created by demonising this industry for the last four years?

They've run a war on fossil fuels, and that's put us in a much more vulnerable position than we need be in. We have enormous resources in this country. We should be developing them and using them. When I was resources minister in the former government, we were trying to do that. We were trying to get the Great Australian Bight, the Browse Basin and the Beetaloo Basin going. We got vilified by the Labor Party for supporting investment in the Beetaloo Basin, which is turning out to be quite prospective, may I say.

So my question to the minister is: does the government continue to support the Belem declaration on a just transition away from fossil fuels?

Yes.

Okay. Well, that's nice and clear—clear as day. Here we are. The government now wants to subsidise the importation of fossil fuels, yet just four months ago it said, 'No, we don't need them.' This government's strategy when it comes to energy is clear as mud. One day, one minister is over at a climate conference saying that all of this stuff needs to go and we all need to transition away from it in a just way, whatever that means for the people who work in this industry. A just transition sounds so corporate, as if you're being euthanased to sleep. A just transition—great! That's what the government's plan is. You just heard it. You just heard the minister confirm he doesn't see a future for you if you work in the coal, oil or gas industries of this country.

We now realise--unfortunately, we had to learn this lesson, and are learning this lesson, through the school of hard knocks—that we actually do need these people. They do make our world go round. They do keep the lights on for us, and every now and again perhaps we should say thank you to those hardworking men and women. As I like to say, people in those industries have to shower after work. Most of us would have had a shower before we came to work this morning. We leave this place still smelling pretty good, not really having raised a sweat today, unlike the people who work on offshore oil rigs, which is one of the most dangerous jobs on planet Earth and is very, very hard work in confined circumstances. They deserve all the pay they get. They get paid well. They deserve it all, but they don't get thankyous very much—not from this place. They don't get any sort of gratitude from the modern Labor Party, and it's very sad. As you just heard, the modern Labor Party does want to end their jobs and wants a just transition for them to—I don't know—some kind of barista or retail work. I think those men and women are pretty happy out on the rigs.

The answer that the government has just provided does raise another question here. Just last week, the government signed an Australia-EU free trade deal. The minister knows this deal very well, of course, being also the shadow trade minister. In that deal, the government signed—

I am the trade minister.

Yes; you're also the investment minister and the tourism minister as well. I realise that, Minister. I hope the minister knows very well what he's signed. The government released a text tonight, I think. I haven't had a chance to look at that. But the government did release a number of fact sheets last week, including one on environment and climate. In that fact sheet, they mention that the government will cooperate with the European Union on ending what is called inefficient fossil fuel subsidies.

It seems a little bit incongruous that just a week ago the government was cuddling up to the European Union, saying: 'We won't subsidise fossil fuel production anymore. We have no need for that.' Last week, when the European Union president was here, it was all about clean energy and this wonderful future of renewable energy that we keep getting promised that will sometime arrive. But then, just a week later, the government is introducing emergency legislation to—guess what?—subsidise the importation of fossil fuels, not from here but from other countries. So what is it? Is the government Arthur or Martha when it comes to the production of fossil fuels? Do they support the production of fossil fuels, or are they lining up with the European Union to say that we shouldn't support it at all?

I'm struggling to work this out. I'm sure that those who do work hard in the oil and gas industries are struggling to understand whether they have the support of the government or not. In one week, the government sign an international agreement saying: 'We're not going to support you. We're going to end support for you.' We just heard that they government are going to 'just transition' away from you. But then, the very next week, they're rushing in emergency legislation to do the exact opposite. So the question for the minister now is this: does the minister remain committed to the agreement that was signed with the European Union to end fossil fuel subsidies? If so, how does that provide any certainty to those that would seek to use this legislation to bring in fossil fuels to the country? If you're committed to not supporting them, how can they trust you to support them with long-term contracts which reduce the risk to them in importing fossil fuels?

Yes, the government remains committed to everything that we have agreed to in the new European Union-Australia free trade agreement.

Again, this provides zero clarity to people. The minister can't even explain the incongruity. There's a clear inconsistency here with the government's approaches from one week to the next. They can't stay on an agenda here.

I might return to some of the other specific changes that have been made in recent years here. As I mentioned earlier in my speech on the second reading and, I think, earlier in the committee stage, we do know what the government, the Labor Party, did last summer. We're not silly. We didn't come down in the last shower. Just last year, the government made a number of changes to this very piece of legislation we're amending tonight, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act. The government made changes to the statement of expectations of Export Finance Australia, which did severely restrict EFA from supporting fossil fuel production. Again, it seems a bit strange that just a year ago the government sought to prohibit, cancel or otherwise restrict investment in fossil fuels and then, just a year later, have to turn around and try to unwind the unwise amendments they made.

In particular, the government in its Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments) Bill did change this act, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, to insert what is known as section 23C. I'll just read out the title of this section the government put in, which is pretty plain. It says 'Approval required before providing services or products to finance certain coal, crude oil or natural gas activities'. It goes on to say that finance cannot be provided under this part. I'll just read out one of these, which is quite broad. Under subsection (c), anything that directly finances 'investments for the sole purpose of the use of coal, crude oil or natural gas' is restricted. We know from Senate estimates that this can include anything, even just supplying products to an oil industry. Somebody might produce valves or something. If they supplied to the oil industry, because often they're needing a lot of valves, they can't get finance from EFA anymore under the provision, at least under the commercial account.

What the government seems to be relying on here, from my understanding from the briefings they've given us—I should say thank you to the government for briefing us on this. As I said, we will facilitate this passage, but there's a broader important point to make about the long-term energy security of this country, whatever happens in the next few weeks. The government here has effectively restricted EFA—this is my understanding—from using what's called its commercial account to finance pretty much anything that involves the coal, oil or gas supply chain. But it's relying now on the National Interest Account to potentially make these investments to scramble around and get whatever boats we can to come into the country because we no longer produce much oil ourselves anymore.

My question here, Minister, is why aren't you—is my understanding right here that these new arrangements to fill the strategic reserve can only be made from the National Interest Account? Secondly, does that National Interest Account require ministerial approval for every contract entered into? That's my reading of this act. It's a bit clumsy that the EFA has to go to the minister every time to seek approval. It doesn't really have the flexibility here, in a fast-moving environment, to act quickly. Thirdly, why hasn't the government sought to simply take off the green handcuffs from EFA and remove section 23C, which has only been there for a year. That would at least allow it to use this commercial account, which, in my understanding, doesn't need ministerial approval every time. We could more flexibly respond to this huge crisis.

Our view here on this side is that we want to help you. We want the elected government of this country to have the unfettered ability to solve this crisis to secure liquid fuels for our country. We don't want a minister of the Crown to have these green handcuffs placed on them that would otherwise in any way inhibit the ability to solve this crisis. As I say, we are trying to cooperate here. Again, I appreciate the briefings. I will be moving an amendment later which would help you. It'd give you more power. We're looking to give you, the Labor government, more power because what we need now is quick action and quick decisions to keep this country moving. Minister, is this only available in the National Interest Account, and have you consider removing this so you can just use everything in your power to get things done?

I thank Senator Canavan for his question. We believe the EFA has the right mix of powers to support our fuel supply through these amendments. The National Interest Account is the best way to ensure this fuel gets to where it's needed, particularly to Australia's regions, and it helps importers secure spot cargos that would otherwise be uncommercial. In doing so, it gives the nation more secure supply quickly.

That's a description of what the bill does. I can read the documents for that. It doesn't really answer the question of why the government hasn't considered jettisoning all of this green rubbish they've inserted into legislation because they felt under pressure from the Greens. Minister, I think you've got more flexibility than you realise. There's a poll there that came out on Sunday which found that now, amazingly, 40 per cent of Greens voters support drilling for oil and gas right now. If the law of averages holds, that means that, of the ten Greens senators down there, four of them probably support drilling for oil and gas now. If they only came and joined us all, we would not have a problem. Liquid gold would be flowing like a river.

I'm not sure why the government is reluctant now to jettison—I can see why, in the last few years, in the current climate, there's been this well-funded—often, overseas funded—activist campaign to denigrate the great Australian resources industry. I've tried to stand up against that. I haven't buckled to this pressure, but you have. The Labor Party did. But you don't need to anymore, because the Australian people can see the common sense of needing to drill for oil and gas. We cannot be so dependent, relying on other countries.

There was a great report released just the other day by the Page Research Centre, which is the National Party's think tank. This stat just blows my mind. I hadn't seen it before, but it checks out. A full 50 per cent of the imports to this nation by weight are liquid fuels. Half of our nation's imports by volume are liquid fuels, and another 10 per cent by weight are petrochemicals, so 60-odd per cent of the imports to our nation by weight come from petrochemicals. That is clearly a massive energy security vulnerability and national security vulnerability for our country because any nation that would seek to do us harm has got the Achilles heel right there.

This is no secret. This is all publicly available data. Anyone can work this out. We just haven't thought about hard enough, really—and I haven't either. I just couldn't believe this. I hadn't seen it before. All they'd need to do is cut those shipping lanes. We would really struggle, obviously, to defend so many ships coming to our nation, and we'd be brought to our knees—just as we are right now. It clearly is a massive security priority for Australia to reduce our dependence on liquid fuels. The government's line to date has been: 'Well, the refineries closed on your watch. We don't have the 90 days of stockpiles.' But that almost begs the question: if we did have the refineries—and let's get it right. Angus Taylor saved the last two refineries. They were going to shut, but we supported them to stay open.

Even if we had kept the other four open, we'd be in the same boat, because we would rely more on imports of crude oil to fuel those refineries. We're literally in the same boat—excuse the pun. We still need the boats to arrive to keep those refineries moving, and what's happening right now? The boats aren't arriving. The Strait of Hormuz is closed. We'd have exactly the same vulnerability even if we had the six refineries going. Clearly—and this is what this report plays out and concludes so succinctly and clearly—the problem is that we don't produce the raw feedstock. That's what we need to reduce our vulnerability. Unless we can have an oil industry from go to whoa—from rig to petrol pump—and have that supply chain here domestically, we remain vulnerable. Our Achilles heel that an adversary can target remains.

The problem has been that we haven't explored enough oil and gas. We have, under this government in particular, demonised and prohibited any kind of support for this industry. My question to the government here is: do these changes allow EFA to invest in domestic oil production, be it conventional—or unconventional—drilling for oil and gas or some other technologies like coal to liquids. This report really plays that out. South Africa gets 40 per cent of its liquid fuels from coal to liquids. China's burning 400 million tonnes of coal a year to make liquid fuels. We can do this. We've got enormous coal reserves. Do these legislative changes allow EFA to invest in those kinds of technologies, which would fundamentally change our energy security and reduce our vulnerability of relying on other countries?

The bill does what it says it does. It allows EFA to purchase oil on the spot market to quickly ensure that we have sufficient petrol, diesel and airline fuel. I think Senator Canavan does not accurately reflect the approach that the Australian government has taken to this industry. I make the observation that the Barossa project in the Northern Territory, offshore, has gone ahead under this government and has started producing gas out of the wells. Similarly, with the Beetaloo, the first production of gas in the Beetaloo is already flowing. One day we might get gas supplies out of Narrabri, one of Santos's projects.

The reason there's no oil exploration in the Great Australian Bight is a series of companies which had exploration rights and discovered oil in the Great Australian Bight made commercial decisions that it wasn't economic to proceed. If you look at decisions that Chevron made, they had licences down there. I think Exxon was down there at one stage. I think the Norwegian state oil company—

Equinor.

Equinor—thank you, Senator Canavan—was the last one to pick up drilling licences from, I think, Chevron and Exxon. They simply made a decision that it wasn't economic to proceed with those explorations. They weren't government decisions. The state government and, to the best of my knowledge, the federal government had given those companies all the approvals they needed, but they made decisions, based on their own economic interests, not to proceed.

As I say, Barossa is now producing gas. Beetaloo is producing gas. I was recently at Santos's operations in the Cooper Basin; I think they're continuing to produce gas and, to the best of my knowledge, they are expanding their gas operations. In Western Australia we continue to produce significant amounts of gas. So I don't think Senator Canavan's characterisation of the Australian government's position is at all accurate.

I thank the minister. That was some useful information there; I recognise that. I'm trying to help the trade minister here, because I know he wants to drill, baby, drill; he'd love to do it! He'd love nothing more than to get out on an oil rig and see that liquid gold flow, but I realise he's a little constrained in his current environment. I wish him well in his efforts; I hope he can convince his Labor colleagues to get on with it.

It's a little rich to be taking credit for the Barossa project, though, when this government has funded the Environmental Defenders Office, who held that project up for years; thankfully, their deceit was exposed by a judge in a court case which completely blew up their credibility and allowed the project to continue. But that was no doing of this government; they in fact helped frustrate those efforts through that funding.

The other point to make here is that, while the minister is correct about the public statements of Equinor and BP—and I was heavily involved with them in seeking to keep them here—there is no doubt that the ridiculous activist pressure of the time played a role. We had the absurd situation where the ABC were publishing stories claiming that an oil spill in the Great Australian Bight would wash up on Bondi Beach and cause all types of terrible catastrophes; it was absolutely absurd. Now the ABC has had the temerity, when they interviewed me, to try and blame me for the situation we are now in with oil. I'm not going to cop lectures from the likes of the ABC, who for years have run an activist campaign against the production of more fossil fuels.

While some of those developments the minister has mentioned are welcome, he, a number of times, revealed the issue that most of those projects—Narrabri, Barossa, Beetaloo to a certain extent—are gas focused. There are some condensates in some of those projects. But the fundamental problem we have is that those types of oils, condensates, are good at producing the lighter carbon strings, like petrol and naphtha. They aren't so good at producing diesel, the heavier distillates and jet fuel. The situation our economy faces today is that diesel use is double that of petrol, which is the reverse of 50 years ago. That's why we're in this pickle at the moment. Unfortunately, as a country, we don't have a lot of heavy crude production that can easily be made into those types of liquid fuels, hence the government having to introduce this legislation to try to support the importation of those heavier crudes from overseas.

This is the key inconsistency with this bill and approach. I asked the government if, after these changes, Export Finances Australia can support the Australian production of oil and gas. The answer is that it can't. The minister didn't quite say that; he couldn't bring himself to. But it can't. The government hasn't unwound those changes. The Australia government's current position is that it's okay to subsidise the production of oil and gas in other countries but not our own. That's their position. If you subsidise the importation of oil and gas from another country, you are by effect and by design subsidising the production of oil and gas in another country. It's got to start somewhere. Part of the cost to Russia, the USA or the Middle East sending us their oil and gas products is the shipping of those products to here and the potential risks they face, including price risks and this government hedging risks which seeking to reduce through this bill.

Let's get this very, very clear. We support this approach because it's a desperate situation. Desperate times call for desperate measures. This is a desperate measure, because the Australian government is using the hardworking taxes of the Australian people to subsidise the production of oil and gas in another country. Yet it won't turn around and support Australian production, the use of Australian resources and the creation of Australian jobs. This desperate bill is needed right now, but it supports jobs and industry overseas, ahead of Australia. We've just seen and summed up this government's approach to our national development and our country. They're more than happy to come in here and support other nations. Yet, when it comes to supporting and backing Australia and our resources, potential and future, they're nowhere to be seen. They're off with their Greens mates, and they won't support Australian industry or jobs.

I completely reject Senator Canavan's characterisation.

Minister, from the start, One Nation has completely opposed the United Nations net zero scam. Only One Nation has said from the start and continues to say, 'Scrap United Nations's net zero.' The Nationals say, 'Scrap net zero by 2050.' They support the net zero concept but want to delay implementation. The Liberals say the same. They still support UN's net zero; they just want to drop net zero by 2050. The Liberals started net zero under Prime Minister Morrison after he'd promised at the election just 18 months earlier not to adopt it. The Nationals went along with it blindly. The Labor Party has adopted One Nation suggestions—

Barnaby did!

He now realises he was wrong, and he's probably said so, to his credit. That shows his integrity and courage. Labor has adopted One Nation's suggestions. We were the first to raise the looming fuel crisis back on Monday 2 March, three days after the Israelis attacked Iran. We were ridiculed for that—called far-right-wing extremists, I think—by the Labor Party. I can distinctly visualise Senator Tim Ayres over there saying that as he pointed towards me. It doesn't bother us, because we know that he was desperate. But we thank you for adopting so many of our policies over that last four weeks, and you're still adopting them. Thank you. Will you adopt our advice to scrap UN net zero? Will you at least acknowledge that the hydrocarbon fuels coal, oil and natural gas are essential for modern civilisation—in particular, oil for transport? Will you acknowledge that we need to be self-sufficient in the entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling rig through to petrol pump?

I thank Senator Roberts for his question. I should congratulate you on your result in the South Australian elections, Senator Roberts. I know you came down and campaigned, certainly in the seat of Colton. I saw you down there with your candidate.

I have an apology to make to Senator Canavan. When I was answering one of his questions last week, I referred to the fact that, in his first outing as leader of the National Party, where he was going to take on One Nation, your candidates got 22 per cent of the vote, and I said in the Senate that the Nationals had got one per cent. I have to apologise to Senator Canavan; that was not correct. It was 0.7 of one per cent, not one per cent. So, in his first outing as leader, espousing all of the policy positions he's just explained to this Senate, that was the result.

We do produce gas in this country, Senator Roberts, and we've produced it under this government. I've referred, in an earlier answer to Senator Canavan, to some of the places where we're doing it. We're doing it in the Barossa. We're doing it in the Beetaloo. One day we might do it in Narrabri. We're certainly increasing production in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. But we do have a commitment to net zero. That is, as you say, a commitment that both the Nationals and the coalition, at certain periods of time, have been committed to. Gas, in particular, is a transition fuel, Senator Roberts. It's the way in which you get to net zero.

But right now we have an emergency. We need to ensure that our stocks of petrol, diesel and airline fuel continue to be available to businesses and consumers in this country. There is an emergency about dealing with this. What happens on the sea is that there are ships containing oil, petrol and airline fuel. They become available for purchase, and sometimes you're only given 24 or 48 hours to make that purchase. The reason we have decided to use the facility of Export Finance Australia to bid for these products is that they're a very nimble organisation, they're very experienced in this space, they are run really well by a fellow called John Hopkins, they regularly report to me, and we see them as the best organisation to ensure that we act quickly on this.

Minister Bowen has ensured that, in combination with me and Minister King, we have taken all of the steps that we need to take to ensure that Australians continue to have access to all of those fuels that I just mentioned. But there is an urgency about this legislation. Despite everything Senator Canavan said, I'm not sure that he appreciates that urgency. We do need to get on with this, and the quicker we pass this legislation, the quicker we can get some certainty to businesses and consumers about the reliable supply of those fuels.

Minister, will you support One Nation's initiative in recommending the conversion of gas to liquid fuels? You mentioned gas.

I'm sorry, Minister, but, pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted on this bill has expired.

I will now move to amendments. I will first deal with amendments circulated by the opposition, and I refer to those amendments on sheet 3760 and 3766. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3760 and 3766 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3760

(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 3), after item 14, insert:

14A Section 23C

Repeal the section.

_____

SHEET 3766

(1) Schedule 1, page 13 (before line 2), before the heading specifying Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1901, insert:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

47A Paragraph 87(5A)(a)

Repeal the paragraph.

I will now deal with amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3755, 3756 and 3757 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

SHEET 3755

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(2) Page 14 (after line 30), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Reversing Part 1 Schedule 1 amendments after 6 months

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991

1 Subsection 3(1)

Repeal the following definitions:

(a) definition of EFIC's Strategic Reserve function;

(b) definition of Resources Minister;

(c) definition of SR arrangement;

(d) definition of strategic material.

2 Subsection 3(6)

Repeal the subsection.

3 Paragraph 3B(m)

Omit "business;", substitute "business.".

4 Paragraphs 3B(n) and (o)

Repeal the paragraphs.

5 Section 3C (heading)

Omit ", or SR arrangements,".

6 Subsection 3C(1)

Omit "provides a financial service or product, or enters into an SR arrangement,", substitute "or provides a financial service or product,".

7 Subsection 3C(2)

Omit "the financial service or product is provided, or the SR arrangement is entered into,", substitute "or the financial service or product is provided,".

8 Paragraph 7(1)(dh)

Repeal the paragraph.

9 Subsection 7(4)

Repeal the subsection.

10 Subsection 8(7)

Repeal the subsection.

11 Paragraphs 9(5)(a) and (b)

Repeal the paragraphs, substitute:

(a) requiring any Minister's approval of the entry by EFIC into a particular contract or the giving by EFIC of a particular guarantee or the making of a particular loan; or

(b) giving any Minister power to determine that EFIC is or is not to enter into a particular contract, give a particular guarantee or make a particular loan.

12 At the end of section 23

Add:

(5) In addition, EFIC must not lend money in the form of an equity investment under this section unless an application for the loan has been referred to the Minister under section 25.

Note: A direction under section 26 may prevent such applications from being referred to the Minister. EFIC cannot lend money under this section in those circumstances.

13 At the end of section 23A

Add:

(4) In addition, EFIC must not lend money in the form of an equity investment under this section unless the application for the loan has been referred to the Minister under section 25.

Note: A direction under section 26 may prevent such applications from being referred to the Minister. EFIC cannot lend money under this section in those circumstances.

14 Section 23BA

Repeal the section.

15 Paragraph 25(1)(c)

Omit "Part 4; or", substitute "Part 4.".

16 Paragraph 25(1)(d)

Repeal the paragraph (including the note).

17 Subsection 25(4)

Repeal the subsection.

18 Subsections 27(4C) and (4D)

Repeal the subsections.

19 Subsections 27(8) and (9)

Omit "make a loan, or enter into an SR arrangement,", substitute "or make a loan".

20 Paragraph 28(c)

Omit "given; and", substitute "given.".

21 Paragraph 28(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

22 Subsection 29(3A)

Repeal the subsection.

23 Paragraph 29(5)(c)

Omit "given; or", substitute "given.".

24 Paragraph 29(5)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

25 Subsections 29(8) and (9)

Omit "", make a loan, or enter into an SR arrangement,", substitute "or make a loan,".

26 Subsection 30(1)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(1) Where EFIC enters into a contract, gives a guarantee or makes a loan in accordance with an approval or direction under this Part, EFIC must cause notice of the contract, guarantee or loan to be published in the Gazette.

27 Paragraph 30(2)(c)

Omit "lent;", substitute "lent.".

28 Paragraph 30(2)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

29 Subsection 30(4)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(4) A notice under subsection (1) must not state the name of any of the parties to a contract or of any person in respect of whom a guarantee has been given by EFIC.

30 Paragraph 54(9)(c)

Omit "liability; and", substitute "liability.".

31 Paragraph 54(9)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

32 Paragraph 56(2)(c)

Omit "matter; and", substitute "matter.".

33 Paragraph 56(2)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

34 Section 66AA

Repeal the section.

35 Section 67

Repeal the section, substitute:

67 Subsidy to EFIC

(1) The Minister may determine in writing principles according to which the Commonwealth will pay to EFIC a subsidy in respect of contracts entered into, guarantees given, or loans made by EFIC in relation to eligible export transactions or in relation to overseas infrastructure development.

(2) Where a contract has been entered into, a guarantee given, or a loan made, by EFIC in connection with an eligible export transaction or in connection with overseas infrastructure development, EFIC is entitled to be paid by the Commonwealth such amount (if any) by way of subsidy as is payable according to the principles in force under subsection (1).

36 Paragraph 84A(1)(b)

Omit "function;", substitute "function.".

37 Paragraph 84A(1)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

38 Paragraph 87(6)(c)

Omit "Act; or", substitute "Act.".

39 Paragraph 87(6)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

40 Subsection 88(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of application )

Omit "EFIC; or", substitute "EFIC.".

41 Subsection 88(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of application )

Repeal the paragraph.

42 Subsection 88(1) (paragraph (c) of the definition of claim )

Omit "EFIC; or", substitute "EFIC.".

43 Subsection 88(1) (paragraph (d) of the definition of claim )

Repeal the paragraph.

44 Paragraph 89(1)(c)

Omit "EFIC; or", substitute "EFIC.".

45 Paragraph 89(1)(d)

Repeal the paragraph.

46 Transitional provision — subsection 67(1) Determination

A determination that was in force under subsection 67(1) of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 immediately before the commencement of this item continues in force (and may be dealt with) on and after that commencement as if it had been made under subsection 67(1) of that Act as substituted by this Schedule.

_____

SHEET 3756

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 29), at the end of paragraph (c) of the definition of strategic material in subsection 3(1), add:

; and (iii) is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subparagraph.

_____

SHEET 3757

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 15 to 17), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of strategic material in subsection 3(1), substitute:

(a) a thing that:

(i) is specified in the list titled Critical Minerals List published by the Department administered by the Resources Minister, as existing from time to time; and

(ii) is not within the scope of Part 1 of the Defence and Strategic Goods List (within the meaning of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012); or

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 25), after "any material, good, or other thing,", insert "that is not within the scope of Part 1 of the Defence and Strategic Goods List (within the meaning of the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012) and is".

by leave—I note my opposition to the amendments on sheet 3757.

The question is that One Nation's amendments, on sheet 3759, be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "Sections 1 to 3", substitute "Sections 1 to 4".

(2) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of operation of Act

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

(2) Without limiting the matters that may be considered when conducting the review, the review must consider the potential for conflict with other legislation, including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Regulations 2011;

(b) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Rule 2015;

(c) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

(d) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(e) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Rule 2015.

Timing of review

(3) The review must commence as soon as practicable after this section commences.

(4) The person or persons who conduct the review must complete the review before the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day the review commences.

Minister to be given report of review

(5) 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 report of review

(6) The Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.

by leave—May I note my opposition to section 4(2), if possible.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—Senator Payman supports all Australian Greens amendments, opposes all opposition amendments, supports the One Nation amendment and supports the second reading and all remaining stages.

I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today the Albanese Labor Government is introducing the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026.

This Bill will deliver temporary and targeted support to Australian motorists and truckies in a responsible way.

The war in the Middle East is battering the global economy.

Supply chains have been disrupted, equity markets have been volatile, and inflation is creeping up across the globe.

Oil prices today are around twice what they were at the start of 2026 as a result of the conflict.

All of this is flowing through to prices at the bowser, and Australians have been left picking up the tab.

That is why we are taking steps to help shield them from some of the impacts of the war.

As we announced yesterday, this Bill will temporarily halve the fuel excise for petrol and diesel and facilitate changes to the heavy vehicle road user charge to allow for it to be reduced to zero temporarily.

Halving the fuel excise will cut 26.3c a litre off the cost of petrol and diesel.

Including the reduction in the GST component, this will cut the cost of a 65-litre tank of fuel by nearly $19.

Reducing the Heavy Road User Charge to zero will save truckies around $130 on a 400-litre tank of fuel.

This decision has been welcomed by the trucking industry, with the Australian Trucking Association saying it "is the lifeline that small trucking businesses need."

This temporary support will come into effect from tomorrow—although it may take a week or two to flow through to retail prices—and will end on June 30.

Australians understand that this is a short-term measure to deal with immediate challenges.

The scheduled 6 per cent increase in the Road User Charge will also be deferred, and we have called on relevant states to reflect this delay in their registration fees.

By calibrating these measures in a temporary way, we will provide relief while also taking pressure of the entire economy.

Treasury estimates these steps may reduce headline inflation by 0.5 of a percentage point through the year to the June Quarter.

And while it will incur a cost to the Budget, the overwhelming majority of Australians will agree that it is money well spent.

This Bill will also grant the Minister for Transport powers to vary the Heavy Vehicle Road User Charge for the next two years, where necessary.

This will ensure the Minister has more flexibility to make temporary changes, allowing the heavy vehicle road user charge to be reduced to zero for three months from 1 April 2026 to help truckies and the transport industry.

Following discussions at National Cabinet yesterday, the States and Territories have also indicated they are willing to give back some of the extra GST revenue that will flow from higher fuel prices.

There are some complexities around how to put that undertaking into effect.

While discussions with the States and Territories are ongoing, the Bill also provides additional flexibility to make further adjustments to the rate of excise if needed to give effect to the undertaking from the States on GST.

The steps we are taking in this Bill today are in addition to all of the actions we have already taken to date, including:

My message to Australians is clear.

We hear you and we are working to make your life a bit easier right now.

The global situation is changing rapidly, but Australians can be assured their government's focus is on easing cost of living pressures, securing our fuel supply, and getting it where it's needed most.

I commend this Bill to the House.

():  I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026, a bill that comes before the Senate only because Australians have been pushed to the brink of a fuel crisis and the government has acted too late. The opposition supports this legislation because fuel prices sit at the centre of the cost-of-living pressure. In these circumstances, temporary relief through fuel excise is necessary, and that is why the opposition will not stand in the way of a measure that provides direct, immediate assistance to Australians who are already doing it tough.

Let us also be clear about how we arrived at this point. It was the coalition that led on this policy. Last week, the opposition publicly proposed temporarily halving the fuel excise and cutting the heavy vehicle road user charge. The Leader of the Opposition formally wrote to the Prime Minister, outlining these measures, recognising the urgency of this situation and the pressure facing households and transport operators across the country. The government's initial response on Friday was not to act but to dismiss. The Prime Minister said he would not rush into fuel tax cuts. The Treasurer and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy echoed that position, insisting the focus should be on supply chains rather than excise relief despite price volatility and distribution pressures. This government says that ships are arriving. If so, why are service stations running dry? Why were Australians being told that there was no problem while businesses on the ground were already feeling the impact of fuel shortages and rising prices?

Yet, after a National Cabinet meeting with the states and territories on Monday, the government reversed course. Suddenly, the pressure was too great to ignore, and the Albanese Labor government agreed to temporarily halve the fuel excise and cut the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months. This happened because of the mounting pressure from households and businesses; the consequences of doing nothing had become too obvious. It happened because the coalition applied pressure, showed leadership and forced the government to act.

However, while the government has now adopted the coalition's policy, it has failed to adopt the coalition's fiscal discipline. When the coalition proposed this relief, we identified offsets to pay for it. We think that that is important. That is responsible budget management. This government offered no such plan at the time of adopting our policy and still has offered no plan to offset this expenditure. When asked how it would be funded, the Treasurer offered no offsets at all, instead saying that the cost would be absorbed. Well, if that is the government's idea of responsible economic management, then the bar has been set alarmingly low.

The confusion didn't stop there. Fuel excise interacts directly with GST, yet, when the government announced the cut, it hadn't settled the GST consequences with the states. Within 24 hours, we saw conflicting statements about who would bear the cost, what agreements were required and whether the arrangements were even resolved. Australians were left watching a government announce a major tax change first and work out the details later. This is unfortunately becoming a pattern from this government. One day they are saying there is not a fuel supply problem in; the next we are told that we are in a national fuel crisis. One day the government dismisses excise relief, then the next day, or a few days later in this case, it adopts it without a funding plan and without clarity for the states. This lack of consistency and coordination undermines confidence, and Australians cannot afford that in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, let alone in the middle of the fuel crisis that we are currently experiencing.

The opposition supports this bill because Australians need relief now. We have been very clear and consistent and responsible in articulating that position, but, because of that, we feel the need to make the facts abundantly clear through a second reading amendment to this bill that we are debating this evening, which I will move. This amendment makes clear that this policy originated with the coalition, that the government delayed in acting, that it failed to provide offset and that uncertainty remains around GST arrangements and fuel security. This amendment is about transparency and accountability. It's about ensuring that the record reflects what actually occurred.

Australians deserve leadership now that anticipates problems, not a government that stumbles into action once the damage is already done. While we support the bill, we do so critically and with an amendment that sets the record straight on the delay, the fiscal failure and the lack of serious planning behind this measure.

I move:

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

(a) the reduction in fuel excise and corresponding reduction in heavy vehicle road user charge reflects a policy first proposed by the Opposition;

(b) the Government initially denied there was a fuel supply problem in Australia and by delaying taking action to ensure distribution of fuel to where it was needed, exacerbated price pressures and supply shortages;

(c) the Government delayed acting on cost-of-living relief despite mounting pressure on Australian households, small businesses and transporters;

(d) the Government has failed to provide any budget offsets or outline how this measure will be funded, increasing the risk of additional inflationary pressure—where the only fuel guaranteed is for inflation, not for farmers or families;

(e) within 24 hours of the announcement, the Government's proposed GST arrangements have already fallen into disarray, raising further concerns about fiscal credibility and coordination;

(f) uncertainty remains regarding fuel supply security and the risk of heavy-handed market interventions; and

(g) Australians deserve timely leadership and responsible economic management during this national fuel crisis".

Senator Chandler, your time has expired. We'll go to Senator O'Neill.

It's hard to fathom the invective and negativity that are embedded in the contributions in the chamber today by those opposite. Given the real pain people are experiencing when they approach their local to fill up with fuel in the way they normally do and that they are managing their finances to figure out how they can either keep the business going or keep their car on the road—families will be thinking about kids' commitments to sport and rep sports. All of these things are pressing on the minds of Australians. The last thing they need is the carping and negativity that have characterised so much of this debate in this place.

I want to put on the record what actually happened yesterday. Instead of the one-state-against-the-other border ignoring that went on so that people in Albury and Wodonga were fighting across borders, the Australian Labor government has carefully calibrated a response and invited in, at the earliest possible point, all of the leaders from all the states around the country to make sure that we have a well calibrated and well coordinated response. The reality is it was just yesterday when the First Ministers acknowledged that the conflict in the Middle East is a vital part of the ecosystem that is seeing this heightened volatility in global energy markets and the flow-on impacts for our domestic supply chains and prices.

The parliament has just passed a piece of legislation that is going to allow cargos of fuel, in this unbelievably volatile environment, to be able to be underwritten by the government, so we make sure that the supplies that are out there are not disappeared from the market in the way that is against Australian interests. This is a government that's serious—not whingeing and carping, but determined to take the necessary, sensible action to ensure fuel supply. In addition to ensuring that fuel supply and supporting our businesses to continue to do what they do and bring in the fuel that we need in this country, the Prime Minister, in his discussions yesterday with the states, showed great leadership about what needs to happen to assist Australians who are very challenged by this sudden, unpredicted rise in the cost of fuel.

It's not just householders, it's not just farmers and it's not just families or small businesses that are feeling this. It's the providers of the heavy machinery that builds this nation, that's putting all the essential infrastructure in for the housing development that we want and that's building the roads that we need for the productivity gains that this country deserves. The government has got to have a mind to all of those things, and we need to keep afloat the businesses that are building our nation. So it's a very important decision from this government to halve the fuel excise, reducing the cost of fuel by 26.3c per litre. If you've got an average sized car and you put about 65 litres in a tank, that will save $19. And that saving of $19, every time you fill up between 1 April and 30 June, will make a difference to families. It'll also make a difference to businesses.

In addition to that, Australians know, because of our experience with COVID, that keeping our trucks on the road is actually a vital part of making sure our country continues to function until this real challenge of international disorder passes. The heavy vehicle road user charge has been reduced to zero for a period of three months. This is critical to help truckies continue their vital work for our nation.

One of many items of action that the government has undertaken is to provide a plan for what might happen as we move forward—a careful four-stage calibrated plan. Right now, we're making sure the fuel keeps coming in and, with a reduction in the fuel excise, we're making sure Australians aren't hurt at the bowser.

We should not be this dependent on foreign fossil fuels. And we are in this situation after our prime minister was the first world leader to back in this illegal strike, which has now sent the economy into chaos. And it's a bit baffling to hear various members of the government describe the fuel price shocks as 'unexpected' or 'unforeseen'. Welcome to the realisation! Maybe you should have thought about that before you backed in this war straight out of the blocks.

The other thing that this government should be doing is getting on the phone to President Trump and saying: 'End this nonsense now. We will not back you any further.' And then they should bring our troops home, bring our personnel home and bring our military equipment home. However, what we're dealing with is a rushed proposal to give some much-needed—albeit short-term—cost-of-living relief to people for the fuel price shocks that they are experiencing. The Greens won't stand in the way of cost-of-living relief. We were in a cost-of-living crisis before this illegal war sent fuel prices sky high. That relief is needed all the more now, so we will be supporting this.

But what were you doing for the last four years, and why did you not learn the lessons out of Ukraine? Where is our energy independence—where is our renewable energy independence? We have some of the best renewable resources in the world. You want fuel security? And you want the sun and wind—they don't go through the Strait of Hormuz. That is how we have reliable, affordable energy supplies. And it doesn't matter what brain fart Donald Trump has, and what fresh illegal war he wants to drag Australia into, next week or in a few months. If we have those alternative sustainable liquid fuels and that renewable energy independence, then we can have lower prices and tackle the climate crisis. There are no losers out of that except the greedy gas corporations who are making bank off this war.

We've proposed a 25 per cent tax, at a minimum, on those gas exports to fund actual cost-of-living relief, including things like making public transport free in what is a deep fuel crisis. I was very disappointed to see that National Cabinet, on Monday, didn't address making public transport free right across the country. I give credit to Victoria and Tasmania for doing it off their own bat.

The Prime Minister should have said: 'We got you into this mess. We backed in this war. We will fund making public transport free for all you states and territories so people can keep their costs down and we can send fuel to the regions where it's needed.' But he did not do that. Halving the fuel excise is going to give people some short-term relief, but I'm very worried that it's going to put further pressure on supply, and I think it's going to be eaten up within another week or two of price rises. What we actually need is that investment in long-term energy security, and the cheapest, most reliable and most sustainable sources of fuel are our renewable energy deposits and sustainable liquid alternative fuels.

The other thing that the government has unfortunately neglected to deal with is the fact that they're not obliged to pass this fuel price reduction on to motorists. There is no rule that says that the petrol stations can't keep this and can't price gouge off consumers like they started to do the moment the war began. There is no rule to stop them doing that, because this parliament voted against the Greens amendment to give them that power to stop price gouging—twice, in fact, in the last month. It's all well and good to give the ACCC more powers to stop petrol stations from lying to people, but how about actually stopping them from price gouging people in the first place?

Again, we will be supporting this as a short-term cost-of-living relief measure, but this is a bandaid, and this is a situation that the government should have foreseen. They should get our troops out of that conflict. We should be a force for peace in the world. We should not just sign up to be Donald Trump's lapdog. We should invest in actual renewable energy independence and our fuel security and independence by investing in our renewables. Electrification is the way to go. We can do that for our trucks. We can do that for our passenger vehicles. We can actually have affordable, cheap, clean energy and protect ourselves from future price shocks.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026. Last Friday, I joined the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the National Party to call on the government to provide fuel excise relief for Australian businesses, families and truckies, who have been slugged at the bowsers by skyrocketing fuel prices for almost five weeks. We presented the government with an economically responsible proposal to temporarily halve the fuel excise for three months and provide a corresponding reduction in the heavy vehicle road user charge that's paid by our truckies and our bus drivers. This was to ensure that there weren't inflationary pressures from giving that relief at the bowsers. We actually proposed savings measures to ensure that expenditure was going to be offset.

The government spent the weekend trying to hide from this policy suggestion, only to capitulate yesterday and announce the opposition's policy as its own. In those three days that they ran away and hid from the announcement that we made of our desire to work in a bipartisan way with the government during this crisis, the Labor government was able to pocket $50 million in fuel excise revenue from Australian drivers and truckies. But, in the announcement of the cut to fuel excise, has the government offered up any savings? Has the government sought to offset this $2.5 billion slug to the federal budget with commensurate savings so that it doesn't put inflationary pressure on an economy that's already stressed? No.

As the Australian said today:

Here we go again … Labor spends its way out of Iran War fuel crisis.

With the Prime Minister's addiction to spending taxpayers' funds, they've turned what would have been an inflation-reducing measure into another reason to dip further into debt and fuel the government's homegrown inflation crisis.

The government is seeking to rush this bill through parliament in a single day, again without adequate security. Buried in the small print of this bill, the Treasurer has a blank cheque to make further changes to the fuel excise rate over the next three months without coming back to parliament. This underlines the fact that the government still, as we head into the fifth week of this crisis, has no plan to deal with the escalating and compounding impacts of the crisis in the Middle East.

Despite Labor's senators lining up yesterday claiming they support struggling truckies as we debated the Fair Work amendment bill, ALP members do not seem to support the fuel price relief truckies were actually crying for. The real view of Labor MPs was expressed this morning in the morning papers. They were 'surprised'. They were 'perplexed by the Prime Minister's decision'. They were 'surprised that the government had adopted the opposition's policy'. Many of them were against it, and this was apparently an admission that the PM had no plan. This isn't the opposition saying this, and it's not the Greens. It is backbench Labor MPs in the other place. These same MPs warned that the measure would set 'a dangerous precedent'. To say most Labor backbenchers are perplexed would be an understatement.

So, when the Treasurer says the fuel excise relief in this bill is temporary, timely and responsible, he's only right in one of those three claims. It's not timely, because it's too late, too little, according to our truckies; it's not responsible, because the government has not matched this spend with a commensurate save in the federal budget; but it's definitely temporary. This is exactly why we need a select Senate committee to the government's response to the crisis in the Middle East. The compounding influence and impact of the government's failure in this regard; the ad hoc way they are adopting measures instead of a planned, proportionate response; the flat-footedness, particularly in the first four weeks; the flow-on impact that that will have right across our economy. Economists are saying that will have impacts over years, not just the weeks to come. I would encourage the Senate to think about a select committee, as we did for COVID. But we will be supporting this excise cut.

by leave—I wish to foreshadow my second reading amendment, which I neglected to do in my contribution just now.

I've got to comment now on the hypocrisy of the Greens. Senator Waters is saying, 'Bring our troops home.' Let me tell you: there's only one E-7A Wedgetail with a crew of 85 that are over there in the UAE, not in Iran, and that's to stop and to detect drone attacks for those 25,000 Australians that are over there. What a bunch of hypocrites they are, saying we are actually involved in the war. They say, 'Pick up the phone to Trump. You've got to stop this war,' as if the United States is going to listen to us, as if we've got this wonderful relationship with America, as if they're going to listen to what we have to say. They're blowing this completely out of proportion for the people who are watching this, as if we've got boatloads of troops going over there. This is the hypocrisy of the Greens about the situation that we are in now.

One Nation continues to set the agenda in this parliament and this country. While the major parties keep on claiming One Nation has no policies, they keep on copying them or adopting them. This happened a number of times during last year's federal election campaign. Labor has taken almost a year to implement One Nation's 2025 election policy to halve the fuel excise. Just as we did at the election, we advocated this policy as a measure to reduce the cost of living that has soared under this Labor government. It has taken a crisis exposing Australia's fuel insecurity for Labor to finally act. Obviously, they haven't been keeping up with us, because we've since upgraded that demand to a 100 per cent cut for three months. We advocate this policy, which would provide twice as much relief to motorists, farmers, miners and the transport industry as Labor's does.

However, our primary goal now is to heed the warning of this crisis and advocate a sovereign fuel industry. The conflict with the Iranian regime has exposed Australia. It has exposed how vulnerable we are to global economic shocks, even one caused by a conflict taking place more than 12,000 kilometres away from this building. It has exposed the failure of successive Labor and coalition governments to protect Australia from such shocks, despite many warnings over the years. They were warned to increase our onshore fuel reserves. They were warned to ensure we had a minimum of 90 days worth of fuel supplies. For decades, they've been warned to ensure Australia had the ability and capacity to be self-sufficient in critical areas like fuel production.

Australia is incredibly rich in energy and mineral resources. We have everything we need to be self-sufficient. Over the decades, the enormous economic potential of this abundance has been squandered. Australians should be the richest people in the world. We should have the highest standard of living in the world. We should be self-sufficient in virtually everything, with a huge manufacturing sector. We should have a powerful military, a world-leading economy and advanced technologies and research. We should have influence across the globe that matches such national strength.

What do we have instead? We have a weak military, a cost-of-living crisis, a housing crisis, a fuel crisis, a trillion-dollar federal debt and the profound economic self-harm that is net zero. We have the highest electricity prices in the world outside of Europe when we should have among the lowest thanks to an abundance of coal. We are facing shortages of natural gas, despite having some of the largest reserves in the world.

At this point, I have to call out the Greens and their economic incompetence. I'm calling out their obsession with renewables and their demonisation of the fossil fuels that provide nearly all of our energy requirements. If they think they can run this country on just renewables, it's an absolute joke. They've proposed a huge new tax on gas, not to ensure we get a fair share of revenue but to shut down the industry altogether. They're completely silent about the environmental destruction caused by the renewables rollout. They're happy to destroy the environment in their crusade to save it! This just doesn't make sense.

We have all the resources we need to establish a sovereign fuel industry which meets domestic demand. There are more than 17 billion barrels of proven oil reserves and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars locked up in shale. The United States have developed a shale-oil industry worth many billions of dollars per year. We need to wake up to ourselves.

Australians will pay less for fuel, and they will pay less because the coalition led, and the government followed. When the fuel crisis emerged, it was the coalition that stepped up with a responsible plan to halve the fuel excise, seeking timely, temporary relief for Australians. The government—well, it delayed. After four weeks of denial and indecision, it was right to finally see the government come up with a national security plan. Better late than never—but the delay has had real consequences for real people.

We support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 because Australians need immediate relief. Families and small businesses are under genuine pressure, and reducing costs at the bowser will make a meaningful difference, particularly ahead of Easter, when families are travelling and budgets are already stretched. Tradies, transport operators and small-business owners will see direct cost relief, and that of course is welcome. But let's not pretend this moment arrived without a fight. The coalition proposed this earlier. We put forward a responsible plan—one that included offsets, to avoid pouring fuel on an inflation fire. The government dragged its feet, and, in the meantime, the crisis deepened. This legislation, however, we welcome.

Nowhere has the crisis been more acute than in South Australia, where fuel is the most expensive in the nation. In the APY Lands, in remote South Australia, fuel costs are approaching $4 a litre for diesel, and they expect that will hit $4.50. Too little, too late means they are looking at shutting off bowsers within a week, not to conserve fuel for vehicles but to preserve what little remains for generators and essential transport. That is the reality on the ground that this government has been too slow to act on—too slow to even appreciate that it was real.

South Australia is already carrying the weight of record insolvencies under state and federal Labor governments. Families and businesses? Well, they've been doing it tough, with some of the highest electricity bills in the country in South Australia.

The government does not seem to understand that this crisis—the one it denied for nearly five weeks—is about global supply chains, costs and in-country logistics. This means it is all about access, even though Labor spent weeks arguing this was not an access issue. It's all about access when the bowser is dry. It is all about access when the price is too high and consumers simply can't afford it.

It is good that the government has finally done something rather than just talk about itself and blame others for the pain. I paid $3 a litre on Saturday, and on Sunday it was $3 25. If these prices continue to go up, a 26c-a-litre rebate just won't help. It will be worthless almost before it is provided.

What is guaranteed, though, is that, with no offsets offered, this is a plan to fuel inflation. It won't provide the fuel for farmers or for families. Within 24 hours of the announcement, the government's proposed GST arrangements had already fallen into disarray, raising serious questions about the fiscal credibility and coordination at the highest levels of government. That is on Labor.

As a government, it wants to blame everyone else. First, consumers were using too much fuel. This week, they're buying too many jerry cans to put the fuel into—again, suggesting it is consumers that are doing the wrong thing. The PM told Australians that Bunnings was out of jerry cans, but Bunnings itself came out and said, 'That claim is wrong, and, worse, it could trigger panic buying.' Seriously, if it weren't so serious, it could make an entertaining script. But none of this is funny. It's not funny for doctors. It's not funny for tourists. It's not funny for families trying to plan for Easter. None of this is funny.

The fuel security plan the government has finally released is light on detail. There are no quantifiable trigger points, there is no clarity on specifically what will happen next, and, critically, the Prime Minister has still not ruled out heavy-handed mandates. There is also no exit strategy. It's a temporary measure, but there is no clarity on what replaces it. What businesses and households need right now, in this economic crisis—which existed before the fuel crisis—is certainty. Australians are asking a very simple question: why is the Prime Minister always the last to lead out of a crisis? (Time expired)

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—just right-wing extremism. The government is playing catch-up. Labor has taken a year to implement One Nation's 2025 election policy to halve the fuel excise. In a crisis, Labor's cuts don't do enough. Our fuel resilience policy will cut the fuel excise completely. Today we have a bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026, being rushed forward through our parliament because the Albanese Labor government is panicking. Australians are getting hit in the hip pocket. The price of diesel has nearly doubled in Australia. This is an increase more than three times the global average, and Labor offers Australians a 26c reduction. Our policy will cut the full 52c per litre. We will provide twice as much relief at the bowser.

Our policy will also cut the GST paid on the fuel excise. Currently, the Albanese government is profiting by $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 has halved the fuel tax, but it is still applying a 10 per cent GST on top of the total sale. It's an absolute disgrace.

We have seen the price of diesel nearly double over the last few weeks, and that's if you can get it. This bill won't be doing a thing to crack down on the supply manipulation by big oil companies. That's why One Nation has called for the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act to be triggered so supply can be forced out into the regions, bringing down prices for everyone.

Over 500 service stations across Australia have run out of fuel. In my home state of WA, the acting shire president of Esperance revealed that fuel arriving in the town port has been trucked 1,400 kilometres, and it travels in tankers all the way to Perth before coming all the way back down to Esperance so it can be available at their local service stations. Our families are hurting. Our farmers are hurting. Our WA farmers are seeding and putting crops in at much greater cost. It's a double hit if they can't get access to enough fertiliser due to availability and cost. If our farmers aren't getting the fuel and support they need, where's our food going to come from?

Australia has got to have a better plan. Our primary goal now is to advocate a resilient sovereign fuel industry. One Nation's plan is clear: trigger the national fuel emergency act; force supply to be delivered to regional areas and independent distributors; prioritise defence and essential services; drop the fuel excise completely; provide GST tax relief on fuel for three months; suspended the road user charges; develop policies that allow Australia to find, process and distribute fuel; refine our fuel and build new refineries; 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 Australia—the needs of Australia must be catered to first; and remove impediments to using domestically produced fuel.

Successive Labor and coalition governments have failed to protect Australia by allowing our refineries to close. The BP oil refinery in Kwinana closed in 2022. It had a capacity of 140,000 barrels per day. It was running at a profit and didn't need upgrading. At the time, BP was run by a bloke called Bernard Looney—oh, the irony! He became CEO in February 2020 and served until September 2023, during which time he spearheaded a strategic pivot towards renewable energy and set net zero ambitions. In effect, the Kwinana refinery was sacrificed on the altar of ideology.

This fuel crisis has been created by decades of net zero obsession 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 not only reduce power bills but also put $30 billion back in the pockets of Australians by abolishing the climate change department. For decades, One Nation has been saying we need to be self-reliant. We need to regain our sovereignty. We must take back control of our country. One Nation continues to set the agenda in this parliament and in this country.

The government is finally doing something, and we are grateful for that. Adopting the coalition's policy is a good thing, so we will be supporting this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026. However, what is so starkly obvious again in this place, today and through this week in parliament, is that the government has no plan to deal with this crisis.

Let me read out a list quickly: Balingup, Esperance, Esperance again, Ningaloo, Geographe, Carnarvon, Walkaway, Fitzroy River, High Wycombe, Carnarvon, Maddington, Balcatta, Broome, Ningaloo, Exmouth, Mount Barker, Mount Barker again, Port Hedland, York, Geographe, Geographe again, Geraldton, Newman, Waterloo, Busselton, Ascot, Balga, Bentley, Broomehill, Canning Vale, Carlisle, Dayton, Forrestfield, Kaloorup, Gosnells, Maddington South, Middle Swan, Morley, Newman, Rous Head North Fremantle, Ridgewood, Southern River, Success, Wanneroo, Wattle Grove, Withers. They're the petrol stations in Western Australia either without diesel or without unleaded—and some of them are without any fuel at all. So, yes, it is welcome that we are going to see excise relief. It will help Australian families, and it's good that the Labor government has adopted our policy. However, we need to see a plan from this government for dealing with this crisis going forward.

I remind everybody that I first started getting calls about this issue from regional Western Australia in the first week of March. We came into this place and, day after day after day, when the coalition were raising questions of the government, we were told, 'Nothing to see here.' In fact, we were called right-wing crazies for suggesting there was a problem. Australians themselves were blamed for buying the fuel they needed to keep their businesses running. It was their fault. So a farmer getting fuel to commence seeding, a truckie getting fuel to keep driving his truck or the many tens of thousands—hundreds of thousands, millions—of Australians who rely on fuel to keep their businesses running were blamed for the fuel crisis. The government didn't look to itself.

Only after more than a week in this place with us raising questions did the government admit that there was a problem, admit there was a crisis, admit that something had to be done about it, and now it's taken many more weeks before we've got to the point of them doing anything about the problem that was clear to everyone at the beginning of this month. In fact, it should have been clear to the government. The government itself told diplomatic families to leave the Middle East—particularly in Israel and Beirut, but it also recommended departure from places like UAE—on 25 February. They should have seen that this was at least a high-likelihood risk. If they are saying to diplomatic families that it's too dangerous to stay in the Middle East then they were considering there to be a very high risk of conflict. And what happens to the price of oil whenever there is a conflict in the Middle East? I can tell you. Look back over history. Anybody who's looked back over history knows what happens to the price of oil and sometimes the availability.

Now we've had both of those things affect Australia. We still have serious issues in our distribution system, as revealed by that list of Western Australian petrol stations that have no petrol or diesel.

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026. I acknowledge and support the intent of this bill. We are seeing fuel prices skyrocketing, and that flows through to everything—to groceries, freight and the broader cost of living that Australians have been struggling with for many years now. In that context, it's right that the government looks for ways to provide relief. But good intentions by themselves do not make good policy, and this bill and this policy have some very significant flaws. Despite these concerns, I won't be opposing this bill, in recognition of the urgent need for relief provided by cutting the fuel excise in half. But I would like to take this opportunity to put on the record some of my concerns and the concerns of experts and a number of Canberrans who have contacted my office.

First, this is far from the best way to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money. This is a measure that will cost the budget more than $2.5 billion in just three months. At a time when we are already seeing persistent deficits and growing debt, that is not a trivial decision. A cut to the fuel excise also spreads relief across everyone who uses fuel, regardless of need. That means it benefits high-income households more than those who are struggling most. Research from the e61 Institute shows that measures like this disproportionately benefit higher income earners. At its core, this is clearly a blunt instrument. When we're being told that there is no money in the budget for things like food pantries and other frontline services, it seems that blunt instruments are the wrong tools. If we are serious about helping people, we should be directing support to those who actually need it, not subsidising fuel consumption across the board.

This cut to the fuel excise makes it more likely that we will see supply crunches, and it has struck me as odd that, at a time where we desperately need fuel in the regions and fuel for farmers, we're doing something that will potentially increase demand in metropolitan areas. Obviously, there are people in metro areas that need the fuel, but, in terms of the broader approach, there are questions to be answered. I'm concerned that this increases the likelihood of interest rate rises, causing even more pain for Australians, where we just shovel our money to the banks—at a time when supply is already under pressure, the last thing we should be doing.

A professor of economics at the University of New South Wales, Richard Holden, has described this as a 'very bad idea', warning it will increase demand and worsen shortages. Economist Chris Richardson has said cutting the fuel excise 'keeps inflation higher for longer than it otherwise would have been'. And independent economist Saul Eslake put it plainly:

It might be good politics, that's for others to judge, but it's not good economics.

Shane Wright has written, with characteristic bluntness:

The Reserve Bank must be having kittens.

He goes on to say:

Bipartisan bowser populism is not going to help.

That's what this bill is—policy driven more by short-term political appeal than by long-term economic sense. You have to think that the Treasurer has had very real concerns about this sort of decision. But it's something, and anything is badly needed at this point of what is now genuinely a fuel crisis.

As I said in my second reading speech on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026, beyond the immediate response we must confront the deeper issue: our dependence on volatile, expensive, imported fossil fuels. The transition will take time, and there are sectors, like agriculture, where liquid fuels will remain essential for a while yet, but, if we're serious about resilience, we cannot keep reaching for short-term fixes that entrench the very vulnerability we are trying to escape. Australians deserve policies that are not just well meaning but well designed, fair and economically sound, policies that take the huge challenges we face and actually turn them into opportunities in the future.

All these bills are coming before the parliament this week to solve the fuel crisis, when the real solution would be to solve the government crisis. Reducing the excise on fuel was part of One Nation's 2025 federal election campaign.

Excuse me, Senator Roberts—can you maybe just be a little bit lower in terms of the sound? It's—

I'm already pretty short!

Thank you for your good humour.

I first announced this One Nation policy on 11 February 2025 in a Senate adjournment debate. The policy was repeated in my adjournment speech on 25 March 2025 as part of our election promise to cut $13 billion worth of excises to put more money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. Not only have the Labor Party stolen the policy; they've stolen the slogan about putting more money back in people's pockets.

My talking point is similar to one I've heard today. It's this: the ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I'm confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. The policy was a hit and helped to start the orange tidal wave, the orange movement.

Senator Hanson spoke to One Nation's policy to reduce the fuel excise in her senator's statement on 5 March 2026. In a statement on fuel prices and security amid Middle East tensions, Senator Hanson said:

The government collects 51.6c per litre in fuel excise. One Nation was elected on a policy to halve that tax, cutting 26c a litre immediately, with compensation for any truckies and farmers losing rebates. The Morrison government took our advice in 2022 for six months—

They took our advice—

but didn't look after truckies and farmers. It's time for the Albanese government to do the same and deliver cheaper fuel for Australians in 2026.

On 2 March, I raised the fuel crisis two days after the jets flew from Israel into Iran. On 12 March, I spoke on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 and called for the excise to be halved. This week, Senator Hanson called for the fuel excise to be removed and for the road user tax on trucks to be suspended for three months. One Nation, One Nation, One Nation, One Nation. Our policy is not to remove the GST on fuel, though reducing the excise 52c a litre will reduce the GST by 5c and end this immoral tax on a tax that both you parties support.

So, here we are. After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining to the ideologues on my left why reducing the fuel tax will help everyday Australians and stimulate the economy, finally, lo and behold, One Nation policy is now government policy. As I explained a minute ago, it's not inflationary. It increases productivity. I did hear Senator Waters describe this bill as 'rushed'. The bill is rushed. The idea of fuel duty relief, though, is not.

It was amusing to listen to the Liberal Party and the National Party take credit for the idea. I went back and looked to see when the Liberals first started talking about cutting the excise on petrol and diesel. It was on 26 March 2026, last week, after four weeks. Yet, somehow, the Libs claim it was the Liberals who forced the Albanese government to introduce an excise cut. Nonsense. This is the second time today the Liberals have dispensed with the truth. Senator Cash's speech on the cash ban regulations was factually false. It misrepresented the truth, and we will explain to the people of Farrer how the Liberals and the Nationals sold out the bush. Today, the uniparty was on display for everyone to see. Look at them down there. The Labor, Liberal and National uniparty were defending their big mates in big banking—their big donors in big banking.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 implements a 50 per cent cut in petrol and diesel duty and suspends the road user charge. One Nation will support this sensible measure to reduce the cost of petrol by 31c for everyday Australians and 32.5c for the trucking industry. This will keep the trucks moving, putting food on the shelves at the supermarket, stock in the shops, medical supplies in hospitals and dentists and ensuring the economy doesn't melt down entirely as a result of the war in Iran.

I remind people that One Nation were the first to raise the fuel supply, fuel security and price volatility issues. We were the second, we were the third, we were the fourth, and we were the fifth, before the Nationals and the Liberals even dreamt of it. They're playing catch-up. We are having crisis after crisis, and you lot over there in the government accused us of being far-right-wing extremists. We are correct, we are right, and we hit the target before you even dreamt of it.

I thank senators who have contributed to this debate very much. The war in the Middle East is battering the global economy. Oil prices today are around twice what they were at the start of 2026 as a result of that conflict. This bill will deliver temporary and targeted support to Australian motorists and truckies in a responsible way. The schedules in the bill will temporarily halve the fuel excise for petrol and diesel and facilitate changes to the heavy vehicle road user charge to allow it to be reduced to zero temporarily. Halving the fuel excise will cut 26.3c a litre off the cost of petrol and diesel. Including the reduction in the GST component, this will cut the cost of a 65-litre tank of fuel by nearly $19. Reducing the heavy road user charge to zero will save truckies around $130 on a 400-litre tank of fuel.

The bill also provides additional flexibility to make further adjustments to the rate of excise, if needed, to give effect to the undertaking from the states at the National Cabinet on GST. The government's focus is on easing cost-of-living pressures, securing our fuel supply and getting it to where it's needed the most. The steps we're taking in this bill today are in addition to all of the actions we've already taken to date to support supply and distribution and empower the ACCC to crack down on misconduct. I commend the bill to the Senate.

We are dealing with the second reading amendments on sheet 3763 moved by Senator Chandler. Senator Roberts has indicated he wants part (a) put separately, so I intend to put part (a) first. So the question is that part (a) from sheet 3763 as moved by Senator Chandler be agreed to.

The question is that the remainder of Senator Chandler's second reading amendment, parts (b) through (g), be agreed to.

I move the second reading amendment on sheet 3761 standing in my name:

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

(a) notes:

(i) the Albanese Government was the first government in the world to support President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu's illegal war and they bear some responsibility for the chaos it has inflicted on businesses and household budgets,

(ii) the need for additional short-term solutions such as free public transport and supporting uptake of electric vehicles and electric trucks, and

(iii) the need for medium-term solutions to electrify our economy and end our dependence on fossil fuels; and

(b) acknowledges that halving the fuel excise will give people some short-term relief, but financial pressures and economic vulnerability will persist until our economy shifts off its dependence on imported oil and on to renewable energy independence".

The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 3761 be agreed to.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I record that Senator Payman supports the Greens second reading amendment, opposes the opposition's second reading amendment and supports the second reading and all remaining stages of the bill.

Pursuant to order, the Senate will now adjourn without debate. Good night, Senators.

Senate adjourned at 21:19