If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised.

The government does not support the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026. The bill is poorly drafted and ill conceived and will have unintended consequences. It reeks of desperation from a new leader of the opposition who is chasing headlines, not solutions. The reality is that this bill does not seek to address the cohort of people that the opposition have been claiming to want to target. This is a political stunt. It's not a serious proposal from a serious party of government. The Australian people are seeing through the Liberals and Nationals and their lack of serious approaches to challenges the country faces.

The bill, as currently drafted, is absurdly broad in its scope. The number of people that could potentially be committing criminal offences in the circumstances contemplated in the bill would be significant, from commercial pilots, baggage handlers, aid workers and members of the clergy to even our allies in the region. It is wildly inconsistent. For example, there is an inconsistent application of knowledge elements across the offences. For some limbs it is recklessness. For others it is actual knowledge. And, finally, it contains redundant provisions which refer to terrorism offences already covered by other sections of the bill. This entire bill is an absurd contribution from an opposition that has given up on good policy and retreated into the madness of right-wing populism. Ultimately, this bill would actually do very little to address the policy issue those opposite claim it would address—namely, the return of Australian citizens in Syria. The government's position on this issue is clear and longstanding. We are not providing assistance and we are not repatriating individuals from Syria.

National security is not political theatre. We follow the advice of our security agencies and we follow the law. If any one of these individuals finds their own way to return to Australia, our agencies are prepared and will be able to act in the interests of community safety. That is how we keep Australians safe, not through political stunts like this bill. On that basis, I strongly urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

I thank Senator Duniam for this bill, which One Nation will support. The Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 amends the Criminal Code Act 1995—the Criminal Code. The bill inserts a new offence into part 5.5 of the Criminal Code to criminalise the organisation or facilitation of the entry into Australia of certain persons who have engaged in terrorism related conduct—unless these actions occur with the prior written permission of both the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs.

The offence applies where a person organises or facilitates the entry into Australia of another person from a foreign country and where, at the time of organising or facilitating the entry, the other person has engaged in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) of the Criminal Code—namely, entering or remaining in a declared area—or another terrorism offence as defined under the Crimes Act 1914; the first person knows that the other person intends to engage in conduct constituting an offence under subsection 119.2(1) or another terrorism offence before entering Australia; or the other person is or has been a member of a terrorist organisation. They're the three criteria.

The offence does not apply to conduct in which a Commonwealth authority is engaged or to conduct on behalf of a Commonwealth authority, which lets Minister Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides. I'll say that again: it lets Mr Burke off the hook for facilitating the return of ISIS brides.

The bill extends the sunset date for the declared areas regime in sections 119.2 and 119.3 of the Criminal Code from 7 September 2027 to 7 September 2030. These amendments are intended to ensure that decisions concerning the repatriation to Australia of persons who have entered or remain in declared areas, who have committed any other terrorism offences or who are members of terrorist organisations occurs with appropriate Commonwealth authorisation.

The return of the wrongly named 'ISIS brides' inspires this legislation. The term 'ISIS brides' is, of course, a misnomer. So-called Australian ISIS brides are women who travelled to Syria and Iraq, of their choice, to join or marry fighters for the Islamic State group, often referred to as the caliphate. These women were involved in hijrah—immigration to the Islamic State—as wives and mothers to 'breed the cubs of the caliphate' and to support jihad efforts. ISIS propaganda itself targeted Western women, with roles as supporters, militarised mothers and wives—or even, when needed, fighters. They are not brides; they're Islamic terrorists who travelled to a war zone, a proscribed area, to fight against the West and fight against Australia. They encouraged their men to kill and do other unspeakable things. They brainwashed their own children. Yet we're supposed to bring them back here—and what? Condone their behaviour? There can be no condoning of the treachery they've committed.

This bill will not stop the return per se. It will force their return into the open, where the voting public will be able to clearly see that the Labor government was responsible for their return, and the people will hold the Labor government accountable. That's what we want—openness. For clarity, Labor did that, returned them, through an intermediary from the Muslim Brotherhood, a device that Minister Burke thought would insulate the government from the fallout coming from returning these terrorists. It did not.

Western countries allowing in, or back in, terrorists committed to overthrowing our way of life and installing sharia law has a name. It's called suicidal empathy. Let's quote one of Minister Burke's ISIS terrorists, who, while in Syria, said this: 'Attack the US, Australia, the UK. Kill them. Stab them. Poison their food.' That's charming—really charming. It's suicidal empathy indeed.

These women went to a war zone in Syria to fight a war for the caliphate against Australia. Syria is now a caliphate. Their side won. So why do they want to come back to Australia? Are caliphates not as appealing as Australia? Now, that's telling. Or do they aim to help make Australia a caliphate?

As I said yesterday, Shady Alsuleiman is president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wissam 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 does not 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. The government is bringing these people in. To these female terrorists, we say this: you got you went over there for; you made your bed; now lie in it.

Well, the cruelty that is on display from the coalition and One Nation in relation to the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 and the hypocrisy of the Labor government: the women and children who are left stranded in Syria, many of whom were trafficked and coerced as young women, as children themselves, have been left stranded now because of a total lack of courage and compassion. What a stark difference from the leadership of even somebody like Scott Morrison, who showed compassion to those who needed to come home after being left in the war-torn country. It beggars belief, that I'm standing here today to point out that Scott Morrison had more compassion and courage on the issue of human rights and protecting women and children than our current prime minister does! It just beggars belief.

Anthony Albanese said that these children made their own beds. Let me remind the Prime Minister that some of these children are four or five years old. Even if they were here in Australia they couldn't make their own beds. They are children. What has happened to our humanity? The stories of these women and their children over the past number of years—one of these mothers was 14 years old when she was trafficked to Syria, forced into marriage. The hypocrisy of the conservatives on this side of the chamber: they go on and on about extremism, about how extremists treat women, demean women, coerce women. And now, the very women they purport to care about they are leaving for dead, politicising them and using them as political footballs.

I'm not going to sit in this chamber and be lectured to with this false outrage of care, compassion or morality. You're a bunch of hypocrites—a bunch of misogynist hypocrites—and you don't give two damns about the rights of these children, innocent kids. One of the things that makes this country a great country and a place where we proudly, on the international stage, know it's the best country on Earth is the value of a fair go, of treating people equally, of looking after each other, of looking after our mates—but only when it suits you, it seems, on the conservative side. If there's a political point to be made or if there's somebody to punch down on in order to suck up to somebody else, the conservative side of politics just takes it; they can't help themselves.

The rank hypocrisy reeks in this place. It has all week. It has all fortnight, whether it's talking about wringing your hands about the impacts of what the war in the Middle East has meant for petrol prices while backing the slaughter and the bloody carelessness of your mate Donald Trump who started the damn thing or pretending that you care about Iranian women, when, for years, you have left them locked up, rotting in immigration detention—the very same women and young girls who fled this horrible, misogynistic, terrifying regime.

Now we see you doing exactly the same thing with the very women that you say should have been protected here in Australia by Australian law and by Australian values, children who were trafficked and coerced. Now you're leaving them for dead. My advice to those women and children in Syria: join a soccer team. Form a soccer team because maybe then the Prime Minister will care about you. Maybe then the Leader of the Opposition will think that you're good enough to come home. It is revolting—human rights for some, rule of law for some. But, if you're weak enough, you're vulnerable enough and you're able to be punched down upon without having anyone speak up for you, then you're fair game. If you're a young woman who's had a child in a refugee camp after being trafficked and coerced by a misogynistic regime, you're left for dead.

This is not who we are as Australians. These are innocent children, and you want to make political points and use the lives of these kids and these women for your own political pointscoring in a race to the bottom on racism and immigration in this country. And who's leading the charge on all of this? One Nation and Pauline Hanson, of course—the chief racist of all. Where is the courage to stare this rubbish down and say, 'This is not who we are'? Rather than doing that, we have you trotting along behind, hoping that no-one points out the hypocrisy, the inconsistencies and the inhumanity of it all.

This bill is only about rank politics. It's nothing about protecting Australians, because these women, these children, are Australians. They are Australians. They've got Australian passports. They were used and abused by the men who forced them to go to Syria, and it is now time that we allowed them to come home. These kids do not deserve to be part of your political games, so we'll be voting against this racist, rubbish piece of legislation. Using innocent children for your race-baiting is as low as you can get, and the whole thing should be knocked off.

I appreciate the contributions that have been made on this very serious issue despite the inaccuracies of most of what's been said by those who oppose this legislation. I think it's important to re-introduce into this debate some of the facts around what's been happening here and why the opposition was forced to bring in legislation to do what the government just won't in order to keep Australians safe. We have a lot of rhetoric, a lot of flourish and a lot of froth and bubble about certain elements of this debate, and it is a complex issue. But this completely ignores the realities that confront our country when it comes to safety and security.

To draw equivalence between the Iranian women's soccer team and this group of so-called ISIS brides—to suggest that the only difference was the fact that one was an elite footballer and the other was not—completely demonstrates the flimsiness of the approach taken by the Australian Greens political party to this issue. To suggest that this is somehow all about compassion and humanity and all about children, of course—these are minors who have not had a say over their lives but were taken to, or born in, this place otherwise described as a terrorist hotspot—to suggest that that's what the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 is about and that it undercuts the rights and privileges that should be afforded these children, completely misunderstands what this is about and why we are doing this.

It disappoints me, of course, that anyone who, in order to protect Australia, advances any piece of legislation or anything that might actually do just that is described as racist or race baiting. This has got nothing to do with race. This has got to do with intent and decisions made by people who have done something that is not in our national interest and therefore present a risk to our country. It's very straightforward.

Again, the government have sort of been indicating to Australia that they don't want this to happen, that they don't want these people to come back into Australia. In fact, the minister himself, in a TV interview on Insiderssome weeks ago now, said, 'We don't want them back.' If that is the case, then do something about it. In the same breath, as we recall, the minister said, 'Well, getting a passport is just the same as getting a Medicare card.' That's it; it's that straightforward.

Well, in fact, a passport is very different to a Medicare card. That is not a document that affords you to come and go from our country, to cross international borders. It has nothing to do with national security. As we know, under the passports act, the minister has the capacity to refuse to issue a passport to an individual on the basis of security concerns. Of course, all of that has been glossed over, and the government is saying, 'There's nothing we can do here,' but they will happily turn a blind eye while third parties, NGOs, work in the background, in the shadows, to try and facilitate the return of these individuals.

I will just say that, since we first debated this legislation, Dr Jamal Rifi, the chief campaigner for Minister Tony Burke—the man who makes decisions about who comes and goes from this country—has indicated that there are three plans on foot: plans A, B and C. Plan A, he suggested—it was directly quoted, attributed to him—would have a '90 per cent chance' of success. He's confident of getting these people back here. Goodness knows what conversations have occurred behind the scenes between the minister and Dr Rifi and the individuals concerned. We don't know. We may find out one day. We may find out when these individuals do come back. The reality is they are coming back.

The government say they want to protect Australia, say they don't want these people back here, say that they made terrible decisions to go, to support their ISIS fighter husbands and put their children in harm's way. Well, if all of the things they say are true, then they should be supporting this legislation. Or, indeed, if they can't, for whatever reason—make amendments to it. Do something. Give effect to the rhetoric you put out there about not wanting these people to come back to Australia. Of course, though, this is just a further demonstration of how this government is getting border security and debates related to national security completely wrong.

Indeed, I know just yesterday—the day before, rather—a number of members of parliament, including the minister himself, received communication from groups, including the Australian Federation for Ethnic and Religious Minorities in Bangladesh, relating to an individual who's doing a speaking tour of Australia, Mr Mizanur Rahman Azhari, who just yesterday commenced his tour, starting in Brisbane. It's known as 'A Legacy of Faith'—Brisbane last night, Melbourne on 3 April, Sydney on the 4th and Canberra on the 6th. It's right across Easter, an important part of our calendar for a range of reasons, including Christian reasons, in this country.

But Mr Azhari, this speaker here, who's been issued a visa by this government, has, sadly, in a number of other parts of the world, been accused of, and found to have been, spreading racial hatred. Indeed, his visa was revoked by the UK Home Office in the year 2021 while he was in transit, preventing entry into the country, because, as it was found, he was spreading anti-Hindu hatred. In his home country of Bangladesh, the government then accused him of promoting extremist ideologies and being sympathetic to extremist Islamist groups, and he had several of his Koranic explanation programs cancelled by authorities, citing law and order concerns. The police were instructed in that country to monitor the content of his gatherings because of the divisive nature and hatred that was spread through what he was doing. There are a range and a litany of examples of antisemitic hate speech, his maligning of the Hindu religion, his demonising of the Bengali culture. This man, of course, despite all of this—and all of it on public record too, I might add—has been granted a visa to come here.

This is the same government allowing a man like that to come into Australia and have talks like this. This is the same government that says: 'We've got no plan to repatriate these individuals to Australia'—the so-called ISIS brides—'but we're happy to allow it to happen. In fact, we've issued passports to the entire cohort.' Of course those questions remain as to who applied for the passports, who paid for the passports, who picked up the passports from the passport office, who carried them, if they were authorised under the Passports Act to carry them across international borders, if it was the one person or if it was multiple. Indeed, I would hope—and I hope they're listening—that the relevant authorities are asking these questions to see if any breaches have occurred. As I understand, of course, a passport becomes the property of the individual whose name is on the passport at the point of issuance, but there are questions here around breaches of the law which yet need to be answered. If the government don't follow these issues up, if the government don't support this legislation, it demonstrates they remain weak on this issue and they aren't interested in national security.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

The question is this bill be now read a second time.

by leave—I move:

That the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026 be called on immediately for debate, until the end of private senators' bills time.

Question agreed to.

Water policy isn't academic.

Senator Cadell, I hope that is not a prop on your desk.

As long as it remains on the desk and is not held up in the air and made to look like a prop.

Thank you, President. Basin policy isn't academic. It's about whether towns can survive, thrive and grow and whether they can supply the needs of Australia. This is why water policy is so important. Water is life—let's not pretend anything else—and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan dictates so much of that in regional Australia. When we have a town like Bourke that has lost 40 per cent of its water supply and 60 per cent of its population over the last 10 years, you see the effect it has on communities.

The President was talking about the water I have on my table. This is water from Narrandera, from the tap. People from the city, who don't understand, will call it Narran-derr-a, but it is Narrandera. This is what people can expect in the bush. That is pure tap water that we have there.

This is why we have to go through with this. What we need is action. We can talk about royal commissions and different policies, but you can't create that unless you are the government. This is why we're here today to call a committee of inquiry that can do something now and look into the actions of one of the largest water holders in the country and how it operates, because there has been concern over the past year. There have been instances where they ceased to pump water in New South Wales because they admitted themselves that they weren't compliant with the New South Wales water-metering standards. This is the largest water holder in New South Wales saying they can pump no more because they don't comply with the rules. This is the government's water holder saying that.

If we're in these situations, we need to look at what happens. This is a water holder that has not used its allocation since it's been around. They never use their full allocation, but they continue to buy more water. When you question how much water they have bought, it is not for publication. You have to dig deep and do a forensic dive to see how much they are spending. Look at the WESA report. They're talking about $1.6 billion or $1.7 billion—up to $2 billion per year buying water rights when they aren't using the water they already have. Something is crook in Tobruk if you are spending billions to buy more water when you're not using the water you have.

Later on in this conversation, we'll hear the people of South Australia say, 'We want more water; we want more.' They already have enough water to give more water, but we are buying more water off towns, growers and communities that need it. When I was out at Louth, out past Bourke, we saw a weir. Under the framework, they had to lower the weir to build a new one because you can have no more containment or no more capture under this legislation. So they wanted to spend $70 million to lower the water security of Louth. This is a place that had put its own people on fire alerts because, over the last two months of the last season, it didn't have enough water to put out a house fire if it happened. They did not have enough water under their licence to prevent a house fire, so they went around proactively trying to do this.

What we're doing here is having a look at this, because river health is so important. No-one is saying that is not the case. But, if you go down to Shepparton and look at the river down there, where the Goulburn River and the Broken River join together, there is no ability to get the water licences they hold in that catchment out of that river, because of the choke and other reasons. When you can't get the water out of where you own it, there is no point owning it. So downstream from there, in South Australia and Victoria, all these areas can't get that environmental water flow benefit. What we're seeing more and more is that, when there are environmental releases, they cause localised flooding in agricultural areas. The water isn't going to the environment or the wetlands. It's not going to the Coorong, as so many people claim. It is going on agricultural land because there is too much for the banks of the river to hold.

That is why we're here today calling for an inquiry now, not waiting for a government to change its mind and have a royal commission on the future and not doing anything that relies on the goodwill of the Labor government. We are calling for something the parliament can do. The important part of this is that this commission would report back to the parliament, not get a report to the government, which would sit on it for months or years—forever and a day—and never reply. This would be an open policy where we can see what the concerns are going forward. Since the start of the current government, $5.9 billion has come out of water infrastructure and gone into buybacks—almost $6 billion. Water infrastructure—the National Water Grid—is crying out for funding. The Wilcannia Weir needs to be upgraded, and Wilcannia is another town that's running out of water. The state government said how much they would spend to upgrade the Wilcannia Weir, but the federal government was not able to match it, so the Wilcannia Weir is off the record—once again, another town where water security will not happen because we can find $6 billion to take water out of communities but we can't find $70 million to put water into communities. That is the farce that we deal with as we go forward.

We're not just saying this government is wrong on water. Let's be honest here: state governments have so much to do in this plan, and they didn't do it. They aren't doing the work. They aren't doing the SDL work or the complementary measure works that are required under this plan. When I spoke to a state water minister who signed the deal at the time, this is the quote I got: 'I signed up for the benefits. I never thought I would have to do the work.' That is the attitude here. Without someone in charge of water, it is always somebody else's problem. So we are not seeing the work done on river health. We are not seeing the work done on catchments. We are not in the work done on carp in the catchment. Let's face it: what would these rivers look like if we didn't have these introduced monsters tearing up the bottoms, getting rid of life and killing native species all throughout? I know the communities are there. I know VicWater is very keen for a trial of carp eradication in Victoria, and I say Lake Brewster would be a great site for a trial in New South Wales. That's in the northern end of the Farrer electorate.

We're talking about doing what we have to do to put life back into regional Australia, not to harm the environment. People get up and say, 'Oh, that's stealing the water,' and this, that and the other. The old joke is that everyone upstream steals and everyone downstream wastes it, but is not the case. This is a case of no-one taking responsibility for the effective management of water throughout the chain. This inquiry would only get down to how much is being spent. It is getting away from the not-for-publications. How is the water being used? What are the successes? That is the thing. If you read the Northern basin toolkit report, you'll see some of the massive failures in national water grid funding and you won't see many successes, because the states aren't stepping up. I don't want to put a whole lot of stuff where it's not needed. The federal government has been okay with supplying the money, but the states aren't doing the work. The fact is that the federal money shouldn't be buying water back; it should be making the states do this work.

Go out to the Menindee Lakes. Under the original plan, one of the man-made ones and one of the original ones were meant to be closed down. This was meant to deepen the rest of them so we wouldn't have the evaporation problem. What is happening with the lining of channels? What is happening with the evaporation work that goes on? All of these things can be looked at. What has happened year on year with the accrual of DCCEEW water and the environmental water not being used is it is increasing the capacity of environment water in dams, so the usable water is getting smaller. If you don't use 20 per cent of your environmental water this year and it accrues in the dam, that is a high percentage of that dam that it is used for environmental water. Year on year, it gets bigger, so much less water is available in our storage units for agricultural and community use. I get that 71 per cent of our water is accrued environmental flows, but, when it is taking over the catchments—so we might have a tonne of water; we just can't use it in communities. We can't get it down the rivers. We can't get it down the chokes. When we do, as I said, we are flooding towns. We had the triple bottom line test there. It had to be environmentally, economically and socially acceptable before we went on any buyback. That has gone by the wayside.

I'll go back to Bourke again. When you go through the 60 per cent population drop, a sad stat when we talk about regionality and our Indigenous people, no-one has graduated from Bourke High School within an ATAR in eight years. In eight years, no-one has graduated from Bourke High School with an ATAR, because the population is falling and because the investment in the town is diminishing. That is the indictment. You're not going to close the gap. You're not going to help Indigenous people until the communities they live in and around are prosperous. It's geographical isolation as much as it is a racial problem, and we have to fix these things. We can't walk away from that.

Our farmers already know. They are trying to be more productive with the water they have, but, when you're out there and things are tough and the government is spending up to $2 billion a year in the market, it is very attractive to sell your water. I get that. I cannot blame you for trying to survive. But the government should not be buying the water. This is what we get down to. It should be spending this money on infrastructure to make sure the water we have is used better. Environmental uplift water is there; why don't we have economic uplift water? If a town can be better and be more, why can't a town go to DCCEEW and say, 'I've got a chance to make my community better by doing this,' after which DCCEEW leases them water? Why are we buying water instead of short-term leases when we need it? There are many more things you can look at in what we do. The latest thing this term is another 130-gigalitre buyback. Once again, I've said on the record: we don't use the water we've got, but under this we've removed the guidelines to a 130 gigalitre buyback in this term of government.

We in the Nationals and the coalition Liberals oppose all water buybacks in the basin. They have enough water. There should be no more buybacks until everyone does what they said they would do at the beginning, and you'll see you do not need them. Get rid of the carp, put the infrastructure in, build better storage, and we will be fine—I say as I'm choking. I'll have a drink of my Narrandera water! When communities don't even have safe drinking water, how can they thrive? This is why we need to fund the water treatment works as part of the national water grid. This is why we need to consider people again. It is not just the environment. It is people, and it is accounting for all water. You can't divert the channel waters that used to flow from the Coorong into the ocean and not account for them. You cannot have overland flow harvesting, where you can't take the water even though you're flooding, which causes destruction of the banks and rivers down low. If you take more water, which actually mitigates some of that flooding, you are in breach of the act. This is ridiculous.

This bill calls on an open inquiry into the aspect of Commonwealth water only. It is not a free-for-all on who took what and who does what in the environment. It is narrow to the actions of government. But it is something we can do now by passing a bill that reports back to the parliament. It is a real thing. If the government, the Greens and everyone believe that the CEWH is doing the right thing, they should welcome the scrutiny and get the tick. I do not believe that the CEWH is doing the right thing at the moment. I don't believe it's necessarily bad management. I don't think it's bad operation. I think the rules under which they operate are unfair to communities and farmers. That is why we want to do this.

A royal commission may take some time; it may take two years. It comes back to government, and they look at all sorts of things. Depending on who the royal commissioner is, it may be very unsuccessful for the people that want it. But this will get to the bottom of the operations of the largest water holder in the basin. It will get to the operations of government. It will be done quicker and be more cost effective to the people, and we'll get an answer that everyone can see. Unlike we see in my Narrandera water, we want transparency in this basin. We want transparency in decisions. And we want transparency in water flows and allocation, because so much of Australia relies on it.

Like we're seeing national sovereignty and oil supply lines run out right now, we will see the same with food if we don't protect these communities. When we are putting foreign food on our foreign tables brought in with our foreign cars because we can't use Australian water or Australian resources to grow them, this is where we go. We want clear answers on environmental water, what is being done, what is being achieved and what it has cost our communities. When they come here and tell the real stories they have—as I said, storage has been overtaken by environmental water, and the environmental water is flooding irrigation areas and farmlands, and communities are suffering—it is not good enough. We are spending so much of our money covering for states that will not do the work, refuse to do the work and keep coming back and saying, 'more money for this, more money for that'. We don't have it anymore, because we're spending it on bloody water buybacks. Why does the government need more of something they have too much of?

We can make the environment blossom with the water we have using better management. We can make the farmers more efficient with the water they've got by doing works that protect it. I urge the parliament to support this bill. It is so important for the regions. It is so important for our communities. And, if we don't, we are turning our backs on our farmers.

We've seen again why you simply cannot trust the National Party when it comes to water policy in Australia. It's worth remembering that, while the Liberal National coalition government was in power for nearly 10 years, they had 10 years to recover 450 gigalitres of water for the environment under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and they recovered two. They recovered two gigalitres out of the 450 gigalitres that was required under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. For the entire time that they stood idly by, we saw the environmental condition of the Murray-Darling Basin deteriorate—10 years of neglect—just as we saw in so many other policy areas under the coalition government.

Today, yet again, we see a stunt from the National Party on water policy. Well, on this one they're late to the party, calling for a royal commission regarding aspects of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. We know the only reason they've put this forward is that they know they're about to run a distant fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh in the Farrer by-election. The former leader, David Littleproud, admitted as much. Now they're coming late to the party, trying to make a name for themselves when it comes to water policy, ahead of a by-election where they know they're going to get flogged. That's what this is about.

This is not a sincere attempt from the National Party, just as we've never seen a sincere attempt from the National Party, to grapple with the very real environmental pressure we've seen the Murray-Darling Basin under, which of course is the biggest threat we see to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Continued ignorance of the environmental needs in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is a massive long-term risk to the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. And what do we see from the National Party, who say they represent farmers? They continue to ignore the scientific reality that the Murray-Darling Basin is under immense environmental pressure and that that is a threat to the long-term future of the agriculture sector.

We've already seen, in the run-up to the Farrer by-election, one of the New South Wales independent members, Helen Dalton—I think her electorate is Murray—call for a royal commission into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. We've seen a similar call from one of the Independent candidates in the Farrer by-election, Michelle Milthorpe. So, finally, the old National Party warhorse gets moving, in the last day of these sittings, before the Farrer by-election, and what do they do? They copy what everyone else is doing and say they want a royal commission—no originality, no ideas, no future thinking about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, just terror from the National Party when it comes to the Farrer by-election, because they've already given up the ghost. So they're now clutching at straws, copying policies that have already been announced by other candidates running in that by-election. That is what is going on here this morning—not a sincere attempt to grapple with the very real issues facing the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the communities that rely on that water flow.

In contrast to the National Party, our government is committed to delivering the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including meeting voluntary water purchase targets and delivering water efficiency and infrastructure projects. We don't believe it needs to be one or the other. If you listen to the National Party, they will say it needs to be only water efficiency and infrastructure projects, without water buybacks. Our view is that it needs to be both. They always ignore the fact that this government has put billions of dollars into funding water infrastructure upgrades and water efficiency measures in the Murray-Darling Basin. They are an important part of ensuring that the Murray-Darling Basin remains strong into the future, but so are voluntary water buybacks.

And Senator Canavan: I think this is the very first time any of us have ever heard him take an interest in the Murray-Darling Basin. Could that be because there's a by-election coming up in the electorate of Farrer? All of a sudden he's concerned. Senator Canavan is of course the man who said that farmers were not the core constituency of the National Party. Now all of a sudden he's worried about the farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin. It's almost as though he's become the leader of that party all of a sudden and is worried about what's going to happen in that by-election!

The reality is that the latest Murray-Darling Basin Authority Basin plan evaluation report and Sustainable Rivers Audit tells us we are better off with the plan and that the water we've recovered for the environment is helping rebuild river health to secure the long-term sustainability of the basin, its industries and its communities. As I've said, rebuilding the health of the Murray-Darling Basin through a combination of voluntary water buybacks, water infrastructure projects, water efficiency projects and other measures is vital to the long-term future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin. Any political party that claims to be standing by the future of the agriculture sector in the Murray-Darling Basin would be supporting the plan, not trying to pull it apart, as we constantly see from the National Party. The plan has also increased opportunities for communities to be more involved in decision-making, with more transparency and accountability in the decisions.

As a government, we recognise that the basin still faces challenges, and our government will continue to work towards a healthy basin for all its users. We recognise that buybacks have had an impact on some communities. But that plan has also delivered water security to significant parts of the country, including in South Australia. There's a reason the National Party recorded less than one per cent of the vote in the South Australian election—because South Australians know that the National Party are complete vandals when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin, and South Australians treated them accordingly. It's an inconvenient fact for the National Party, but agricultural production in the basin has continued to grow while more than 2,000 gigalitres—four times the size of Sydney Harbour—have been recovered to put the system on a sustainable footing. Water recovery has been voluntary and farmers have been compensated when they've chosen to sell their water rights, with these funds able to support investment and growth in their properties.

Our government has made a record investment in supporting community transition under the Basin Plan, making $300 million available to support adaptation to a future with less water. We have also worked to prioritise non-purchase options, committing more than half a billion dollars to improve water efficiency through infrastructure upgrades like making irrigation networks more efficient for our farmers. The Basin Plan's original settings reflected a necessary step change to ensure extraction returns to an environmentally sustainable limit. The 2012 sustainable diversion limits were designed to balance productive water use with restoring the basin's long-term health. Achieving that step change requires a mix of water purchase, efficiency investment and sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanisms, including the 450-gigalitre program.

When it comes to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, that body manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings and has achieved significant environmental outcomes in the Murray-Darling Basin over more than a decade. This includes supporting native fish to spawn, birds to breed in wetlands and threatened frogs to expand their range. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, which people refer to as the CEWH, manages the Commonwealth's environmental water holdings very efficiently. It also invests in complementary on-ground activities that improve river and wetland health and what can be achieved with the Commonwealth's environmental water. The CEWH has contributed funding for infrastructure to improve connectivity, the re-snagging of river reaches for fish habitat, the removal of barriers to fish movement and the installation of fish screens for protection from irrigation pumping.

In summing up, the government will be opposing this bill. It's a stunt from a desperate National Party, which, in 10 years of government, effectively tore up the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, failed to recover the water necessary for the long-term health of the basin and, in doing so, betrayed the farmers they say they represent. If we want to have agriculture continue and the communities that support that industry continue well into the future in the Murray-Darling Basin, we have to face up to the reality that that river system remains under great environmental stress and that situation is not going to be made any easier as a result of the impacts of climate change—something the National Party also deny is a reality. We cannot continue to sell the agriculture sector and the communities in the Murray-Darling Basin down the drain by continuing to ignore the scientific reality that this river system is under stress and that that is going to increase as a result of climate change. That's why we need to see through the plan, which involves a combination of voluntary water buybacks, investments in water efficiency and investments in water infrastructure. That is the way to secure the long-term health of the basin, the communities that rely on it and the industries that rely on that water. We will be voting against this stunt, which is all about trying to salvage the National Party's reputation in the Farrer by-election and copying policies that have already been put out there by a range of other parties who are much more up to the task of dealing with the future than the National Party.

It gives me great pleasure, as Leader of the National Party in the Senate, as somebody sitting in the chamber who lives in the basin, in Wodonga, and who was born in the Murray-Darling Basin, to speak on the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder Commission of Inquiry Bill 2026. I've watched, my entire political career, the impact of this Basin Plan on families, on food production, on the environment and on our future sustainability.

The minister stands up and talks a big game. This is the guy that had the great privilege of being the agriculture minister of this wonderful country, and he sells our agricultural industries and our regional communities down the river. If the Labor government thought they had a track record on agriculture food production and water policy, they would have the guts to run a candidate in the seat of Farrer—but they don't. They know that Albury, Griffith, Narrandera, Deni and everyone else in the seat of Farrer knows the Labor Party has turned their back on them and their families' future because they refuse to examine the rolling-out of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in a significant way.

The minister also fails to, in his contribution, recognise that the 450 gigalitres was never part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and was never part of the original agreement. It was a side deal done by Tony Burke to get it through, and taking the 450 gigalitres out of the basin was only to be done if you could prove there had been no social, economic or environmental damage. To a man and woman in the National Party, who represent and live in this community, we can take you, minister, any day of the week, to the communities that have been decimated as a result of this plan, from the agriculture industry screaming for responsibility about water to the many environmental sites that have been damaged by the way this environmental water holding is being used—the Barmah Choke screams it; the forest is literally dying because we are watering these trees too often for too long.

The very environmental outcomes you talk about aren't being achieved by the very base political approach to water policy that the Greens and the Labor Party pursue. It's all about the gigalitres. To anyone outside of the basin, it's giga-babble. But, if you say you're getting more gigalitres in Sydney, Adelaide, Melbourne or Brisbane, they think it must be a good thing. Well, it's not. More doesn't mean better, just like how more sugar isn't better for you or eating more fat isn't good for you. Taking more water out of the basin doesn't naturally mean you're going to have better environmental outcomes. We know that. We've done so many Senate inquiries over the last 10 years into this. We've had scientist after scientist come in and say the level of fish stocks is on the increase. We don't need to be talking about gigalitres of removal as the only way to assure river health, community health and industry health.

That's the great farce of the politics that is played with the basin and basin communities by all sides of politics that don't live in it. We're absolutely sick of it. The Victorian Farmers Federation today put out a release saying that new analysis shows the basin water buybacks are sending Victorian agriculture broke and backwards. That's information the Labor Party doesn't want to hear. The minister hasn't even the respect to read the bill before the Senate today. This isn't about holding a royal commission. This is about actually ensuring that we can look into this right now. We know the Prime Minister doesn't want to actually look into this. We know the Labor Party doesn't want to have a deep dive into the impacts of the rollout of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

As a responsible party of government, what we have put forward today, what the shadow minister for water, Michael McCormack, has developed in consultation with others, and which Senator Cadell brings before the Senate today is a bill that brings a commission of inquiry forward. It is time limited and targeted. It is something the Senate today could vote to support and that, from opposition, we could actually see implemented. It is something we could do, instead of waiting for the Labor Party to get their act together. The Labor Party, Anthony Albanese and their partners, the Greens, have made it very, very clear how they're going to pursue water policy for basin communities. They're not just coming to fulfill the gigalitres required under the plan itself, they're coming for the 450, which was never part of the plan. They're using water buybacks to get it. They don't care about the health of the river, they don't care about the health of our communities, and they do not care about the sustainability of our agriculture system. In government, we did fight hard to increase supply, fund better efficiency projects and embrace water policy that backed our regional communities and our farmers, who are key to the national prosperity of our country.

These are the people we send our kids to school with—the men and women who get up every day and do more with less. But they are at breaking point. The southern connected basin, in particular, has borne the brunt of state and federal government water policy—all in the name of saving South Australian seats in Adelaide. At what cost? The men and women who I have listened to personally, who have farmed this land for generations, are at breaking point. Having a government who arrogantly comes into this chamber and pretends that they give a shit—sorry, that's very unparliamentary; I withdraw. To pretend that they care—you don't. The great privilege of holding ministerial positions, of being the Prime Minister, is that you can make change. Instead, you've chosen to come after the 450 gig and decimate our communities with water buybacks.

The reason we want to see a commission of inquiry is that we think these communities deserve to have a say. They are absolutely over inquiry after inquiry. They have inquiry fatigue. They think that people genuinely are asking their view and expertise on how we can use water and how we can have a better approach to policy, yet what they see—they put submission in after submission, whether it is rice grows, whether it is the dairy industry, whether it is the horticulture and cropping industry or indeed the local councils and community groups.

When you look at what Narrandera, a town in New South Wales in a developed country like ours—this is their drinking water, Australia! This isn't from Africa. This isn't from some undeveloped country. That's from the basin community, and it is a direct result of a failure of water policy from this government—

On a point of order, Acting Deputy President, props are inconsistent with the standing orders.

If you could, please remove the prop, Senator McKenzie.

Oh, come on! That's okay; I won't use it as a prop. This is what you're expecting—

Senator McKenzie, I apologise. I need to ask you to please not.

I won't drink the water like the Narrandera residents have to do, but I'm not going to—

Senator McKenzie, I would like for you to complete your speech, but I need to ask you to remove it.

I will not hold it up as a prop. But I think it says a lot about this chamber that they do not—

Senator McKenzie, I ask you to please remove the bottle of water from your table. The attendants might assist you with that.

Well, that shows Australians that they're not just offended by what we say; they really don't want to know what's happening outside—

Senator McKenzie, I would like you to finish your speech. I ask you, please, to put the bottle of water under your—thank you. I appreciate that.

I'd do anything to assist the Senate!

I appreciate that.

It's passing strange that they're offended by what I say, and now when I bring into the chamber not just the lived experience but the water that Australian citizens in New South Wales are expected to drink, you're offended to the point of shutting that down. Honestly! Is it any wonder people are fed up with the Labor Party and this government and the Greens, who facilitate their abomination? That is the water that our citizens are drinking because of your policy decisions. It's offensive to you and it should be offensive to you. It's embarrassing and shameful to all of us!

The commission of inquiry is a term-limited examination of how we can use science better. We know we don't need to take more water from the basin to get the environmental outcomes we need. We know that. The science is clear. You don't want to hear it, but it's clear, so let's make the decision to pause the buybacks, stop raping these communities of their water assets and actually have a commission of inquiry. I commend the bill to the Senate. We have so much more to say on this, and it's unfortunate that this debate will be concluding. When it does, I'll seek to just adjourn. We want to be able to discuss this more when private senators' time is able to come back.

In terms of basin communities, it says everything about this government that they do not want to hear from these communities. They're not running for the seat of Farrer, because they don't care. The Prime Minister promised that he would govern for all Australians. Well, that actually means that, when you have the opportunity to stand up and represent them, you take that chance. Cooey, Albo! By-election—you're nowhere to be seen. For those Labor voters in the seat of Farrer, if you care about the basin, as I know you do, and you actually appreciate the role of water in the sustainability of your communities not just out in Griffith or Denny but indeed in Farrer—it actually underpins your entire economic ecosystem—then you will be backing those candidates that want to see agriculture thrive, community sustained and the environment flourish.

And, yes, we're hearing the Greens and the Labor Party screaming across the chamber that, somehow, we're out of touch. Well, I am happy with every single speech I have made on water policy in the 15 years I've been in this place. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.

Pursuant to the order agreed to on Monday, the time allotted for debate on the 13 bills has now expired. I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of these bills. I'll begin with the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 1) Bill 2026, starting with the request for an amendment moved by Senator Allman-Payne.

The question is that the request for an amendment on sheet 3733 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Schedule 2, item 9, page 12 (lines 15 and 16), omit "an amount between $20 and $200", substitute "an amount that is equal to or greater than $20".

I will now deal with the remaining Australian Greens amendments. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3702 and 3734 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments

SHEET 3702

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 4".

(2) Page 23 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Time limit on debt recovery

Part 1 — Amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

1 Section 93B

Repeal the section, substitute:

93B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Paid Parental Leave Act 2010

2 Section 192A

Repeal the section, substitute:

192A Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Social Security Act 1991

3 Section 1234B

Repeal the section, substitute:

1234B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Chapter, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Chapter, for the recovery of a debt or overpayment may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt or overpayment first existed.

Student Assistance Act 1973

4 Section 42B

Repeal the section, substitute:

42B Time limit on debt recovery

For the purposes of this Part, legal proceedings, or any action under a provision of this Part, for the recovery of a debt may not be commenced after the period of 6 years starting on the day that the circumstances that gave rise to the debt first existed.

Part 2 — Application of amendments

5 Application of amendments

The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to a debt that is raised or an overpayment that is made, before, on or after this item commences.

_____

SHEET 3734

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 14 (after line 29), after section 43A, insert:

43B Indexation of urgent payment request upper limit

(1) On the first 1 July to occur after the commencement of this section and each later 1 July (an indexation day), the amount of $200 mentioned in paragraph 43(3DB)(a) (the indexable amount) is replaced by the amount worked out using the following formula:

The indexable amount immediately before the indexation day x Indexation factor for the indexation day

(2) The amount worked out under subsection (1) is to be rounded to the nearest whole dollar (rounding 50 cents upwards).

Indexation factor

(3) The indexation factor for an indexation day is the number worked out using the following formula:

Index number for the reference quarter / Index number for the base quarter

where:

base quarter means the last March quarter before the reference quarter.

index number, for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.

March quarter means a period of 3 months starting on 1 January.

reference quarter means the last March quarter before the indexation day.

(4) The indexation factor is to be worked out to 3 decimal places (rounding up if the fourth decimal place is 5 or more).

Changes to CPI index reference period and publication of substituted index numbers

(5) Amounts are to be worked out under this section:

(a) using only the index numbers published in terms of the most recently published index reference period for the Consumer Price Index; and

(b) disregarding index numbers published in substitution for previously published index numbers (except where the substitution is to transition to a new index reference period).

Publication of indexable amount

(6) The Minister must, by notifiable instrument, publish the replacement indexable amount as soon as practicable after the indexation day. However, a failure by the Minister to do so does not invalidate the indexation.

I will now deal with the requests for amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. In accordance with the usual practice, the statements accompanying the requests circulated to this bill will be incorporated in the Hansard. The question is that the requests for amendments on sheet 3744 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 3", substitute "Schedules 3 and 4".

(2) Page 23 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Increasing, indexing and reviewing remote area allowance

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1064-H2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1064-H2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table H. Work out which family situation in the Table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 5 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

2 Point 1065-E2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1065-E2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table E. Work out which family situation in the Table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 5 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

3 Point 1066A-I2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1066A-I2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table I. Work out which family situation in the Table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 5 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

4 Point 1066B-F2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1066B-F2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table F. Work out which family situation in the Table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 5 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of couple, partnered, illness separated couple, respite care couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

5 Point 1067G-K2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1067G-K2 A person's rate of remote area allowance is worked out using Table K. Work out which family situation in the table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 4 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of a couple, partnered, illness separated couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

6 Point 1067L-F2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1067L-F2 A person's rate of remote area allowance is worked out using Table F. Work out which family situation in the table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus the additional corresponding amount in column 4 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For member of a couple, partnered, illness separated couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

7 Point 1068-J3

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1068-J3 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table J. Work out which family situation in the Table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in column 3 plus an additional corresponding amount in column 4 for each FTB child, and regular care child, of the person.

8 Point 1068A-F2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1068A-F2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table F. The rate of remote area allowance is the amount in Column 2 plus the additional corresponding amount in Column 4 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

9 Point 1068B-G2

Repeal the point, substitute:

Rate of remote area allowance

1068B-G2 The rate of remote area allowance payable to a person is worked out using Table G. Work out which family situation in the table applies to the person. The rate of remote area allowance is the corresponding amount in Column 3 plus the additional corresponding amount in Column 4 for each FTB child, and each regular care child, of the person.

Note: For illness separated couple, respite care couple and partnered (partner in gaol) see section 4.

10 Section 1190 (at the end of the table)

Add:

11 Subsection 1191(1) (at the end of the table)

Add:

12 After Part 3.18A

Insert:

Part 3.18B — Review of remote area allowance

1209ZF Periodic reviews of remote area allowance

Requirement to conduct reviews

(1) The Minister must cause periodic reviews to be conducted of remote area allowances under this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), reviews must consider:

(a) the appropriateness of rates of remote area allowances; and

(b) the appropriateness of the definition of remote area in section 14 and the parts of Australia covered by that definition.

Timing of reviews

(3) The first review must be completed before the end of 12 months starting on the day this section commences.

(4) Each later review must be completed before the end of 3 years after the completion of the previous review.

Minister to be given report of review

(5) The persons conducting each review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

Minister to table copy of report of review

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

Statement pursuant to the order of   .the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the rate of remote area allowances payable under the Social Security Act 1991. This will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendment (1)

Amendment (2) is consequential to amendment (2).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant   .to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendment (1)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

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.

I move:

That these bills be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

by leave—At the request of Senator Lambie, I move the amendment on sheet 3753:

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

(a) notes that a 90 day in-country fuel reserve would:

(i) strengthen national resilience against supply disruptions caused by geopolitical conflict, trade interruptions or natural disasters,

(ii) ensure that the Australian Defence Force can sustain operations during crises without reliance on vulnerable international supply chains, and

(iii) provide other benefits including enhanced energy independence, economic stimulus through infrastructure investment and improved emergency preparedness for civilian sectors; and

(b) calls on the Government to direct the Department of Defence to spend $500 million per year of its existing budget, in the absence of an additional appropriation, to develop and maintain domestic fuel storage infrastructure until Australia achieves a minimum 90 day in-country fuel reserve".

Question negatived.

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

The question now is that the bills be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. The first question is that items 1 to 5 and section 123 in item 47 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, items 1 to 5, page 4 (line 4) to page 5 (line 29), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 1, item 47, page 20 (lines 11 to 19), section 123 to be opposed.

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the remaining Jacqui Lambie Network amendments. Those are on sheets 3637, 3638, 3640, 3641 and 3677 revised. The question is that those amendments be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

Sheet 3637

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 5), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 5), after Part 7, insert:

Part 7A — Inspector-General ADF and Deputies

Division 1 — Amendments

Defence Act 1903

41A Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

Deputy Inspector-General ADF means a Deputy Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force referred to in section 110SA.

41B After section 110F

Insert:

110FA Former member must not be appointed as Inspector-General ADF

A person must not be appointed as the Inspector-General ADF if the person has been a member of the Defence Force.

41C After subsection 110N(3)

Insert:

(3A) The Minister must not appoint a person to act as the Inspector-General ADF if the person has been a member of the Defence Force.

41D After paragraph 110O(1)(a)

Insert:

(ab) the 2 Deputy Inspector-General ADF;

41E After paragraph 110Q(1)(a)

Insert:

(ab) the Deputy Inspector-General ADF;

41F Subsection 110R(2)

After "include the operations of", insert "the Deputy Inspector-General ADF and".

41G Section 110S

After "section 110P", insert "to the Deputy Inspector-General ADF or".

41H After Part VIIIB

Insert:

Part VIIIBA — Deputy Inspector-General ADF

Division 1 — Establishment and functions of the Deputies of the Inspector-General ADF

110SA Deputy Inspector-General ADF

There are to be 2 Deputy Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, each to be known as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF.

110SB Functions of the Deputy Inspector-General ADF

(1) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF has the following functions:

(a) to assist the Inspector-General ADF in the performance of the Inspector-General ADF's functions;

(b) such functions as are prescribed by the regulations;

(c) such functions as are conferred on the Deputy Inspector-General ADF by or under this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth;

(d) to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the above functions.

(2) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) must not prescribe a function unless the function relates to assisting the Inspector-General ADF in the performance of the Inspector-General ADF's functions.

Division 2 — Administrative provisions about the Deputy Inspector-General ADF

110SC Appointment

(1) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF is to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument.

(2) In making an appointment under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to any recommendations made by the Chief of the Defence Force.

(3) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF holds office on a full-time basis.

(4) A person holding office as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

110SD Qualifications for appointment

A person must not be appointed as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF unless the person has knowledge of and experience in relation to military justice issues and an understanding of their relevance to the role of the Defence Force.

Note: A person is not prevented from being appointed as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF merely because the person has been a member of the Defence Force (i.e. there is no equivalent of section 110FA for the Deputy).

110SE Tenure

(1) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF holds office for the period specified in the instrument of appointment. The period must not exceed 5 years.

(2) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF is eligible for reappointment.

110SF Resignation

The Deputy Inspector-General ADF may resign his or her appointment by giving the Minister a written resignation.

110SG Remuneration

(1) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, they are to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed.

(2) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed.

(3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.

110SJ Leave of absence

(1) The Deputy Inspector-General ADF has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

(2) The Chief of the Defence Force may grant the Deputy Inspector-General ADF leave of absence, other than recreation leave, on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Chief of the Defence Force determines.

110SK Engaging in other paid work

The Deputy Inspector-General ADF must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of their office without the Minister's consent.

110SL Termination of appointment

(1) The Minister must terminate the appointment of the Deputy Inspector-General ADF if the Deputy Inspector-General ADF:

(a) becomes bankrupt; or

(b) applies to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

(c) compounds with their creditors; or

(d) assigns their remuneration for the benefit of their creditors; or

(e) is absent from duty, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or

(f) fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with section 110SM.

(2) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Deputy Inspector-General ADF on the ground of:

(a) misbehaviour; or

(b) physical or mental incapacity.

(3) The Minister may terminate the appointment of the Deputy Inspector-General ADF if the Deputy Inspector-General ADF engages in paid employment outside the duties of their office other than with the Minister's consent.

110SM Disclosure of interests

The Deputy Inspector-General ADF must give written notice to the Minister of all interests (financial or otherwise) that the Deputy Inspector-General ADF has or acquires that could conflict with the proper performance of the functions of their office.

110SN Acting appointments

(1) The Minister may appoint a person to act as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF:

(a) during a vacancy in the office of the Deputy Inspector-General ADF (whether or not an appointment has previously been made to that office); or

(b) during any period, or during all periods, when the Deputy Inspector-General ADF is absent from duty or from Australia, or is, for any other reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

Note: For rules that apply to acting appointments, see section 33A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2) The Minister must not appoint a person to act as the Deputy Inspector-General ADF unless the person has knowledge of and experience in relation to military justice issues and an understanding of their relevance to the role of the Defence Force.

(3) In making an appointment under subsection (1), the Minister must have regard to any recommendations made by the Chief of the Defence Force.

Division 2 — Other provisions

41J Funding

Expenditure for the purposes of Part VIIIBA of the Defence Act 1903 as inserted by this Schedule is to be made from funds appropriated by the Parliament.

_____

Sheet 3638

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

(2) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 3 — Reviews of Department of Veterans' Affairs fee schedules

1 Object of Schedule

The object of this Schedule is to progress recommendation 71 of the Final Report of the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission, which provided that the Australian Government should "increase the Department of Veterans' Affairs fee schedule so it is aligned with that of the National Disability Insurance Scheme".

2 Reviews of DVA fee schedules

Requirement to conduct reviews

(1) The Minister must cause reviews of the DVA fee schedules to be conducted in accordance with this item.

Scope of review

(2) Without limiting subitem (1), a review must consider the effectiveness of the DVA fee schedules in mitigating challenges faced by veterans in accessing health care. In particular, a review must consider:

(a) changes to the DVA fee schedules that would be necessary to align fees in respect of goods, services or supports under the those schedules with benefits for equivalent or comparable goods, services or supports available in the context of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and

(b) measures to mitigate supply constraints, such as non-fee-for-service components, additional loading or incentive payments, including in areas with few health services for the populations being served; and

(c) changes in the cost of providing services, including changes in input and operational costs faced by service providers; and

(d) the sustainability and accessibility of services for veterans; and

(e) the need to ensure fee levels remain fair and reasonable over time.

Note: The document titled the NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits, published by the National Disability Insurance Agency, as it exists from time to time, sets out pricing arrangements and price limits that the Agency has determined will apply to the provision of supports for participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The document could in 2026 be viewed on the National Disability Insurance Scheme website (https://www.ndis.gov.au).

Review timing

(3) The first review must be completed within 12 months after the commencement of this item.

(4) Each subsequent review must be completed within 2 years after the completion of the previous review.

(5) For the purposes of subitems (3) and (4), a review is completed on the day after the day the report of the review is given to the Minister.

Minister to be given report of review

(6) The persons conducting a review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(7) Without limiting subitem (6), the report must contain recommendations in relation to:

(a) changes to the DVA fee schedules as mentioned in paragraph (2)(a); and

(b) measures to mitigate supply constraints as mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).

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

Review response

(9) The Minister must, within 3 months of receiving the report of a review, prepare a written response to the report setting out:

(a) actions that have been taken or that are proposed to be taken in response to each recommendation; and

(b) if no action is taken or proposed in response to a recommendation—reasons for not taking or proposing to take action.

(10) The Minister must cause a copy of the response to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of the 3-month period mentioned in subitem (9).

3 Definitions

In this Schedule:

Chiropractors Schedule of Fees means the document titled Chiropractors Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Clinical Psychologists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Clinical Psychologists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission means the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, issued by the Governor-General by Letters Patent on 8 July 2021 (and including any later variations of those Letters Patent).

Department means the Department administered by the Minister.

Diabetes Educators Schedule of Fees means the document titled Diabetes Educators Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Dieticians Schedule of Fees means the document titled Dieticians Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

DVA Community Nursing Schedule of Fees means the document titled DVA Community Nursing Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

DVA fee schedules means the following:

(a) Chiropractors Schedule of Fees;

(b) Clinical Psychologists Schedule of Fees;

(c) Diabetes Educators Schedule of Fees;

(d) Dieticians Schedule of Fees;

(e) DVA Community Nursing Schedule of Fees;

(f) Exercise Physiologists Schedule of Fees;

(g) Fee notes for GPs and specialists;

(h) Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dental Prosthetists;

(i) Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dentists and Dental Specialists;

(j) Fee Schedules for Medical Services;

(k) Medical Grade Footwear Fee Schedule;

(l) Neuropsychologists Schedule of Fees;

(m) Occupational Therapists (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees;

(n) Occupational Therapists Schedule of Fees;

(o) Optometrists Schedule of Fees;

(p) Orthoptists Schedule of Fees;

(q) Orthotists Schedule of Fees;

(r) Osteopaths Schedule of Fees;

(s) Physiotherapists Schedule of Fees;

(t) Podiatrists Schedule of Fees;

(u) Pricing Schedule for Visual Aids;

(v) Psychologists Schedule of Fees;

(w) Social Workers (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees;

(x) Social Workers Schedule of Fees;

(y) Speech Pathologists Schedule of Fees.

Exercise Physiologists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Exercise Physiologists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Fee notes for GPs and specialists means the documnt titled Fee notes for GPs and specialists published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Fee notes for GPs and specialists could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dental Prosthetists means the document titled Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dental Prosthetists published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Fee Schedule could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dentists and Dental Specialists means the document titled Fee Schedule of Dental Services for Dentists and Dental Specialists published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Fee Schedule could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Fee Schedules for Medical Services means the document titled Fee Schedules for Medical Services published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Fee Schedules could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Medical Grade Footwear Fee Schedule means the document titled DVA Medical Grade Footwear (MGF) Fee Schedule published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Fee Schedules could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Minister means the Minister administering the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

National Disability Insurance Scheme has the same meaning as in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.

Neuropsychologists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Neuropsychologists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Occupational Therapists (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees means the document titled Occupational Therapists (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Occupational Therapists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Occupational Therapists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Optometrists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Optometrists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Orthoptists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Orthoptists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Orthotists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Orthotists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Osteopaths Schedule of Fees means the document titled Osteopaths Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Physiotherapists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Physiotherapists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Podiatrists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Podiatrists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Pricing Schedule for Visual Aids means the document titled Pricing Schedule for Visual Aids published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Pricing Schedule could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Psychologists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Psychologists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Social Workers (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees means the document titled Social Workers (Mental Health) Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Social Workers Schedule of Fees means the document titled Social Workers Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

Speech Pathologists Schedule of Fees means the document titled Speech Pathologists Schedule of Fees published by the Department as it exists from time to time.

Note: The Schedule of Fees could in 2026 be viewed on the Department's website (https://www.dva.gov.au).

_____

Sheet 3640

(1) Schedule 1, page 19 (after line 5), after Part 9, insert:

Part 9A — Time limits for determining certain claims

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

46A At the end of Part 2 of Chapter 7

Add:

343A Time limit for determining certain claims

Claims for compensation for permanent impairment

(1) If a person makes a claim under section 319 for compensation under Part 2 of Chapter 4 (permanent impairment), the Commission must determine the claim by the end of the period of 120 days (the consideration period) beginning on the day the claim is made.

(2) If the Commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the Commission is taken to have accepted the claim.

Claims for compensation for incapacity

(3) If a person makes a claim under section 319 for compensation under Part 3 or 4 of Chapter 4 (incapacity), the Commission must determine the claim by the end of the period of 90 days (the consideration period) beginning on the day the claim is made.

(4) If the Commission does not determine the claim by the end of the consideration period, the Commission is taken to have accepted the claim.

Stopping the clock

(5) If the Commission requests further information in relation to a claim for compensation under Part 2, 3 or 4 of Chapter 4, the time taken for the Commission to receive the further information is not to be included in the relevant consideration period.

_____

Sheet 3641

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert:

(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 5), after Part 1, insert:

Part 1A — Veterans' Review Board

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004

7A Paragraph 352G(2)(a)

Omit "other than", substitute "including".

7B Subsection 352G(3)

Repeal the subsection.

7C Section 353L

Repeal the section.

_____

Sheet 3677

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

(2) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Other amendments relating to extraterritorial application of discrimination legislation

Sex Discrimination Act 1984

1 After subsection 9(2)

Insert:

(2A) In addition, this Act has effect in relation to an act done outside of Australia (whether or not in a foreign country) if the act is done:

(a) by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth in relation to a member of the Defence Force; or

(b) by, or in relation to, a member of the Defence Force in connection with, or in the course of, the performance of the member's duties as a member of the Defence Force.

(2B) Subsection (2A) applies:

(a) without limiting the effect this Act has apart from that subsection; and

(b) despite anything else in this section; and

(c) regardless of whether the act done outside of Australia involves persons or things, or matters arising, within or outside of Australia.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992

2 After subsection 12(2)

Insert:

(2A) In addition, this Act has effect in relation to an act done outside of Australia (whether or not in a foreign country) if the act is done:

(a) by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth in relation to a member of the Defence Force; or

(b) by, or in relation to, a member of the Defence Force in connection with, or in the course of, the performance of the member's duties as a member of the Defence Force.

(2B) Subsection (2A) applies:

(a) without limiting the effect this Act has apart from that subsection; and

(b) despite anything else in this section; and

(c) regardless of whether the act done outside of Australia involves persons or things, or matters arising, within or outside of Australia.

Racial Discrimination Act 1975

3 After section 4

Insert:

4A Extraterritorial operation

(1) This Act extends to acts done outside of Australia (whether or not in a foreign country) if the act is done:

(a) by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth in relation to a member of the Defence Force; or

(b) by, or in relation to, a member of the Defence Force in connection with, or in the course of, the performance of the member's duties as a member of the Defence Force.

(2) Subsection (1) applies:

(a) without limiting the effect this Act has apart from that subsection; and

(b) regardless of whether the act done outside of Australia involves persons or things, or matters arising, within or outside of Australia.

4 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and Sex Discrimination Act 1984 made by this Part apply in relation to acts done before, on or after the commencement of this item.

(2) However, the amendments do not affect rights or liabilities arising between parties to proceedings heard and finally determined before that commencement.

Question negatived.

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.

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

I will now deal with Committee of the Whole amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025, starting with the amendments circulated by government.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 24, page 13 (lines 1 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

24 Sessional member may participate as Chair or Deputy Chair of the Commonwealth Parole Board in specified circumstances

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is required by rules made for the purposes of section 29 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 not to be present during the deliberations in a meeting, or to take part in any decision, of the Commonwealth Parole Board with respect to a particular matter; or

(b) the Chair or the Deputy Chair is not readily available to attend a meeting or participate in making a decision of the Commonwealth Parole Board, whether because of a vacancy in the office or for any other reason; or

(c) the Chair considers it appropriate for any other reason to make a request under subsection (2) in relation to a meeting of, or the making of a decision by, the Commonwealth Parole Board.

(2) The Chair may request that a sessional member participate, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair, in the meeting, or in making the decision.

(3) For the purposes of a sessional member participating in a meeting, or making a decision, in the capacity of the Chair or the Deputy Chair as permitted by subsection (2):

(a) the sessional member may exercise a power or perform a function of the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, in accordance with the request of the Chair in relation to the meeting or decision; and

(b) the sessional member is taken to be the Chair or Deputy Chair, as the case requires, for all purposes in relation to the meeting or decision.

(2) Clause 43, page 24 (lines 23 to 27), to be opposed.

I understand the minister has a document to table.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025.

Thank you. The first question, being amendment (2) on sheet GJ118, is that clause 43 stand as printed.

The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet GJ118 be agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3654 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 40, page 22 (line 24) to page 23 (line 26), omit subclauses 40(1) and (2), substitute:

The Governor-General may, on recommendation of the Minister, terminate the appointment of a member at any time.

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board Bill 2025 circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3515 and 3516 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 3515

(1) Clause 29, page 18 (lines 15 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:

Composition of the Commonwealth Parole Board as a whole

(3) In recommending the appointment of the members of the Commonwealth Parole Board, the Minister must ensure that both the Chair and the Deputy Chair are enrolled as legal practitioners (however described) of a federal court or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory and have each been so enrolled for at least 5 years.

_____

SHEET 3516

(1) Clause 23, page 12 (lines 29 to 32), omit the clause, substitute:

23 Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct interviews

(1) For the purposes of making a decision about a federal offender, the Commonwealth Parole Board must conduct:

(a) an interview with the offender; and

(b) any other interview required by the guidelines.

(2) Interviews must be conducted in accordance with the guidelines (if any).

(2) Page 13 (after line 30), at the end of Part 3, add:

24A Rules of procedural fairness

(1) The Commonwealth Parole Board must observe the requirements of procedural fairness in making a decision about a federal offender.

(2) This section has effect despite the guidelines and anything else in this Act.

24B Legal representation

A federal offender may be represented by a legal practitioner in relation to any matter before the Commonwealth Parole Board about the offender.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendments to the Commonwealth Parole Board (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2025 circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 6 (after line 13), after section 19AKC, insert:

19AKCA Attorney-General may object to decisions to make parole orders

(1) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board decides to make a parole order for a person, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(2) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board deciding to make the parole order for the person.

(3) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot decide to make the parole order for the person (despite paragraphs 19AKB(1)(a) and 19AKC(1)(a)):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (2) within that 14-day period.

(4) In making an objection under subsection (2), the Attorney-General must have regard to the purposes of parole as set out in section 19AKA.

(5) An objection under subsection (2) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

(2) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 29), after item 15, insert:

15A After subsection 19AP(7)

Insert:

(7A) Before the Commonwealth Parole Board grants a licence under this section, the Commonwealth Parole Board must give the Attorney-General written notice of the Commonwealth Parole Board's intention to do so.

(7B) The Attorney-General may, within 14 days of receiving the notice, object in writing to the Commonwealth Parole Board granting the licence.

(7C) The Commonwealth Parole Board cannot grant the licence (despite anything else in this section):

(a) before the end of that 14-day period; or

(b) if the Commonwealth Parole Board receives an objection from the Attorney-General under subsection (7B) within that 14-day period.

(7D) In making an objection under subsection (7B), the Attorney-General must have regard to:

(a) whether there are any exceptional circumstances that may justify the grant of the licence; and

(b) the matters set out at paragraphs (4A)(a) to (c).

(7E) An objection under subsection (7B) must set out the Attorney-General's reasons for making the objection.

The question is that the amendments on sheet 3655 be agreed to.

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

I will now deal with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I will now deal with the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by One Nation. The question is that amendments on sheet 3661 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 8), at the end of the Schedule, add:

2 Subsection 9B(7)

After "unless", insert "the vaccine has been tested against an inert saline placebo to international standard ICH E6(R3), titled Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use on 6 January 2025, and".

3 At the end of subsection 9B(7)

Add:

Note: The text of Guidelines adopted by the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) could in 2026 be accessed through the ICH's website (https://www.ich.org/).

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

I will first deal with the second reading amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the Australian Greens. That amendment is on sheet 3731.

by leave—I move:

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

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety research shows a clear connection between alcohol use and violence against women and children, including that:

(A) alcohol is involved in up to 65% of all police-reported family violence incidents,

(B) over half of intimate partner homicides involve men who have consumed high-risk levels of alcohol, and

(C) harms to children are significantly greater in households where a person drinks alcohol at high-risk levels; and

(ii) the Commonwealth Government's Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches and the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence both acknowledge that alcohol use is an exacerbating factor that increases the probability, frequency and severity of violence; and

(b) calls on Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to urgently act on their commitments in response to the Rapid Review to strengthen alcohol regulations, including:

(i) adopting clear objectives for harm reduction and preventing gender-based violence,

(ii) time restrictions for alcohol sales and home delivery, and

(iii) restricting advertising and targeted marketing".

The question is that the amendment as moved by Minister Gallagher to the amendment on sheet 3731 be agreed to.

The question is that the amended amendment on sheet 3731 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) Australia's National Research Organisation for Women's Safety research shows a clear connection between alcohol use and violence against women and children, including that:

(A) alcohol is involved in up to 65% of all police-reported family violence incidents,

(B) over half of intimate partner homicides involve men who have consumed high-risk levels of alcohol, and

(C) harms to children are significantly greater in households where a person drinks alcohol at high-risk levels; and

(ii) the Commonwealth Government's Rapid Review of Prevention Approaches and the South Australian Royal Commission into Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence both acknowledge that alcohol use is an exacerbating factor that increases the probability, frequency and severity of violence; and

(b) calls on Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to urgently act on their commitments in response to the Rapid Review to strengthen alcohol regulations.

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by One Nation. That amendment is on sheet 3635. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3635 be agreed to.

One Nation's circulated amendment—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to support hospitality venues struggling under the growing burden of government regulation and growth in overheads by eliminating alcohol excise duty on any alcoholic product sold for consumption on-premises in a hospitality venue".

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3656 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that the last Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook estimates that the beer excise will generate $2.7 billion in revenue over the 2025-26 financial year, while the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) is estimated to generate just $1.5 billion in revenue over the same period; and

(b) calls on the Government to get a fair deal on the sale and export of Australian gas by instituting a 25 per cent tax on LNG export revenue, which is estimated to generate $17 billion a year".

I will deal with the committee of the whole amendment to the two bills starting with the amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3704, 3705 and 3706 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

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

4 Review of alcohol excise and customs tariff system

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the alcohol excise and customs tariff system.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider options to reform alcohol taxes, including options to reduce industry burdens.

(3) The persons conducting the review must give the Minister a written report of the review on or before 2 November 2026.

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

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 30), after section 19AABC, insert:

19AABCA Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits

Temporary freeze in indexation

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2026;

(b) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 19(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty in the following:

(a) the rate column of subheading 2208.20, 2208.20.10, 2208.20.90, 2208.30.00, 2208.40.00, 2208.50.00, 2208.60.00, 2208.70.00, 2208.90.10, 2208.90.20 or 2208.90.90 in Schedule 3;

(b) the rate column of an item in the table in Schedule 4A or a later Schedule that relates to a subheading in Schedule 3 specified in paragraph (a).

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 19.

tap spirit means:

(a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or

(b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system.

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert:

6N Temporary freeze in indexation for tap spirits

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to a tap spirit and each CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2026;

(b) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2026 will be unchanged for the next year.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed alcoholic beverage rate means a rate of duty set out in:

(a) item 2 of the Schedule; or

(b) subitem 3.1, 3.2 or 3.10 of the Schedule.

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A.

tap spirit means:

(a) an alcoholic beverage not exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 8 litres but not exceeding 48 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system; or

(b) an alcoholic beverage exceeding 10% by volume of alcohol stored in an individual container:

(i) of at least 4 litres but not exceeding 20 litres; and

(ii) designed to connect to a pressurised gas delivery system or pump delivery system.

by leave—I note my support for sheet 3704 of the opposition's amendments.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Tyrrell. The question is that the amendments on sheets 3627 and 3628, in the name of Senator Tyrrell, be agreed to.

Senator Tyrrell's circulated amendments

SHEET 3627

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 19), omit subsection 19AABC(1), substitute:

Indefinite freeze in indexation

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 19(1) applies in relation to each CPI indexed draught beer rate as if the indexation factor were 1 for 1 August 2025 and each later indexation day.

Note: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged indefinitely.

_____

SHEET 3628

(1) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), omit "Temporary", substitute "Indefinite".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 19), omit subsection 6L(1), substitute:

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies in relation to each CPI indexed draught beer rate as if the indexation factor were 1 for 1 August 2025 and each later indexation day.

Note: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged indefinitely.

Question negatived.

I will now deal with the amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3660, in the name of Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment to the Excise Tariff Amendment (Draught Beer) Bill 2025

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 23), after section 6L, insert:

6M Temporary freeze in indexation for craft beer

(1) Despite any other provision of this Act, subsection 6A(1) applies, in relation to craft beer and each CPI indexed non-draught beer rate, as if the indexation factor were 1 for each of the following indexation days:

(a) 1 August 2025;

(b) 1 February 2026;

(c) 1 August 2026;

(d) 1 February 2027.

Note 1: This means the rates as they are on 31 July 2025 will be unchanged for the next 2 years.

Note 2: When indexation resumes in August 2027, the indexation factor for 1 August 2027 will be applied against these unchanged rates (see subsection 6A(1)).

(2) In this section:

CPI indexed non-draught beer rate means a rate of duty set out in subitem 1.1, 1.5 or 1.10 of the Schedule.

craft beer means beer brewed by a member of the Independent Brewers Association or a similar not-for-profit organisation representing independent, local brewers with appropriate governance of member eligibility and conduct.

indexation day has the same meaning as in section 6A.

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

Question agreed to.

Bills read a third time.

I table an addendum and correction to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

by leave—At the request of Senator Canavan, I move amendments on sheets 3768 and 3769 as circulated:

SHEET 3768

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of digital assets framework

Requirement to conduct review

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

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider the effectiveness of the digital assets framework, including as supported by any Act amended by this Act and any instruments made under those amended Acts.

Timing of review

(3) The persons conducting the review must

(a) commence the review as soon as practicable after the end of 2 years starting on the day this section commences; and

(b) complete the review before the end of 4 months after the day the review commences.

Consultation

(4) The review must make provision for consultation with industry stakeholders that the persons conducting the review consider relevant.

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 copy of report of review

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

_____

SHEET 3769

(1) Schedule 1, page 36 (after line 30), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Giving reasons for refusing financial services

Corporations Act 2001

42A After Division 1 of Part 7.8

Insert:

Division 1A — Giving reasons for refusing financial services

980C Giving reasons for refusing financial services

If an Australian ADI refuses to provide a financial service to a financial services licensee, the ADI must give the licensee written reasons for refusing to do so.

The question is that amendments on sheet 3768 and 3769 be agreed to.

(In division) Senators Canavan and McKenzie, I've called the tellers. Really, you should now be sitting up the back. It's a standing order that once tellers have been called, you need to be sitting in your seat. You've been warned.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

by leave—I note my support for amendment 3768.

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3636 be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

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

(a) notes that:

(i) translation should be an essential service in a multicultural society, and

(ii) the Albanese Government has committed to the principles of the Multicultural Framework Review; and

(b) calls on the Government to implement the findings of the Multicultural Framework Review, released in 2024, as it relates to translation services, including:

(i) establishing a fully funded capacity within the existing Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) national business unit to deliver general interpreting and translation services with a core workforce of Australian Public Service staff, and

(ii) providing additional funding to the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters (NAATI) to address critical workforce quality and gaps, including within the TIS".

We'll now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Australia's Voice. The question is that the amendment on sheet 3724 be agreed to.

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

(a) notes that:

(i) access to qualified interpreters is essential to equitable access to healthcare, justice and government services,

(ii) gaps in interpreter services contribute to adverse health outcomes, reduced access to justice and reduced access to government services,

(iii) the translating and interpreting workforce is largely migrant and feminised and experiences insecure work arrangements,

(iv) government procurement practices may contribute to downward pressure on interpreter pay and conditions, and

(v) interpreter workforce sustainability is critical to the delivery of essential government services; and

(b) calls on the Government to develop a national framework for language access and workforce sustainability in the translating and interpreting sector".

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendment on sheet 3767, which has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander translating and interpreting services industry must be independently recognised and strengthened as well as led, developed and delivered by First Nations Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and practitioners, as enshrined in the upcoming new National Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interpreting and Translating".

The question is that the amendment on sheet 3767 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander translating and interpreting services industry must be independently recognised and strengthened as well as led, developed and delivered by First Nations Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and practitioners, as enshrined in the upcoming new National Framework for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Interpreting and Translating".

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Australia's Voice. The question is that the amendments on sheet 3725 be agreed to.

Australia's Voice 's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 23), at the end of the clause, add:

; and (e) to promote equitable access to government services for people who do not speak English or who have limited English language proficiency; and

(f) to ensure that translating and interpreting services contribute to improved health, legal and social outcomes for culturally and linguistically diverse communities; and

(g) to support a sustainable and professional translating and interpreting workforce; and

(h) to address systemic barriers to language access that may result in discrimination or inequitable access to services.

(2) Page 6 (after line 5), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Commonwealth-funded translating and interpreting services

Division 1 — Engagement of translators and interpreters

10A Presumption of employment relationship

(1) A translator or interpreter engaged by any of the following (an engaging entity):

(a) the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National);

(b) the Commonwealth;

(c) an agency, authority, body, organisation or officer holder of the Commonwealth;

(d) a contractor providing translating and interpreting services to the Commonwealth;

is presumed to be an employee of the engaging entity unless the engaging entity establishes that the person is operating as an independent contractor.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in determining whether a translator or interpreter is an employee or independent contractor, regard must be had to the totality of the relationship between the translator or interpreter and the engaging entity, including but not limited to the following considerations:

(a) who determines the rate of pay;

(b) who allocates work;

(c) whether the person may sub-contract work;

(d) whether the person provides services to multiple clients;

(e) whether the person is subject to performance management or compliance requirements;

(f) the level of control exercised over how, when and where work is performed.

(3) A person is not an independent contractor merely because a contract with the engaging entity describes the person as a contractor or supplier.

10B Consistency for translators and interpreters across Commonwealth translating and interpreting services

(1) If translators or interpreters are engaged under substantially similar arrangements by:

(a) the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National); and

(b) Services Australia;

those translators or interpreters must be treated consistently in relation to employment status, pay and conditions.

(2) The Commonwealth must not establish or maintain arrangements under which translators or interpreters performing substantially similar work for different agencies, authorities, bodies, organisations or officer holders of the Commonwealth are treated differently in relation to employment status or entitlements without reasonable justification.

10C Compliance with employment laws

(1) The Commonwealth must ensure that arrangements for engaging translators and interpreters do not contravene the following:

(a) the Fair Work Act 2009;

(b) the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992;

(c) the Work Health and Safety Act 2011;

(d) taxation laws relating to employee and independent contractor income.

(2) If the Commonwealth becomes aware that translators or interpreters have been incorrectly classified as independent contractors, the Commonwealth must take reasonable steps to:

(a) correct the classification;

(b) rectify any underpayment or unpaid entitlements;

(c) ensure future compliance.

10D Review of independent contractor engagement arrangements

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of independent contractor engagement arrangements for translators and interpreters engaged by agencies, authorities, bodies, organisations or officer holders of the Commonwealth to be conducted.

(2) The review must commence within 6 months after the commencement of this Division.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider:

(a) whether the arrangements are legally compliant;

(b) whether the arrangements are consistent with APS Employment Principles (within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1999);

(c) whether independent contractors are being denied employment protections available to other public sector employees;

(d) whether procurement arrangements are contributing to insecure work.

(4) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months after the commencement of this Division.

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

10E Correction of non-compliant arrangements

If a review conducted under this Division finds that engagement arrangements for independent contractors are not legally compliant, the Commonwealth must take reasonable steps to:

(a) correct the engagement arrangements;

(b) ensure independent contractors receive any unpaid entitlements;

(c) implement compliant engagement arrangements for future work.

10F Minimum engagement standards

(1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument or through procurement arrangements, prescribe minimum engagement standards for translators and interpreters performing Commonwealth-funded translating and interpreting services.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), minimum engagement standards must include provision for the following:

(a) superannuation contributions;

(b) minimum rates of pay and minimum engagement payments;

(c) cancellation fees;

(d) travel time and waiting time payments where applicable;

(e) work health and safety protections;

(f) access to dispute resolution processes;

(g) professional development provisions;

(h) protection from adverse action or termination without reasonable grounds.

(3) These standards apply regardless of whether the translator or interpreter is engaged as an employee, independent contractor or supplier.

10G Consultation on minimum engagement standards

In prescribing minimum engagement standards under section 10F, the Minister must consult with the following:

(a) employee organisations and worker representatives in the translating and interpreting sector;

(b) organisations representing translators and interpreters;

(c) organisations representing language service providers;

(d) any other persons or bodies the Minister considers appropriate.

10H Application of this Division

This Division applies to the following:

(a) the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National);

(b) Services Australia;

(c) an agency, authority, body, organisation or officer holder of the Commonwealth engaging translators or interpreters;

(d) any person or entity contracted by the Commonwealth to provide translating and interpreting services.

Division 2 — Indexation and procurement

10J Annual indexation of rates

(1) Rates paid to translators and interpreters for Commonwealth-funded translating and interpreting services must be reviewed annually.

(2) Rates must be increased at least in-line with the Consumer Price Index.

(3) Commonwealth procurement contracts for translating and interpreting services must include indexation provisions.

(4) Contractors providing Commonwealth-funded translating and interpreting services must pass indexation-increases through to translators and interpreters.

10K Procurement requirements for translating and interpreting services

(1) The Commonwealth must not award a translating and interpreting services contract solely on the basis of lowest cost.

(2) In awarding translating and interpreting services contracts, the Commonwealth must also consider the following:

(a) pay rates and conditions;

(b) workforce sustainability;

(c) qualifications and credential requirements;

(d) training and professional standards;

(e) workforce diversity and language availability;

(f) service quality and safety.

Division 3 — Essential language services

10L Essential language services

(1) Translating and interpreting services used in the following settings are essential language services:

(a) healthcare services;

(b) courts and tribunals;

(c) police and emergency services;

(d) immigration and asylum processes;

(e) social security and government services;

(f) child protection and family services.

(2) The Commonwealth must ensure that essential language services are supported by the following:

(a) adequate and ongoing funding;

(b) workforce planning and workforce development strategies;

(c) minimum service standards;

(d) emergency and after-hours availability arrangements;

(e) procurement arrangements that support workforce sustainability.

Division 4 — National Language Access Framework

10M National Language Access Framework

(1) The Minister must establish a National Language Access Framework for Commonwealth services.

(2) The Framework must include the following:

(a) minimum standards for provision of translators and interpreters in healthcare, legal and government services;

(b) standards for use of credentialled translators and interpreters;

(c) standards for data collection on language needs;

(d) workforce planning translating and interpreting services;

(e) measures to improve access to translators and interpreters in regional areas;

(f) measures to address inequities in translating and interpreting service provision.

(3) In developing the Framework, the Minister must consult the following:

(a) employee organisations and worker representatives in the translating and interpreting sector;

(b) organisations representing translators and interpreters;

(c) organisations representing translating and interpreting service providers;

(d) agencies, authorities, bodies, organisations or officer holders of the Commonwealth that use translating and interpreting services;

(e) health, legal and community service organisations;

(f) any other persons or bodies the Minister considers appropriate.

10N Review of translating and interpreting service access and outcomes

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted into:

(a) access to translating and interpreting services in healthcare, legal and government services;

(b) the impact of language barriers on health outcomes, legal outcomes and access to government services;

(c) whether gaps in translating and interpreting services are contributing to adverse outcomes or increased costs to government services.

(2) The review must commence within 6 months after the commencement of this Division.

(3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 12 months after the commencement of this Division.

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

(5) If the report prepared under this Division sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the Minister must, as soon as practicable after receiving the report, cause to be prepared a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations.

(6) The Minister must cause the statement prepared in accordance with subsection (5) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 months after receiving the report to which the statement relates.

Division 5 — Credential requirements

10P Credential requirements

(1) A person engaged to provide translating or interpreting services funded by the Commonwealth must hold:

(a) a National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters certification; or

(b) a qualification prescribed by regulation.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in emergency or exceptional circumstances.

(3) Where an uncredentialled translator or interpreter is engaged, the person or entity who engaged the translator or interpreter must record the reason and report annually to the Minister.

(4) Where there are languages for which credential pathways do not exist, the Commonwealth must take reasonable steps to support development of credential pathways.

Division 6 — Language Services Workforce Code

10Q Language Services Workforce Code

(1) The Minister must establish a Language Services Workforce Code to be incorporated into Commonwealth procurement arrangements.

(2) The Code must include standards relating to the following:

(a) minimum pay rates;

(b) engagement conditions;

(c) cancellation fees;

(d) qualification and credential requirements;

(e) professional standards;

(f) training and professional development;

(g) work health and safety;

(h) ethical standards.

(3) In developing the Code, the Minister must consult with the following:

(a) employee organisations and worker representatives in the translating and interpreting sector;

(b) organisations representing translators and interpreters;

(c) organisations representing language service providers;

(d) Commonwealth agencies that use language services;

(e) any other persons or bodies the Minister considers appropriate.

(4) Compliance with the Code must be a condition of:

(a) all Commonwealth language services procurement contracts; and

(b) all Commonwealth language services provider agencies.

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.

I will now deal with the Migration Amendment (Combating Migrant Exploitation) Bill 2025. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

The question now is that this bill be read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I seek leave to table a document outlining Senator Payman's voting positions on the bills that have just concluded and to have the document incorporated into the Senate Journals.

Leave granted.

by leave—I move:

That, today, the Senate adjourn without debate at 5 pm.

Question agreed to.

I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill enables eligible registered nurses to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It establishes a framework for approving authorised nurse prescribers, including important safeguards that allow approvals to be suspended or revoked where necessary. It also formally recognises authorised nurse prescribers as a new category of PBS prescribers, ensuring that patients receiving care from authorised nurses can access medicines under the PBS. Registered nurses make up around half of Australia's healthcare workforce. They serve communities right across the country, including rural, regional and remote areas, where access to doctors can be limited.

Expanding the scope of practice in a safe and regulated way has the potential to improve access to medicines, particularly for Australians living outside metropolitan centres. The introduction of nurse prescribing follows consultation and regulatory development through the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia and with health ministers, with the first cohort of nurses expected to begin prescribing from mid-2026. The details of these measures have now been carefully examined through the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee process. The opposition will support the changes in this bill to recognise the important role nurses play in our healthcare system and the potential benefits of sensibly expanding the scope of practice. These measures are consistent with our focus on ensuring Australians have timely and affordable access to essential health care, particularly in rural and remote communities.

It is also important to acknowledge the broader context in which this reform is introduced. It is critical to ensure that Australians have affordable access to medicines at a time when health care has never been more expensive to access. Australians relying on prescription medicines are facing rising healthcare costs under Labor, including the highest out-of-pocket costs for GP fees on record. Patients are now paying, on average, more than $50 out of their own pocket when they visit a GP. Labor's mismanagement is forcing Australians to make very difficult decisions about their health—decisions that no Australians should have to make. We are seeing more and more Australians avoiding seeing a doctor or refilling their scripts because they say they simply can't afford to. In fact, according to a survey conducted by the Consumers Health Forum, one in two Australians missed out on the health care they needed last year mainly because, they said, they couldn't afford it.

Supporting appropriately qualified registered nurses to prescribe PBS medicines is a step in the right direction to improving access and affordability. However, Australians are facing not only record GP fees under Labor but also increasing delays in gaining access to new medicines and treatments. The Albanese government's investment in the PBS fell in 2024-25 in real terms, declining by almost $200 million compared to the previous financial year. This stands in stark contrast to the record of the former Liberal-National government, which approved more than 2,900 new or amended PBS listings with investments totalling around $16.5 billion.

Australia is falling behind internationally, with medicines taking an average of 566 days after registration to become available through the PBS. That delay is unacceptable when patients are waiting for medicines and treatments that could change and even save lives. The Albanese government must ensure Australians gain faster access to life-changing, life-saving medicines. Patients and industry alike tell us the current system is slow, outdated and overly complex. The Health Technology Assessment Policy and Methods Review was commissioned to address exactly these challenges, yet more than 600 days later many of its recommendations are still collecting dust on the minister's desk. All that has seemed to result from this review today is simply more reviews. Minister Butler seems to be making an Olympic sport out of how many reviews and reports he can collect on his desk.

The ATO review presented a critical opportunity to modernise Australia's processes, so we can remain world class in our response to innovation and genuinely patient centred. This opportunity must not continue to be wasted. While we support enabling nurse prescribers to prescribe PBS medicines, the opposition condemns the government's failure to ensure Australians have timely and affordable access to life-saving and life-changing medicines through the PBS.

The changes proposed in the bill are consistent with recommendations in the 'Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce—Scope of Practice Review'. There is significant interest across the health sector in the government's response to this review. But the Albanese government so far has failed to provide a fulsome formal response in spite of the fact that it was commissioned by the government and finalised 18 months ago. While we wait for the formal response, the government's approach to scope-of-practice reform to date has been ad hoc and piecemeal. This is an important opportunity for the government to provide a clear roadmap for broader workforce reform. When health professionals are enabled to work at their full scope of practice and to the full extent of their training, patients benefit through improved access to care.

A comprehensive response from the government indicating its intent about each of the recommendations and an indicative timeline for implementation would help provide clearer guidance to stakeholders and the broader public. This would also address concerns raised by other groups, as part of the inquiry process, as to why some specific changes to scope of practice have been implemented while others seem to be ignored. The government must now respond to the final report as a matter of priority. This review must not join others commissioned by the Minister for Health and Ageing that ultimately result in delay, inaction or further reviews instead of reform.

The opposition supports the measures that responsibly improve access to healthcare services. We support the intent of the bill, recognising the important role of nurses in the delivery of health care to Australian patients and the benefit of scope-of-practice reforms; however, the Albanese government must stop its ad hoc approach to scope-of-practice reforms and provide a fulsome response to its own review. That is why I move:

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

(a) notes:

(i) the Government commissioned a review into health professionals' scope of practice,

(ii) the report, "Unleashing the Potential of our Health Workforce—Scope of Practice Review" was finalised and presented to the Government 18 months ago, and

(iii) not only has the Government failed to indicate when it will respond to this review, it has not even committed to providing a formal response; and

(b) calls on the Government to provide a comprehensive response to the 18 recommendations in the review as a matter of priority".

The Albanese Labor government has a big agenda on health care—a big agenda to strengthen Medicare. We are committed to expanding access to the health care that Australians need, to making accessing health care more affordable for ordinary Australians right across the country. We want to make sure that Australians can get the health care and the medicines that they need when they need them at an affordable price. The truth is that, when we came to office, it had never been harder to access health care. It had never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. Bulk-billing was in freefall after years of neglect by the Liberal Party. Too many Australians were putting off getting the health care they needed because they couldn't afford it. That's why strengthening Medicare has been a key focus for the Albanese Labor government since coming into government in 2022 and now into our second term—more bulk-billing, more nurses and doctors, and cheaper medicines, because what we know is that, when people can access the healthcare that they need, their outcomes are better. When they access care early, they can catch health issues sooner before they become more serious and costly to treat.

Everywhere I go I hear this same story from doctors and patients in the community, particularly in my home state of Western Australia. Patients say that, when it's tough for them to access the health care they need, they put off seeing a doctor. When medicines are more expensive, they put off buying the medicines that they need. This is why we have made the single largest investment in Medicare since it was created by Labor over 40 years ago, expanding bulk-billing so that more people can see a GP for free, delivering Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country, delivering Medicare mental healthcare clinics, training more doctors, supporting nurses and, of course, delivering cheaper medicines. We want to make sure that no Australian is held back from getting the health care that they need and that no Australian is left behind because of the cost.

This bill builds on that work in a really practical and targeted way. It is another example of our government's commitment to making health care more accessible and more affordable for Australians. It empowers nurses to work to their full scope of practice and will improve access to medicines for ordinary Australians. The bill allows registered nurses to prescribe certain medicines under the PBS. Simply, it means that patients will be able to get a prescription easier and at a lower cost. It ensures that care delivered in appropriate settings is backed by affordability and that access to medicines is not restricted by whom you see but by what you need.

This is about making better use of the healthcare workforce that we already have—the healthcare workforce that works day in and day out to help Australians. Registered nurses are highly trained, highly skilled and highly trusted. They are present right across the country and are often the first contact for patients. They play a critical role in delivering the health care that Australians need. But, too often, they're not able to work to their full scope of practice. This reform goes to changing that so that health care can be delivered further to those who need it most. Medicines can be accessed more quickly. Alongside our cheaper medicines plan, where medicines are $25 on the PBS and the lowest that they've been since 2004, it means the whole system works better—the right care delivered by the right professional at the right time.

We've seen the impact of our investment on health care right across the system, whether it's in primary care, in making GPs able to bulk-bill, in hospitals or in aged-care, disability and mental-health settings. We can see that our investment is working. I am seeing it in my home state of Western Australia. We are committed to a health system that works as a system. When different professionals across the healthcare sector are supported to do the work that they are more than capable of doing and to work at their full capacity, patients will see the full benefits.

Of course this matter everywhere across the country, but I think it is particularly important in rural, regional and remote parts of our country, where access to health care can be much more challenging. Travel is often required over long distances for basic care. This is another way we can support people in these parts in receiving the health care they need closer to home—easier access to the medicines that they need. We want patients to benefit from this faster, more coordinated care.

It is important to say that this bill is backed up by extensive research by the Nursing and Midwifery Board and the Chief Nursing and Midwifery Officer. We know that many registered nurses have the capacity to prescribe certain types of medicines, so this is something that we know will work. With a national registration standard already in place, we can kick off these nurse-prescribers pretty quickly, with the first cohort of enrolled nurse-prescribers expected from July this year, just a couple of months away. We are taking quick action to deliver this bill. It's a measured reform that improve access, supports affordability and will strengthen Medicare.

I am really proud of our government's record on health care. I am so proud to be a member of the Albanese Labor government, which is committed to making sure every Australian, no matter where in our great country they live, can access affordable and accessible health care. We want every Australian to know they can see a doctor when they need it, where they need it. We want nine out of 10 Australians to be able to see a bulk-billing GP. We want Australians to be able to afford the medicines they need. We don't want Australians to have to put off seeing a doctor or getting the medicines they need in order to stay well because cost is a barrier.

That is why we have made the biggest investment in Medicare since it was created 40 years ago. Medicare is a proud Labor legacy. It is our commitment to every Australian, no matter where they live, no matter their age, that they can access the health care they need when they need it. Only Labor is committed to doing the important work of protecting and strengthening Medicare.

In the time I have today, I want to begin my speech on the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. This bill will enable qualified registered nurses, known as nurse prescribers, to work to their full scope of practice and support patient access to faster, more affordable, quality health care. Nurses have been pushing for this reform for a very long time. This is a change that is long overdue, and we must acknowledge that, historically, the role of nurses has been underappreciated and underutilised within our healthcare system.

The Greens are pleased to support this reform. This reform comes at an important time. To share the impact of this change, I'd like to quote Rebecca Manski, who gave an interview to the ABC. Ms Manski is a registered nurse in a rural New South Wales community who is training to become a nurse prescriber. She said:

Patients will feel validated that they're being heard and that their conditions are a priority to manage.

Earlier treatment, or prompt treatment, is going to reduce the likelihood of an unnecessary hospital admission

Patients feeling heard, having timely access to health care, earlier treatment and fewer hospitalisations—these are all good things, especially as we are seeing more and more people unnecessarily coming to spaces within the healthcare system that they need not be in, with additional unnecessary costs to them as members of our community in the context of a cost-of-living crisis.

The Consumers Health Forum today launched the results of their first National Consumer Sentiment Survey, which has found that while people generally trust the health system they cannot afford it. According to the report, 50 per cent of people avoided necessary health care in the past year because they could not afford it. This is completely unacceptable in a nation as wealthy as ours, and I'm pleased to be enabling nurse prescribers to treat the community and provide the community with essential medications that will help alleviate some of the cost burden people face.

To get the full benefits of this change, nurse prescribing needs to be implemented not only in hospitals but also in primary healthcare settings, such as local clinics and aged-care settings. This is critical. When this bill went before a Senate enquiry, many submissions made to the inquiry were largely supportive of the change, and I'd like to amplify some of those submissions.

Firstly, there's the Australian Primary Health Care Nurses Association submission, and I will quote it:

Nurses play a critical role in providing essential health care access, managing complex and chronic health conditions and keeping people out of hospitals which is particularly necessary where there is limited or no access to a regular general practitioner.

Senator Steele-John, you will be in continuation. It being 12:15, I shall now proceed to senators' statements.

This country's economy was in trouble before the conflict in the Middle East. Caught out was an unprepared, unresponsive and incapable Albanese Labor government. They were caught off guard. They had plenty of resources. They should have had plenty of intel. They've certainly got many members of parliament in here in positions responsible for portfolios, states and territories. But there was nothing—nothing except, at the very beginning: 'There's nothing to see here. There's no need to be concerned. We've got plenty of fuel. The fuel will keep flowing.' Well, Australians know that didn't happen.

As Australians prepare to mark Easter this weekend, I want to take a moment to speak about what this holiday looks like for families, small businesses, farmers and regional communities across this country, particularly in my home state of South Australia. The truth is Australians will struggle to afford Easter this year—not just a niche group of Australians but so many Australians. And that's not a coincidence; that is the direct consequence of four years of Labor government economic mismanagement.

Let's start with something as simple and Australian as loading up the car and heading away for Easter. For many families, that trip to the coast, the ranges or the river is a tradition. It is something they plan for, something the kids—maybe not the parents—look forward to: that road trip that connects them to country and to each other. This year, for too many families, that can't and won't happen.

You will pay less at the bowser this Easter, but let's be clear about why. You will pay less because the coalition led and the government followed. It was the coalition that pushed for the fuel excise to be halved while this government was denying there was even a crisis to plan for. They blamed consumers—remember?—'You're using too much petrol.' Then: 'You're using too many jerry cans.' And they offered nothing to Australians but a suggestion to buy an electric vehicle. We pushed; eventually, they acted. Australians should know who fought for them and recognised this was a crisis that we should have been planning for.

Even with that relief, travel will remain terribly expensive. Consider a South Australian family driving. A round trip from Adelaide to Port Elliot will cost around $60 return; to Robe, around $240; to the Flinders Ranges, up to $300; to the Riverland, up to $180—it's probably the equivalent to the Clare Valley; and to Port Lincoln, up to $480 return. People have been planning their holiday break for a while. They weren't planning for those extra costs. And those businesses in those communities weren't expecting that the usual holiday busyness would be a lot quieter this year, at a time when they're already struggling.

For a family already stretched, those numbers are the difference between going and staying home. For many, Easter this year will be spent closer to home not by choice but by necessity. That's what a cost-of-living crisis does. That's what an unprepared, unresponsive and unreliable Labor government does.

Fuel is only the beginning. Let's not forget the full weight of what's gone on under this government. Electricity bills are up 38 per cent, gas is up 42 per cent, food is up 16 per cent, health costs are up 15 per cent, education is up 17 per cent, and child care is up 14 per cent. You know the child care that they told you was cheaper—and there's more of it? Insurance is up 39 per cent, and rent is up 22 per cent. The costs of things that were once simple, once considered basic to people's needs, such as keeping the lights on, putting food on the table, paying the rent and keeping the kids in school with what they need to learn—well, the costs of those things are all going in the wrong direction. That's going up. It's a story of a real family making real sacrifices, cutting back, going without and wondering when it all ends.

Businesses are going to be struggling this Easter—one of the most profitable weeks of the year, which they depend on. They're going to be struggling this year. They also know it's unlikely to end after the Easter break. In South Australia, businesses are already observing record insolvencies. They're doing it tough. You only have to walk through the city streets to see what's happening in South Australia. Businesses have been grappling with rising inflation and rising interest rates, and, for many of them, this Easter will be the difference between survival and closure.

Then there was the announcement from the RBA yesterday that they'll be scrapping credit surcharges. On the surface, that's great news for consumers, and we welcome anything that puts money back in the pockets of Australians. But it's economics 101—those costs have to be absorbed by someone. They'll be passed on. And, when those businesses struggle, there'll be more suppliers, there'll be fewer jobs, there'll be more choice for consumers—it's not a win for consumers, like the Labor government tells us it will be. That's the reality, when you get outside this place and you understand how the economy really works. Small businesses deserve fairness. They deserve not to be left off in many of these reforms. When they get squeezed, everything else follows.

Now, let me talk about the farmers. You remember those people that actually feed us? They're on the land come rain, hail or shine, and they're trying to get a crop in. I've spoken to a few in recent weeks. They've been doing it tough, really tough, and now these fuel costs are going to hit them even harder. But it's not just the fuel costs. The government would have you believe it's just the fuel costs. They got rain recently. You have to get the seeds in at the right time. You have to fertilise those seeds at the right time. It doesn't mean the plants will grow, if you haven't got all the right ingredients at the right time. They live their lives working hard to make sure we've got food in the cities and can export some of what they grow. That has just got tougher because this government failed to plan, failed to see them and failed to hear them, and Australians will feel the effect of that. Those farmers will spend their Easter not resting but trying to source the fuel they'll desperately need. They have been hit particularly hard, and they will take a long time to recover from that bruising.

Beyond fuel, there's an even deeper issue, and that is fertiliser supply. Australia is highly exposed, relying on the Middle East for around 60 per cent of its urea imports. Already, shipments are being delayed, being cancelled or are unable to load. Remember, we were also told those ships were coming—'Don't worry about it.' Well, the ships full of fertiliser aren't coming either.

The industry has warned clearly and urgently that the window to avoid serious damage is closing fast. They said that, if it's resolved quickly, we are looking at manageable price increases. If disruptions persist, they are looking at crop shortages, crop impacts and a direct threat to our food security. If their crops aren't healthy, they can't fight disease. I'm not sure why the government can't see this. This is going to have a long-tail impact not just on our farmers, not just on the people that supply them and not just on the businesses and the jobs they support but also on those of us that live in the cities. If you think there isn't going to be an increase in food prices because of the government's incompetence, you're dreaming. That will be the consequence.

The government has to act urgently to support industry. That's the reality. Australians will be watching the budget in May with cautious hope. Much of this inflation that Australians are experiencing is homegrown. Sure, there's a shock from the Middle East, but this government failed to prepare for that. (Time expired)

Nearly 14 years ago I gave my first senators' statement in this chamber on a matter was near and dear to my heart and one of the key reasons I got into parliament in the first place—the need for institutions like this parliament to act on the growing threat of plastic pollution in our marine environment. My staff did a Hansard search at the time, and we believe I was the first person to raise this issue in this chamber. Reflecting on this 14 years down the track, you could say there's been some success in raising public education and awareness of this threat. We've even had a global plastics treaty, negotiated around the world, to try and solve this problem.

I want to read out a few of the words that I spoke in 2012:

I would like to read you some basic statistics on the amount of plastics in the ocean. The amount of plastic produced from 2000 to 2010 exceeded in those 10 years the amount produced during the entire last century—

the 20th century—

Plastic is the most common type of marine litter found worldwide. An estimated 100,000 marine mammals and up to one million seabirds die every year—

from ingesting plastic. That was 14 years ago—

Up to 80 per cent of plastic in our oceans comes from land based sources. Plastics comprise up to 90 per cent of all floating marine debris.

I then gave another senators' statement on this exact same issue in 2016, when I reflected on a World Economic Forum report that was released titled The new plastics economy: rethinking the future of plastics:

This report produced some stark and stunning research. It estimated that there is approximately 150 million tonnes of plastic in the ocean—

This is in 2016—

If we continue with a business-as-usual scenario—that is, around eight million tonnes of plastic going into the ocean every year—then in 2025 the ocean is expected to contain one tonne of plastic to every three tonnes of fish. And by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish—

That's right; by weight, in just over 20 years time, there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish.

So, how are we going now, in 2026, 14 years down the track? I would like to say that the Senate has taken some action on looking into this issue. In 2015 we had a groundbreaking inquiry, the first of its kind, into plastic pollution. The report was titled Toxic tide: the threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia. The inquiry took significant evidence and laid out not only the scale of the problem but what we needed to do about it as a parliament. Then, in 2017, we had another Senate inquiry, initiated by the Greens. The report was titled Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling industry in Australia. Then, in 2024-25, going into the last election, we had a third Senate inquiry following on from the previous two, with a report titled No time to waste:waste reduction and recycling policies. It showed that things are getting worse; they're not getting any better. Regardless of the fact that this is now a mainstream issue and that plastics in our ocean are recognised as arguably—maybe apart from climate change—the biggest pollution issue on this planet, things are only getting worse.

Let's start with Australia. Only 20 per cent of plastic packaging is recycled or composted in Australia. This is when we've had an official target—and these are figures from APCO, the Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation—of 70 per cent. That has been an official government target for the last six years. Since the year 2000—so this is reflecting the 2024 data—the amount of plastic consumed in Australia has more than doubled. It hasn't reduced. Regardless of all the efforts of all these amazing people around the country, it has doubled. Australia now has a total national plastics recovery rate, which includes recycling and energy recovery, of only 14 per cent. The remaining 86 per cent of plastic goes to landfill and of course leaks into our rivers, our landscapes and our oceans. Plastics and other petrochemicals will become the largest driver of oil demand, accounting for almost 50 per cent of the growth in oil around the world by 2050. That might give you a clue as to why we haven't had any action on the plastics crisis in our oceans—because it's big business for big, dirty fossil fuel companies.

According to the United Nations, plastic generated 1.8 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 alone. That's the production of plastic. That is expected to more than double. Just 20 companies around the world are the source of more than half of all the single-use plastic items that we throw away globally. To give you an idea, Exxon-Mobil, even though they've acknowledged that electric vehicles are reducing the use of gasoline, have still said that they plan to increase petrochemical production by 80 per cent by 2050, which will help the industry pump and sell even more oil at midcentury than it does today. Even with the trends towards electric cars, plastic is going to become the sink for global oil and gas exploration through to its production by petrochemical companies.

At the recent plastic treaty negotiations, fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumbered many national delegations, scientists and indigenous groups. Is it a surprise that that plastic treaty failed after all these years of trying to get a global plastics treaty, when most of the people at these conferences were oil and gas companies fighting rearguard actions to defend their profits? I could go on but, as I stand, with only a few months before I leave this place, the situation is dire.

I want to acknowledge that it's gone beyond being a marine pollution issue. Plastic pollution is very much a health issue. I want to give a shout-out to my friend Josh Murphy, one of the producers of the new documentary on Netflix called Plastic Detoxin fact, to all the crew involved in that. I recommend that everybody watch it. This is a massive human health issue—which, by the way, this Senate is now looking into as well, and I commend that. And I want to give a special mention to a group in Louisiana who are fighting the petrochemical companies, especially Exxon, called RISE St. James. I was followed by them on Instagram last night. The movie outlines the amazing work done by Sharon Lavigne—I'm sorry, Sharon, if I pronounced that wrong with my Australian accent!—and her group to try and take on the massive petrochemical industry and stop the production of more plastics, the burning of more fossil fuels and the human health impacts that are happening.

I also want to reflect on the fact that, nearly a year ago, I was on Lord Howe Island with Dr Jen Lavers and her Adrift Lab science group. I've spoken about her many times in the Senate over the years, and the great work she and her fellow scientists do. In the case of one dead shearwater chick, we took more than 840 pieces of plastic out of this poor bird's stomach. It died from starvation. Most of it was plastic packaging, and that is just the tip of the iceberg—one bird on an isolated island in the Pacific, and it's the same in the Indian Ocean; it's the same everywhere, all around the world. This problem is only getting worse.

That brings me to Australia. At that time, April last year, we'd just had a federal election. I'd been on the island and was stunned by what I saw, but I had hope that a global plastics treaty would go some way to fixing it. That has failed. We also had a new environment minister, Minister Murray Watt, who said that after the federal environment laws had been fixed his next priority would be looking at solutions around plastic packaging—in particular, making big producers of plastic responsible for the product they produce, an extended producer responsibility scheme.

Well, one year later, four years after Labor came to government, even with a supermajority, we've seen nothing: no action at all. That has to change. I have to remain optimistic that we will push through, business as usual, and will finally get the government to do what it's supposed to do, to solve externalities, to solve this massive pollution problem and hold the big producers of plastic pollution to account. Never has there been a better time. The waste reduction industry wants action on holding big plastic producers to account. Many of the packaging companies themselves want governments to step in and mandate rules and regulations around this to give them certainty in the way they operate. For the life of me, I don't know why we don't do it. Everybody seems to want it. This is a historic opportunity. The Green's would work with government to get that done.

But, in the meantime—because I've learned from experience that governments don't do anything on this, and the wheel moves very slowly—I want to announce today that the Greens intention is to introduce a private senators' bill to introduce an extended producer response risk scheme. We did this 2019, and the Liberal government then brought in the Waste Reduction and Recycling Act. We got some action, but it was only voluntary. Now it's time to mandate big business and make them clean up their mess. (Time expired)

Families are the foundation of our society. As Edmund Burke described, they are the 'little platoons' that shape our communities and our nation. Former prime minister John Howard said that a strong family is the greatest social welfare system that mankind has ever devised. This is not just a philosophical worldview. Safe, stable and responsive caregiving in early childhood is foundational to healthy development. Secure attachment strengthens a child's self-esteem, emotion regulation and the capacity to form healthy relationships across their life. They are more likely to grow up with better mental health, stronger ability to cope with challenges and better social skills. The earliest relationships in a person's life matter deeply. If we truly care about the country that we leave to the next generation, then we must support and help families raise their children today.

I'm reminded of the adage that we are but dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants, able to see further only because of the efforts, sacrifice and wisdom of those who came before. Our responsibility, then, is clear. We must become those giants for the next generation. Strengthening families now is how we will leave a positive legacy for those who follow. Each family has its own circumstance, history and beliefs, and the way that they care for their children reflects that diversity. Some rely on parental care in the early years; others rely on grandparents or extended family; and many use centre based childcare, either part-time or full-time and oftentimes alongside those informal arrangements.

Just over half of children aged zero to five, 51.2 per cent, are not in formal care, while 48.8 per cent are in care. This complexity matters. It tells us that there is no single model of care that fits every family. Parents deserve real choice. It goes without saying that for you to have a choice, you need at least two viable options to decide between. Currently, the only choice that this government provides and which they're offering parents is subsidised and formal child care. Even that option is increasingly constrained. Before the subsidy is applied, families face costs of around $36,000 a year for full-time care. The hourly subsidy sits it at $14.63, yet more than 39 per cent of childcare services charge above this subsidised amount. For every cent over the cap, there is no subsidy at all. This leaves parents having to pay the full cost.

It's impossible to separate this conversation from the broader cost-of-living pressures that families are facing. Over the four years of this Albanese Labor government childcare costs have risen by around 14 per cent. At the same time, household budgets are under extraordinary strain and we are seeing those pressures mount literally daily at the moment. Today around 45 per cent of a typical couple's income is required just to service a mortgage. Families are making the impossible choice between housing, work, care and wellbeing.

Raising a child is not policy abstraction; it is a deeply personal responsibility. Infants and young children rely on stable, attuned relationships with familiar caregivers to develop emotional security and regulate stress. Public policy should support parents to make decisions that fit their lives and their child's needs, not limit those choices or funnel families into a single model regardless of circumstance. Child care plays an important role in this. It's essential infrastructure, supporting workforce participation for parents and providing children with valuable learning and social opportunities.

It's possible that high-quality early childhood educators can form strong, positive relationships with children, but the research is also very clear that continuity matters. Stable relationships are critical to a child's sense of security. High staff turnover in early childhood settings can disrupt these relationships and undermine the consistency that children need for healthy social and emotional development.

Quality and workforce stability in our early childhood education settings are important, yet we know workforce shortages remain one of the greatest challenges facing the sector, particularly in regional and remote communities. At a recent press conference in Derby, in Western Australia, the WA minister for early childhood education was asked directly how the government would ensure that there were enough staff to run the new centre up there in the Kimberley. Her overly simplistic response was: 'The solution lies in free TAFE courses in areas of work that we know are in high demand.' Of course increasing access to training is important—we all acknowledge that—but we cannot pretend that that is the simple solution to the problem. Making courses free does not guarantee that people will enrol and does not guarantee that they will complete the training, and it certainly does not guarantee that they will relocate to or remain in communities in remote parts of our country, like Derby.

There are childcare deserts in this country, for complex underlying reasons. In many regional and remote communities, families are travelling extraordinary distances to access care, in some cases up to 200 kilometres in a round trip. This is not a workforce pipeline issue alone; it's a retention issue, an attraction issue and a system design issue. Vulnerable children are often the ones who fall through the structural gaps of a system that is most impacted by this oversight. Evidence consistently shows that children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefit the most from attending high-quality childcare and preschool programs, yet it's the same cohort of children that receive very limited additional funding, if any, and too often experience the greatest disruptions to this care. Without a stable workforce we cannot deliver the stable relationships these children need, and without those stable relationships we cannot deliver the developmental outcomes the evidence so clearly tells us matter.

Safety must also be at the centre of this discussion. Yesterday the Senate Education and Employment References Committee tabled its report into the quality and safety of early childhood education and care. It was established following the disturbing cases of child abuse in childcare settings. The inquiry heard extensive evidence from parents, educators, regulators and experts. Parents should be able to trust that their children are safe when they are placed in care. The report shows that confidence has been undermined by real, systemic failures, which demand an urgent response from the Albanese government.

The committee has recommended the government prioritise closer integration between law enforcement and existing child safety reforms, supported by practical measures such as better integration of the Working with Children Check register with police intelligence, the use of facial recognition to identify victims more quickly, stronger information sharing between police and regulators, and clear guidance on the appropriate use of CCTV to protect children, without unnecessary surveillance.

The whole-of-system approach is critical. Without it there is a real risk that offenders will be able to exploit the cracks in the regulatory system and go unnoticed. There should be no stone unturned when it comes to protecting our children in early education and care settings. With reports of multiple early learning centres suspended in just the past 24 hours, due to serious safety concerns, it's clear that the issue is far from resolved. Getting the basics right means that every child is safe, every parent has confidence and every childcare provider is held to the highest standard. This is all about the long-term future of our nation.

This is not just a social issue but an economic one. Research from Nobel Prize winning economist James Heckman shows high-quality early childhood investment delivers significant long-term returns through improved education, employment and health outcomes as well as reduced crime. This is what nation building looks like. It starts at very early years of life. It's at the heart of the choice in child care. It's about supporting families. It's about recognising that parents know their children best. It's about ensuring that policy respects that knowledge, supports that responsibility and provides genuine choice, because, when we strengthen families, we strengthen our communities. When we strengthen our communities, we strengthen our nation.

It gives me great pleasure to rise and put on the record some comments from a very good friend of mine and a very good friend of young Australian workers, Mr Gerard Dwyer, the secretary of the SDA union. I want to acknowledge his leadership and to quote him in response to yesterday's decision to ensure that 18-year-olds get a fair and decent wage, as reported in the ABC article:

National Secretary for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) Gerard Dwyer said it was a "landmark decision, up there with the introduction of equal pay for women in the 1970s".

It may take longer than we would have liked, but the principle has been established that no longer will 18-year-olds be treated as second-class citizens. I also want to acknowledge the great leadership and the campaign vigour and continuation that was demonstrated by the assistant secretary, Helen Cooney, and my good friends in New South Wales: the secretary of the SDA New South Wales, Bernie Smith; and David Bliss, the secretary of the SDA northern branch. These are men and women who are unionists, who collectively work for the benefit of many, many young Australians.

In the course of the 'Adult Age = Adult Wage' campaign, a number of young people came to this parliament to put on the record the reality of the kind of work they do. For some of them, by the time they turned 18, they were certainly not novices. They were certainly not inexperienced. They had been holding down one, sometimes two jobs already for three years. Amongst people that gave their stories to parliamentarians who had ears to listen—and I acknowledge many of my colleagues here on the Labor side and also good people from across the aisle who care about fairness—young people were talking about how they were in families where they, in fact, were the primary earner at 19, sometimes undertaking caring responsibilities for their parents, sometimes in situations where they were the only person able to secure a job in their environment. Sometimes these were regional communities. They were bringing home a wage. To have allowed this injustice to have continued for so long when so many young people have been giving 100 per cent of their effort at age 18, age 19, age 20, with sometimes, at that stage, five years experience managing workplaces, leading in workplaces but subject to a discount on the wage that they were able to take home simply because of their age—nothing to do with their capacity, nothing to do with their level of responsibility, nothing to do with the excellence that they delivered in their workplaces.

For those who are shocked about the reality, let me tell you that, until this decision, hard-won by a campaign led by the SDA union, wages for 18-year-olds in sectors where we see them so frequently—in retail, fast food and pharmacy—were fixed at 70 per cent of the full award wage. It went up to 80 per cent for those who are 19 and 90 per cent for those who reach age 20. The proposal for change that has now been advanced from the Fair Work Commission will ensure that these young workers who are increasingly experienced in the workplace will start to benefit over a four-year period from December this year. Right now, the commission has indicated there will be no changes to wage rates for workers aged 18 to 20 who have less than six months of experience at their current workplace. But it ensures that, as they experience a longer stay, they will, in fact, get parity in their pay.

The arguments put to me were very, very strong, and these are the facts: 18-year-olds in Australia can vote, they can drive, and in times of crisis and wars they've put their lives on the line for Australia. The very least we can do is ensure they get fair and decent wages that aren't discriminatory because of their sometimes tender years.

Productivity growth is essential. In the past 10 years, productivity grew by less than a quarter of its 60-year average. Our productivity is flatlining. This was happening even before the pandemic. We need to kickstart our economy and help the next generation thrive. The Productivity Commission was tasked with doing this last year by looking into the key areas to boost productivity across the economy in the fastest and cheapest way. They released those reports last year, almost six months ago, but the government hasn't even responded yet. Has there been any word from the Treasurer? No. If it's such a priority, where is the action?

You've been told by the experts how to fix our economy, but we don't know if you've even read the reports. This is a frustrating trend. You commission reports because you want answers to difficult questions, and then, when the experts give you advice, you ignore them. We know that the government has asked for more than 50 inquiry reports to begin, which they've totally ignored once the recommendations have been provided. What a waste of time and money for everyone. The Productivity Commission report last year reflected that the flavour of the month for the Treasurer was productivity. But, now that the report is out, he's seemingly moved on and is now talking about intergenerational equity. That's a great priority too, but we have to stop this merry-go-round. We need a real response from the government on productivity, and we needed it yesterday.

Another key part of growing our economy is research and development, or R&D. All experts and business professionals are telling me that a key ingredient to boosting our economy and productivity is research and development. It brings jobs, new innovations, new industries and new ways of working. We've seen it in Australia with wi-fi, GPS and other amazing recent innovations. But the government has stopped prioritising R&D. Last week I met with some amazing scientists, and they told me about the incredible work they do to make the world a better place and help the lives of Australians. But, again, the government don't seem to be listening. They hid behind last year's review into R&D, which, just like the productivity review, was done by experts with significant consultation. That R&D review report came out recently. I sure hope the government don't keep making the same mistakes. This time, they should actually read the report and take serious action. Otherwise, what is even the point?

We need to take science seriously in this country and listen to our experts more. We need to champion organisations that advocate for science to the community, like Beaker Street and their amazing annual Beaker Street Festival in Tassie. But it isn't just an attitude problem. R&D also has a serious funding issue in this country. When inflation is accounted for, the government's spending on R&D has been in massive decline for the last 20 years. We don't fund R&D properly, like other countries do overseas. And maybe the government is wondering, 'Well, how do they pay for all that innovation—all that R&D?' Well, they have a tax system that actually works. They properly tax their resources. We don't. A 25 per cent tax on gas exports would fund our growth. It would fund our innovation and our R&D. It would be put into the services that Australians need and not just sent offshore.

But, more broadly, we need a system that is fairer—a tax system that taxes people's income less so that they have more take-home pay. We should tax capital more, impacting the top end of town more and working Australians less, so that we still have enough government revenue to provide essential services. We should be taxing capital gains more, rather than discounting it for the millionaires that already own 10 houses. First-home buyers shouldn't be punished by the tax system; they should be supported. A fairer tax system will boost productivity, spur investment and help people put food on the table. It will also enable the government to spend more on R&D and on innovation and reward more Australians. So I urge the government: read and respond to your own reports that you commission. Prioritise productivity and innovation. Prioritise R? fund it and see our growth come alive. Fix our tax system so that gas companies pay their fair share. And lower the income tax for working Australians.

I rise to speak about a recent visit to Wadjemup—Rottnest Island—a place of profound cultural significance and one of Western Australia's most treasured destinations. Wadjemup means 'place across the water where the spirits are' in Noongar language, which holds truth and must always be acknowledged. From 1838 to 1931, it served as a forced labour prison for more than 4,000 Aboriginal men and boys, many of whom are buried there in unmarked graves. As a Noongar woman, this place has deep pain, memory and responsibility. It calls on all of us to reflect, to listen and to ensure that truth-telling is central to how this island is understood and experienced. Yet Wadjemup is also a place of extraordinary beauty. For generations, Western Australians have made the journey across the water, drawn by its turquoise bays, unique wildlife and the sense of calm that defines the island. Families return year after year, and visitors from around the world experience our coastline at its very best.

More than 800,000 people visit Wadjemup each year. Recently I visited with my friend and colleague the Assistant Minister for Tourism, Nita Green, to see how this place continues to thrive and how we can support its future. We saw the strong demand firsthand and spoke of the importance in getting the balance right as visitation grows. But what makes Wadjemup work is the people on the ground. We met with local operators, including James Mulholland from Quokka Coaches and Rottnest Fast Ferries and Holly Brindle from the Rottnest general store and bakery. They spoke to us about what was working well, the opportunities ahead and where further support is needed. Listening to local operators is critical if we are serious about getting tourism right. We also visited the Wadjemup Museum with Casey Kickett from Koorda's Crew. I was deeply moved by this experience, reinforcing that truth-telling must remain central to how this place is shared.

What is happening at Wadjemup is part of something bigger. As a senator for Western Australia, I have the privilege of travelling across the state and meeting incredible people, including visiting the Martumili Artists gallery in Newman. Through Martu artists sharing their stories, culture and connection to country, we are reminded that First Nations voices help us to truly understand the places as we travel through them, not just see them. Across Western Australia, Aboriginal led tourism is giving visitors the opportunity to experience the world's oldest continuing living culture in deeper and more meaningful ways. On Wadjemup, this is already taking shape through their Aboriginal led cultural tours and initiatives, like Koorda's Crew, where young people and their families learn through storytelling, creativity and connection to Noongar culture.

This is what meaningful tourism looks like. It is the tourism that is led by First Nations people that tells the full story of a place and that creates opportunity for Aboriginal communities. This is what the future of tourism in Australia looks like: First Nations led, culturally grounded and economically empowering. The Albanese Labor government has established the First Nations Visitor Economy Partnership to support greater participation and economic opportunities for First Nations people, businesses and tourism, because First Nations tourism is not just about sharing culture. It's about creating jobs, supporting businesses and ensuring people can stay connected to Country while building economic opportunity in their own communities. I thank the chairperson, Hamish Beck OAM, and Jason Banks from the Rottnest Island Authority for hosting us and their stewardship in this important place. Wadjemup shows us that, with responsible stewardship, we can honour its history, support local people and businesses and ensure that this extraordinary place can be experienced for generations to come.

As we head into the winter months, that responsibility extends beyond Wadjemup. With the impacts of Cyclone Narelle still being felt across parts of Western Australia, supporting local tourism has never been more important, especially during the quieter winter period. Western Australians are blessed with an extraordinary backyard. Choosing to enjoy it is about backing small businesses, supporting local jobs and helping our communities to remain resilient through the most challenging periods. This is how we strengthen our tourism industry, and that's how we ensure places just like Wadjemup and other places, spectacular places, around Western Australia and our communities right across that area continue to thrive.

Recently, I had the opportunity to visit a number of Huon aquaculture sites in Southern Tasmania. When people debate salmon farming in this place or in the media, it can sometimes feels like an abstract policy discussion. But, when you're standing on a working aquaculture site in Tasmania, it becomes very clear what we're talking about. We're talking about jobs, and we're talking about regional communities. We're talking about one of Tasmania's most important industries. Our salmon industry today is Australia's most valuable seafood sector, worth around $1.36 billion, supporting more than 5,100 full-time jobs and with nine out of 10 of those jobs located in regional Tasmania. In the Huon Valley alone, more than one in four jobs are connected to the salmon industry. Just think about that for a moment—one in four jobs. That means, in towns across Southern Tasmania, places like Dover, Port Huon and the Channel, this industry is not just part of the local economy; it is the local economy. Huon aquaculture alone employs more than 900 Tasmanians and spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year with local suppliers and businesses across the state. That means electricians, engineers, marine mechanics, transport operators and food processors across regional Tasmania.

Here's something worth remembering: in national debate, salmon farming is sometimes discussed as though it's a niche industry; in Tasmania, it's anything but. It's one of the engines of the regional economy, and what struck me most during my visit was something else entirely. Modern Tasmanian aquaculture bears little resemblance to the caricature sometimes presented in public debate. What I saw was technology, what I saw was science, and what I saw was an industry investing heavily to improve environmental performance. Across Tasmania, the salmon industry has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in research and development, working alongside institutions such as the CSIRO and the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies. These partnerships underpin world-leading environmental monitoring, modelling ocean currents, nutrients and temperature changes around our coastline. This industry understands a simple truth: if you want aquaculture to succeed in Tasmania, you must protect the waters that sustain it. At a time when global food demand continues to grow, aquaculture is one of the most efficient ways to produce sustainable protein. Ocean based salmon farming produces less than half the emissions of many land based proteins. Tasmania produces around 90 per cent of Australia's farmed salmon, much of which is consumed right here in Australia. That means healthy, locally produced food on Australian tables while reducing pressure on wild fish stocks.

Before I finish, let me just address a few myths we often hear about this industry. 'Salmon farms are the battery hens of the sea'—false. The stocking density is 99 per cent water to one per cent fish, and Tasmania's density for commercial aquaculture is the lowest in the world, even better than the RSPCA recommends. The reality is that salmon has one of the lowest carbon footprints of any animal protein, dramatically lower than beef and far lower than most land based farming. It's often said that salmon farms are floating feedlots. But the reality is that salmon farms operate under strict environmental monitoring, including seabed surveys, oxygen monitoring and biomass limits. Another myth is that salmon farming is poorly regulated. The reality is that aquaculture in Tasmania is one of the most tightly monitored food industries in the country. Myth—salmon farms are bad for the environment; fact—people working in this industry depend on clean, healthy water more than anyone. Their livelihoods literally depend on having clean water. We're told this industry should simply disappear. But the point that often gets missed is that, if Australia stops producing salmon, the demand does not magically disappear; it simply shifts to countries where lower environmental standards are in place and there's weaker regulation. So the real choice is not whether salmon will be farmed; the real choice is whether we produce food responsibly, under strict environmental standards, right here locally in Australia and Tasmania.

That brings me to my final point. Tasmania has always been a place that feeds the nation. Our farmers do it. Our fishers do it. And, today, our aquaculture workers are doing it too. The future of this industry will not be written by those shouting from the sidelines; it will be written by Tasmanians who head out on the water before dawn, doing the hard work of producing sustainable food for the country. That is something this parliament should respect, support and stand behind.

Stevie Lee Nixon McKellar was a 27-year-old Gunggari man described by his mum Dr Raylene Nixon as cheeky and as the type who would care for strays, whether people or animals. He was a deeply empathetic young man with the ability to walk in others' shoes who would give you the shirt off his back. His auntie described him as a caring uncle for his niece and someone who would always make his family laugh. He was a young man who was deeply loved. In 2021, he was killed by Queensland cops. The last words Stevie heard were, 'Choke this cunt out,' before a police officer used a deadly restraint tactic on him euphemistically called—

I'm reluctant to interrupt you, and I apologise for doing so. I'm not sure what the protocol is when you're quoting language of that nature in this chamber. I will seek advice on that point. If, for the remainder of your speech, you would avoid using that language in this chamber, I would be most grateful.

It is euphemistically called a lateral vascular neck restraint—in plain language, a chokehold. It is a restraint designed to restrict blood flow to the brain to choke a person's brain of oxygen. Stevie's final words were: 'Help me. Help me. You've got me.' He had chronic asthma and was suffering from pneumonia. He was weak, and he was met with lethal force.

But, once again, there was no prosecution of the police involved. Once again, the coroner absolved the cops of any wrongdoing and police were told they had done the right thing while another black family buried their child. Despite calls from Stevie's family, the coroner has refused to publicly release body cam footage of the moments leading up to his death. The police lawyers successfully argued that the footage should be withheld because of potential injury to the public interest when considering how the footage will likely be received. In short, it will make the cops look bad. The coroner accepted this cover-up of the cops' violence. More than 3,000 people have now called on the coroner to release the video of Stevie's final moments.

Just like Ned Hargraves and the family of Kumanjayi White have called for the release of footage of his death—which has dragged on for months with no clarity or resolution for the family—Stevie's family is also being denied transparency. This is the same issue: police investigating themselves and the coroner relying on evidence collected by the police about their own actions. Under this rigged system, our people will never see justice. The Albanese government can act. They could legislate minimum standards across prisons, policing and the criminal legal system if they wanted to. They could ban chokeholds nationally. They could also outlaw prone restraints—when a person is pinned facedown and pressure is applied to their back. David Dungay Jr was killed this way. George Floyd was killed this way. Kumanjayi White was restrained this way before he died.

In the case of Kumanjayi White, over 10 months later, Northern Territory police have made no prosecutions and given no resolution to the family. Findings were supposed to be released by the end of March. The deadline has now passed, and we've heard nothing. It follows a long, long history of violent police investigating themselves, a protection racket that consistently offers silence and denies our people any justice. The Commonwealth could legislate for a national police oversight body to investigate deaths in custody properly—one that provides real independence, with real legal experts, elders and community involved, not police investigating the police.

I stand with Stevie Lee Nixon-McKellar's family, particularly his mother, Raylene. Release the body cam footage. Ban chokeholds. Stop cops investigating cops. And stop killing our people.

I'm regularly criticised for being overtly Christian. I'm told to keep my faith private, to leave it at the door of this chamber and to speak as though God is irrelevant and truth is negotiable. I just will not do that. I'm not merely a man with opinions. I'm a man under authority, and that authority is the authority of Christ and his church. That changes everything.

Christianity is not a lifestyle. It's not a cultural accessory. It is a total claim on the human person—on the mind, on the conscience and on the soul. Here's the reality that my critics refuse to admit: every single person in this chamber serves a doctrine of some sort. Some serve God; others serve Marxist ideology. Some serve the state or maybe even public opinion, but no-one is really neutral. So, when I'm told to leave my faith behind, what I'm really being told is: 'Abandon your authority and submit to ours instead.' No, I will not do that. I'll not trade eternal truth for political convenience. I won't bow to the false religion of relativism.

What we are really dealing with here is not the absence of religion but the rise of a new one. It's a creed without God, a morality without foundation. It's a system that demands obedience and calls it tolerance. Let's just be clear: the claim that religion has no place in politics is itself a dogma—an exclusive claim, a coercive claim. The question is not whether beliefs shape this place. They already do. We know that. The question is: which truth will govern us? When God is pushed aside, it is not neutrality that replaces him; it is power. The most oppressive regimes in history did not honour Christ; they rejected Christ. What followed was not freedom. It was control, it was persecution and it was suffering on an industrial scale. Don't tell me that taking God out of society makes it safer. It just makes it worse.

Let's speak plainly about what Christianity actually claims. What does it claim? It claims that Jesus Christ is God, that he rose from the dead and that he established a charge of authority to teach truth in every single age. Just look at the king that we proclaim. He's not a tyrant. He's not a conqueror. He's a king that was crowned with thorns, a king who went on to forgive his executioners, a king who laid down his life for his enemies. Do you know what? That is strength. That is power rightly ordered. That is the model that Christianity calls us to follow. It's not weakness and it's not chaos. It's discipline, strength and order towards truth and the good. Christianity also destroys the modern obsession with moral superiority, because no man earns salvation and no-one stands above another. We are all in need of mercy and in need of grace, which means that there is no room for the smugness, the posturing and the endless virtue signalling that now dominate public life. From that humility comes order, from that order comes justice and from that justice comes peace.

I ask you again: what kind of society does that produce? It sounds remarkably like the one that we all claim to want. Let's just be clear, again: I'm not going dilute my faith. I'm not going to pretend that truth is negotiable. I'm not going to speak as though Christ is optional. I serve a higher authority than this chamber, than this place, and that authority does not, and will never, change with the polls. A nation that rejects Christ does not become freer. It simply finds a new master; that's all. Some of you in this place don't serve the right master. I won't name names, but you know who you are.

This week, we saw a hard-won fight for Australian young workers. Yesterday, the Fair Work Commission ruled to abolish junior pay rates for workers aged 18, 19 and 20 in this nation. It is a decision that is long overdue, but it is the right decision because these workers are adults. They can vote, they can defend this nation and they can die for this nation, and they deserve to be paid adult wages.

It seems entirely fair to me that adults deserve to be paid as adults. It's a statement of basic fairness that should have never required a legal case to establish it—yet it did. Without the extraordinary work of the SDA, this decision would never have happened. This is a historic moment, and it's right to acknowledge the critical work of the SDA in standing up for young workers, as they have always done in this country. The work of the SDA will benefit thousands of young workers in Queensland—people working in retail, fast food and pharmacy on awards, workers who are tired of being told that their age is a reason to value their work less. To every one of those SDA members who stood up and said, 'Enough is enough,' this win is for you.

Under this decision, junior rates for 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds with six months of service will be phased out. For some workers, that will mean a pay rise of close to $10 per hour. Ten dollars an hour is life-changing for young people paying rent, buying groceries and trying to fill up their car with petrol—especially for a young person working in retail, who is often studying to support themselves through TAFE or uni at the same time. Some are working to help their families with their own household costs. It means the young woman stacking shelves on a Saturday morning gets paid the same as the person standing next to her who is doing the exact same job. It means the young man working a late-night shift at a fast food restaurant is no longer penalised simply for being born in 2008. It means the pharmacy assistant in regional Queensland who has been doing the same skilled work as her colleagues finally receives the recognition that her labour has the same value as theirs. This is what unions are for. This is what collective action looks like—standing up for what is right and what is fair.

I want to take a moment to recognise the contribution of Minister Amanda Rishworth. The minister has been a tireless advocate for working Australians, in particular young working Australians. She herself was a young worker back in the day, at Toys 'R' Us in Adelaide, where she was forced, as a 19-year-old girl, onto an individual agreement under John Howard's Work Choices. So the minister understood from the outset that junior pay rates for adults were wrong. She knew there was a structural injustice baked into awards that, for too long, too many people have stopped questioning. But she asked the questions, she pushed the process, she stood with the SDA when they brought this case forward and she stood with workers whose lives will be changed by this decision. On behalf of this side of the chamber, I say thank you to Minister Rishworth; this is your win too, and it is a significant one.

The SDA's campaign had a simple name: Adult Age, Adult Wage. Four words were a complete argument, and the Fair Work Commission agreed. The commission said, 'Yes, adults deserve to be paid as adults.' To the SDA leadership: thank you for running a disciplined, evidence based case and seeing it through. I know a number of young workers from Queensland working at the big, large supermarket and retail chains gave evidence. I say to them: thank you for your bravery and your honesty in coming forward and speaking out.

We know there is still more work to do. The phase-in period means these changes will take time to flow, and the SDA will be at the table to ensure that that process serves the interests of members and young workers. For those covered by SDA-negotiated enterprise agreements, further advice is coming. I am so proud to see Australian workers stand together and, together, get this well-deserved win. That is, indeed, a cause for celebration.

What we've seen this week in this place is obscene. Labor and the Greens have struck another dirty deal: 22 bills being guillotined with little to no debate. The Senate is meant to be a house of representative democracy, the house of review. It's led by the most transparent government, they say. Pff! Labor only represents 35 per cent of the population—probably less on current polling—and the Greens just 12 per cent. Ramming through all this legislation sends a clear message to the Australian people that this government does not care about giving proper representation to over half the country.

This is a complete dismantling of our democracy. It is atrocious, shameful behaviour. We are not talking about minor, technical bills. No. This is not about clearing away a few inconsequential measures that have been sitting around. These are substantial, important bills that will now pass without any debate. This is happening because the Greens, who spend every day screaming about everyone else's vested interests, have cut a grubby backroom deal, again, that spits in the face of democracy.

What has been rushed through? Let's begin with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Genetic Testing Protections in Life Insurance and Other Measures) Bill 2025. This is classic Labor, a measure we would support but for the poisoned pills jammed into it: the 'other measures'. One Nation supports schedule 1, which stops life insurance companies from using genetic testing to discriminate in their policies. We do not want insurance companies influencing parents' decisions on their unborn children by denying cover based on genetic make-up. We would support this measure, but Labor has done what it does all the time and slipped in a poisoned pill which is completely unrelated in 'other measures'.

Schedule 3 of this bill includes new powers allowing appropriations to multilateral development banks and the IMF. In plain language, this bill gives the power to pay out taxpayer money from consolidated revenue to foreign globalist banks. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It allows for the delegation of these powers from ministers to senior bureaucrats. Australia cannot afford to be giving handouts. One Nation rejects any powers that send taxpayer money overseas to globalist bureaucrats. Stop creating these bills that hide serious expansion powers in 'other measures'. Labor must allow real debate, instead of hiding behind record numbers of guillotined bills.

Another bill rammed through without debate on the back of this dirty Greens-Labor deal is the National Health Amendment (Passive Immunological Products) Bill 2026. Just four years after the COVID pandemic, Labor is changing the definition of a vaccine without any debate. Does Labor really think the Australian people are happy to see the definition of a vaccination expanded to include mRNA vaccines, with zero discussion? Unbelievable! Is this the will of the people or has Labor completely stopped caring about what Australians want?

The horror stories from COVID—the damage from rushed, untested experimental vaccines—will be studied for decades. One Nation would have a royal commission into this debacle. We will fight for a reckoning against those who are reckless and malicious in their positions of power. One Nation have moved an amendment to the bill requiring that all vaccines must be tested against a placebo, which is pretty standard stuff. Go and have a look at who actually voted with us.

Currently vaccines are only tested against other vaccines. That is not the gold standard; it is substandard. When manufacturers cannot be held liable for damages, we must demand the highest testing standards. Again, there is no debate, no democracy, no respect for the will of the people. There is only the will of PM Albanese and his dirty salad partners.

Finally, there is the Corporations Amendment (Digital Assets Framework) Bill 2025. This is an enormous piece of legislation—highly complex and more than 200 pages long including the bill and explanatory memorandum. It grants the minister broad new powers to prohibit certain digital asset classes and to create regulations governing digital assets. One Nation recognises the need for some protections for Australians in the digital assets space. However, many Australians are rightly concerned that these powers are too sweeping. The bill lacks detail on the specific regulations, leaving room for dangerous, heavy-handed government overreach. By forcing this bill through with no debate and no time to prepare amendments, Labor, with only 35 per cent of the vote, has told the rest of Australia that it does not care what they think. The Australian people are being deprived of the representation they are promised under our Constitution. This is not a government for the people; it is a government only in it for themselves. And it's a government telling Aussies, 'You don't matter.'

Access to the right care at the right time, close to home and at a cost people can afford are the hallmarks of our healthcare system, but none of this is possible without the healthcare workers who make it all possible. I'd like to give a particular shout-out to my niece, Maddie, who is currently studying nursing. She is studying to join Australia's single-largest health profession. At 54.5 per cent of the workforce, nurses are the spine of our healthcare system. They are often the first point of contact. They coordinate care. They manage chronic disease. They educate patients and families. They deliver preventive health. They keep people safe and stable when the system is under pressure. It is also important to say plainly: nursing remains a highly gendered profession, and the value of this work has not always been recognised in the way that it should be. Too often caring work is taken for granted. Too often it is treated as a support rather than a skilled clinical practice.

The reality is that registered nurses are highly trained, highly educated professionals who make complex clinical decisions every single day. Our reform to enable suitably qualified registered nurses to prescribe under the PBS recognises this. It will also support our healthcare system to be what we all want it to be—accessible and affordable. One nurse from my home state of Victoria told me: 'I spend a good portion of my day asking doctors to write scripts, and I usually tell them exactly what to write.' Registered nurses already operate under strict professional standards and accountability frameworks. Giving nurses within these frameworks the power to prescribe is about respecting the skilled clinical work that they do. It's also about removing inefficiencies, and it means we can move beyond outdated models to reflect modern patient needs, modern clinical practice and our modern workforce.

Nurse prescribing is not a radical idea. Internationally, it is an established and evidence based strategy to improve access and to better use workforce capability. Countries such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands have implemented nurse prescribing successfully. This is exactly the kind of healthcare reform we should embrace in Australia—practical, proven and patient-focused—and it is exactly the kind of workforce reform we should embrace, one that recognises a feminised workforce with the respect that it deserves.

With my remaining 2½ minutes, I would also like to give a shout-out to the superannuation sector. Australia's superannuation system is rightly regarded as one of the strongest in the world, which is why last week I was very proud to launch the Parliamentary Friends of Superannuation with my co-chairs and colleagues Senator Nick McKim and the member for Page, Kevin Hogan.

Superannuation has a simple purpose: to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement. It is one of our very best pieces of economic architecture. The Parliamentary Friends of Superannuation is a new forum to drive practical discussion about what that means and to build a shared understanding of the key challenges and opportunities facing fund members in a bipartisan way. Thank you to those who came along—my fellow co-chairs, in particular. What was clear to me from our event was that there is a strong shared drive to keep focused on what matters most, and that is strong retirement outcomes and a dignified retirement for working Australians. With more than 2.5 million Australians expected to retire in the next 10 years, this group matters because it keeps the focus on real-world challenges and opportunities that shape people's retirement.

The superannuation sector is valued at approximately $4.5 trillion today. This money represents the hard-earned wages of millions of Australians, forming a central pillar of our retirement income system. The strength of Australia's superannuation system has been built over decades, through cooperation and careful reform. Ensuring it remains fair is a responsibility for all of us parliamentarians. The nature of superannuation is such that the effect our decisions make today may not be felt until long after we have left this place. The actions and decisions that we make now will affect the retirement of workers in 20 to 30 years time. We must be thinking about the generations that will be around long after we have left this place, in order to be the best guardians of this critical system. The parliamentary friends group is an important part of continuing that work, and I look forward to its continued engagement with the parliament and the sector.

It being right on the cusp of 1.30, we will now move to two-minute statements.

I rise to speak today regarding an issue that is something that I've had quite a deal of connection to and that concerns me enormously with respect to where we are today. In 2019, the number of people on the national waiting list for a home-care package was somewhere in the order of 128,000 people. It was way too high. Worse, the waiting time was over 12 months—in some cases, more than two years. Again, that was not acceptable, and the royal commission into aged care told us unequivocally that it had to be fixed. The investment of the coalition government in response to the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was significant. Over that period just after the royal commission, we put an extra 118,000 home-care packages into the system. That investment reduced the waiting list from 128,000 to a bit over 28,000 people and reduced the waiting time for a home-care package at any level to 30 to 90 days. If it was a high-needs home-care package, it would be available inside 30 days.

The absolute tragedy and disgrace that we see today is that the numbers now are worse than they were in 2019. There are over 130,000 people on the national waiting list. There are another 100,000 people waiting to be assessed. That is over 230,000 people waiting for home care. The waiting time at a national average is 14 months. In 2024-25, double the number of people who died from COVID died waiting for a package. It is not good enough.

I rise today to recognise two outstanding young Tasmanians who I recently had the opportunity to meet here in Parliament House. Rhylan Walters, from Scottsdale High School, was named Tasmania's winner of the 2026 Simpson Prize, and Imogen Ferguson, from Sacred Heart College, who was named Tasmania's runner-up. It was great to meet Rhylan and Imogen. They are thoughtful and engaged young people and a credit to their schools, communities and families. The Simpson Prize is a national history competition for year 9 and 10 students. It asks Australians to look closely at the experiences of those who served in the first and second world wars. Each year, students from across the country are asked to engage with challenging historical questions. They draw on primary sources from the Australian War Memorial along with their own research to build a considered and evidence based response.

In 2026, students were asked to evaluate how useful diary entries, letters and photographs are in understanding the experiences of Australians who served in a war. It's not an easy task. It requires careful thinking and understanding of different perspectives and a willingness to look beyond the headline stories of war and understand the lived experiences of those who served. This goes beyond learning dates and events; it's about interpreting evidence, understating different perspectives and recognising how the past continues to shape the present. This is what makes the Simpson Prize so important. It helps young Australians understand what happened and why it still matters. I was immensely proud of both Rhylan and Imogen, who represented Tasmania so well.

Today, I'm going to read out an email that I received last week from a constituent, a self-described burnt-out mum from Blackwater in Central Queensland. She says:

I am writing this with a level of rage and exhaustion I never thought I'd feel in Australia. I am a mother in regional Queensland, part of a two-income household, and I am currently skipping meals so my children can eat.

I am walking everywhere to save fuel money while our government sends resources and troops overseas for a war we never asked for.

I live in a mining town. I watch the wealth of the country being dug up and shipped out every day, yet those mining corporations pay basically zero tax while they sell our own resources back to us at prices we can't afford.

It's an absolute betrayal.

We are a community of workers and families struggling to support each other because the government has let us down a path of greed and destruction.

We do not align with the values of the US government, and we certainly do not align with the 'annoying orange' presiding over them.

Why are we tying our future to a foreign power while our towns die? That money—and the taxes the mining giants should be paying—could house every person and feed every child in this country.

Instead, it's bankrolling a war machine you don't want.

We want change and we want it now.

This is not the first email that I have received along those lines, nor will it be the last, but I think it really encapsulates the feeling out there in the community. Ordinary people are paying the price for this war that this government backed in. It was the first out of the blocks to do so, and it should not have. Moreover, it is time for those greedy gas corporations, who are making bank out of this war, to pay their fair share so we can give cost-of-living relief to ordinary people.

I refer to South Australia's algal bloom crisis. When does a government's failure to act become a decision to conceal? That is the question South Australians are asking, and it is the question this parliament should keep demanding answers to. The ABC's Four Corners program aired a damning investigation into the algal bloom crisis that continues to devastate South Australia's coastline, our marine life and our communities. What it revealed was deeply troubling. How is it that the South Australian public was kept in the dark by the state and federal Labor government? Surely, it wasn't an oversight or just bad luck.

Following the deaths of countless thousands of marine animals, there was the death of about 100 kangaroos that had to be euthanised in March 2025 due to the presence of harmful toxins in their organs—the same ones that were found in the ocean. How was that not known? Or did the government choose instead to just look the other way? South Australians reported stinging eyes, coughing, rashes, headaches and breathing difficulties. They presented to medical centres. They desperately took their sick animals to emergency vets. Yet the advice from governments, state and federal, remained unchanged.

How is your system so broken that you didn't know, if that is your reason for no action? How is it that you didn't know? How did your actions fall so well short of public expectations that you just told them that? This very Senate conducted an inquiry into the algal bloom. It began in July 2025 and concluded in November, yet remarkably no federal department, other than the Bureau of Meteorology, appeared as a witness or made a submission. How is that?

I note that yesterday you formally responded to the report, but we already know that much of the information is missing. So I return to where I began: What was your government's failure? Was it a calculated decision to conceal? I believe so.

This global oil shock has exposed our fuel vulnerabilities. If we are to become a more energy-resilient nation, then we need, as much as possible, to decouple ourselves from Middle Eastern oil. Australia is the highest user of diesel among developed countries. We use 7.7 barrels per person. This compares to the US, at 4.2 barrels, and Canada, at 5.2. We spend around $60 billion a year on diesel, which incidentally is about the same amount of money we earn from mining taxes and royalties. It's extraordinary.

As a diesel-dependent economy, we rely on trucks to keep Australia moving, but those trucks parked on the side of the road are a wake-up call. As we now pull every lever in the book to keep this country moving, we need to look to the future. Australians are familiar with electric vehicles, but they associate EVs with cars—light passenger vehicles. They're not as familiar with electric trucks, but electric trucks are not science fiction anymore. In fact, this week an electric prime mover, an electric truck, rolled into Canberra and parked on the lawns of parliament. It came from Sydney to Canberra on a $50 charge, and it did it in 25 minutes less time. Why? It is because EVs do not lose speed as they go uphill. They are also quieter, save around 70 per cent to 80 per cent on fuel costs and are healthier for drivers. Drivers report that there is less vibration, and they are quieter to drive. They also like the fact that they are not exposed to diesel particulate matter, which is not good for their health.

The Albanese Labor government has been quietly backing in electric trucks for some years now. We have helped Toll and Linfox purchase 54 electric trucks, and we've put $25 million into three electric truck charging stations in Victoria. We know we need to do more, but the future is at hand. We need to electrify heavy transport.

Easter is a time to celebrate Jesus's resurrection and the joy of Christianity. We live in a time when Christianity is under attack. I spoke of those world events earlier this week. Remember, though, John 10:10, which says:

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I—

Jesus—

came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.

Our young are returning to Christianity's message of hope and joy in God. Our scripture says exactly that in Romans 15:13. It reads:

May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him.

Christianity is a world free of artificial separations—no cis white privilege. No-one sees your skin colour. No-one carries a diversity card, and the only pronouns are the ones God gave us. It's the original world of real inclusion—values that characterise One Nation.

In the past year alone, Bible sales rose 19 per cent, with most of the growth in physical hardcover editions. These are quality bibles being purchased to retain and hand down. In the UK, the Catholic Church recorded a 21 per cent rise in baptisms to their highest level in 11 years. Adult first holy communions increased 44 per cent, and adult sacraments of initiation rose 60 per cent. Baptists recorded the highest baptism rate in 10 years. Fifty-seven per cent of churches are reporting growth averaging 13 per cent. Alpha UK are cross-denominational Christians. They run Welcome to Christianity courses, which grew 35 per cent in 2025, to over 10,000 groups.

This Easter I invite all Australians to visit their families, make a call that may be months or years overdue, contact a relative who has slipped out of touch and celebrate life and our beautiful country. Happy, safe Easter to everyone.

Many Australians are doing it tough as we come into this Easter holiday break. But let me take you back just one month before the start of hostilities in the Middle East and before the impacts of those hostilities started to affect the global economy. Australians were already doing it tough. They'd seen their standard of living fall further and faster than other comparable nations—the biggest decline in our standard of living in decades. Yes, there has been an international shock, but we already had inflation well above the Reserve Bank band. We already had an interest rate rise based on the pre-conflict state of the Australian economy under Labor.

Heading into this Easter break, we now face an additional challenge and one that has been dismally managed by this Labor government, and that is the fuel crisis triggered by events in the Middle East. I've spoken to so many farmers who are in a state of bewilderment, a state of uncertainty, as they contemplate what this means for their business not just over the next two weeks but over the year ahead. This crisis has ramifications that stretch out in front of farmers, small-business people and families not just over the Easter break but for months and the year ahead. Labor has failed.

I rise proudly to mention to everyone who wants to listen that I just completed another mattress run up to the Kimberley. It's been a fantastic time. I want to thank Don Bantock from Bedshed. Everyone knows what I do. Thanks Don—105 king and queen sized mattresses destined for the elderly in Derby, Beagle Bay, Ardyaloon, Lombadina and Djarindjin. I want to thank Ray Christophers from Nirrumbuk Environmental Health and Services for his help and my very dear friend Justin Cardaci from Centurion Transport. You want to talk about the price of fuel? I fuelled up in Port Headland and watched $3,000 dollars worth of fuel go into the tanks, and we were only halfway to where we were going. So I know all about it.

I want to make a special thank you for this mattress that run we do and that you know I'm so proud to do three or four times a year to help the needy, the elderly and the victims of domestic violence. I was having a chat to my very dear friend Peter Marshall from the United Firefighters Union about this, and Peter said: 'Jeez, that's something that is in our wheelhouse. We wouldn't mind.' He said, 'Glenn, do you want a hand to load?' I said: 'Look, I wouldn't mind, Pete. That'd be great!' Pete is from Melbourne. He said, 'I think we'll rustle up a couple of blokes.' Well, I rolled up at seven o'clock there three Thursdays ago to start loading three trailers—I nearly said 'bugger me', sorry; I won't say that!—and, darn, there were no fewer than 20 firefighters from WA, and a couple had come across from Victoria. They were proudly in their uniforms on their day off and wanted to make their contribution. I was absolutely overwhelmed. I know, when you look at this bronzed adonis on his two feet here, you'd think he'd be able to do it on his own nowadays. But, no, I desperately need that help. I was so thankful.

Don, who owns Bedshed in Osborne Park was absolutely gobsmacked. I don't think he's ever had that many firefighters. I think he actually started packing his daks in case he didn't have his fire extinguishers up to speed! I said: 'It's alright, Don. They're with us. They're giving us a hand.' To Peter and the UFU: guys, thank you so much for your help.

Let's just do a quick stocktake. The international price of oil is skyrocketing. Public transport remains underfunded and inaccessible for so many. Electric vehicle uptake has been deliberately slowed. Let's be honest. None of this happened by accident. Decades of policy choices have locked us into fossil fuel dependency—decades of governments backing in oil and gas and sidelining the alternatives, decades of following the US into conflicts that destabilise global energy markets. Now here we are, hooked on petrol, exposed to every international shock and sending billions of dollars offshore while households struggle to keep up. What's the plan—to double-down with a multibillion-dollar nuclear submarine project that does nothing to bring down energy prices or to make people's lives easier? We get sprayed by insults from Donald Trump, despite our obedience to his war regime.

But maybe—just maybe—this is an opportunity for every single person in this chamber to look past the lobbyists and the corporate donors and start acting in the public interest. It sounds pretty novel. There is a clear, practical step that we could take right now. The Greens have written to the Prime Minister offering to pass a tax of at least 25 per cent on gas exports, and we've secured an inquiry into it. A minimum 25 per cent gas export tax could bring in $17 billion per year to help with electrification, to make public transport free and to help people who are experiencing soaring costs of living. The question, time and time again, is not whether we can afford it, but whether this place is willing to do it.

I want to put it plainly to Australians: our nation must become self-sufficient and self-reliant. We're not a fragile outpost; we're an entire continent rich in iron ore, coal, gas, uranium, fertile land, sunshine, water—all of it. We've got it all. Yet somehow we behave like a country with nothing. We dig the wealth out of the ground, we ship it overseas, and we buy it back at a premium once others have made it useful. It's ridiculous. This is not economic strategy. It's national self-sabotage.

Now, any serious country would ask: 'Why can't we refine our own fuel? Why can't we manufacture our own medicines? Why can't we build a car? Why can't we build our own advanced technology here at home, instead of importing everything?' We rely on these global supply chains, and we don't control them. We can't guarantee what happens. One disruption and we're all exposed, vulnerable. We're dependent.

Then there's defence. We speak about alliances. They matter, but they're not sovereignty, right? In a crisis, every nation is going to look after itself first. Now Australia must be able to stand on its own two feet, not wait, not hope and not ask. It must stand.

What of our culture? Like our industries, it's increasingly imported until, eventually, we're going to become indistinguishable from everywhere else. A nation that forgets who it is does not remain a nation for long. It just doesn't; that's the simple truth of it. A country that can't stand alone is eventually going to be made to kneel. Australia has everything that we need right here—every resource, every advantage and everything, it seems, except the will to act like a sovereign nation. That's got to change decisively and without any delay. We should be able to build a big, giant, beautiful wall around Australia and have everything that we need right here without having to rely on anyone.

I want to take a moment to speak in support of the mighty Transport Workers' Union and the workers they represent across aviation. Aviation workers from across the country, from Qantas to Virgin, from city and regional airports and from contracting organisations came to Canberra calling for safe and secure skies. These are people working to keep our planes and our airports running and working to get you to your holiday, business trip or back home to your family. These are flight attendants, pilots and customer service, ground handling, refuelling, catering and security staff. What really stuck with me listening to these workers, particularly the ones who had been in the industry for a long time, is that they had said to me that jobs in aviation used to be good jobs. They used to be secure jobs, well-paid jobs, jobs that people were proud to have and jobs that people could build a career on and plan their lives around working in aviation. It wasn't just a job; it was something you could absolutely rely on.

That has slowly been chipped away. I heard from a pilot who said he's constantly being moved around different bases and different states with no certainty about where he'll be next. He said it's not just about the impact on him but about the impact on his family who get disrupted every single time he has to move. This is happening right now. In April, QantasLink will shut its flight and cabin crew bases in Canberra, Hobart and Mildura, displacing 71 employees, who will be offered redeployment to larger hubs. This is not what secure work looks like. But what I keep coming back to is this: we need to get back to a place where these are good jobs again, where people can rely on them, where they're treated fairly, and where people who keep this country moving are valued. That's what this fight is about.

There have been two more First Nations deaths in custody in the Northern Territory in less than a week. It means there are two more families who will never get their loved ones home and two more names added to a list that is, shamefully, growing. A 26-year-old First Nations man died inside a Darwin correctional centre, and a 25-year-old First Nations man died after becoming unresponsive, having been arrested and placed in the back of a police van.

First Nations people are massively overrepresented in every statistic on death in custody, and, in the NT, it's a downright travesty and a disgrace. This government, who have argued so forcefully for a Voice for First Nations people, are ignoring the voices of families and experts who are calling for national action. Eighty per cent of every police van in the NT is paid for by the Commonwealth. Eighty per cent of every cell is paid for by the Commonwealth. So, 80 per cent of every death is the responsibility of the Commonwealth. We cannot look away. This is not a run of bad luck in the NT. It is a predictable consequence of a system that locks up Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at extraordinary rates. If you're in the NT and you talk with First Nations peoples and advocates, they'll tell you it's not a justice system in the NT; it's an occupation. It's an occupation of First Nations land, and it's a hostile occupation that is carried out, so often, by the police. It needs to end.

I can't end this contribution on the NT without noting my enormous gratitude for the work and solidarity of Harriet Scandol, who's been the party manager of the NT Greens. She's moving onto another challenge. Harriet, I want to thank you for all your work, thank you for your solidarity, and wish you the best of luck in the future.

The illegal US-Israel war on Iran is causing economic pain across this country, but price shocks for First Peoples living in remote communities are even deeper—but ignored. Yesterday, I met an elder from Doomadgee, Queensland, who told me the cost and limited supply of diesel there have left the medical centre without power. People are missing out on critical medical treatment. Food costs are also skyrocketing. In remote stores, a tin of SPAM costs 10 bucks and a bit of salad costs $20. There are three urgent actions this Labor government should take to meet the needs of First Peoples in remote communities going without life's basics because of this Labor backed war.

First, Labor must urgently increase the Remote Area Allowance to offset the high cost of remote living. The current $9 a week is a pittance. It's rations, like from the mission masters. It was last increased in the year 2000, and it isn't indexed. It must be significantly increased and indexed to keep up with increasing costs.

Second, Labor must fix the remote food subsidy scheme that the minister loves to spruik. Rising fuel, freight and fertiliser costs are undermining it. An immediate increase would keep food affordable.

Third, Labor must intervene to stop big corporations like Woolies shutting remote stores in the interests of profit, like we're seeing in Nhulunbuy. Labor are complicit in this war. They must take responsibility for the harm it is causing.

Australians are struggling to afford Easter this year under this Labor government. We enter this fuel crisis in the worst economic position when compared to our peers. Australians have suffered the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world. This is not the Australia that I know and love. Inflation is higher than in every other major advanced economy, and the Labor Treasurer has stated that a five per cent rise in inflation would now be a conservative estimate.

We are, according to economists, also staring down the barrel of stagflation—stagnant economic growth and high inflation leading to high unemployment. Fourteen interest rate rises have happened under Prime Minister Albanese. That's more than under Rudd, under Gillard, under Abbott, under Turnbull and under Morrison combined. That's five PMs. That is a gross failure of this Albanese Labor government. Debt is racing towards a trillion dollars while government spending is it at its highest rate in history and getting higher. Australians are paying more and getting less.

The coalition is fighting for all Australians, not just those in a union. This week, we forced this Labor government to axe the fuel tax. It is welcome relief for Australians struggling to afford Easter this year, but now Labor needs to work out how they will pay for it. We in the coalition offered solutions, but this is a government without a plan. And I tell you what, they're looking like characters of The Hollowmen right now, looking for the headline to the title of their next big announcement, but they're all totally hollow within. Only the coalition will restore Australians' standard of living and protect our way of life.

Fairness at work, dignity in pay, and respect for young workers—I'd like to take the opportunity to congratulate the SDA on the hard fought campaign to ensure that 18- to 20-year-olds are paid the same money for doing the same job as their co-workers who are 21 and over. This reform is simple. It is fair, and it is long overdue. If you're doing the same work, carrying the same responsibilities and meeting the same expectations, you deserve the same pay. Age should not ever come into the equation. It's no excuse for lowering wages, lowering respect and lowering standards.

Before going further, I wanted to acknowledge the work of the SDA in my home state of Tasmania, including that of the current state secretary, Joel Tynan, and the long-serving former state secretary Paul Griffin OAM, whose leadership, advocacy and commitment have helped deliver better pay and fairer conditions for the next generation of Tasmanians.

In my home state of Tasmania, young people make up a significant part of the workforce in these sectors. They keep shops open, businesses running and communities functioning. The relentless campaigning of the SDA has ensured that young people are respected and they get paid for the same work as their co-workers who are considered to be adults. This is better for the country. It's certainly better for my home state. As Labor colleagues here will know—

Thank you, Senator Polley.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. On Monday, the Prime Minister urged Australians to 'enjoy their Easter' and not cancel their holidays. Now we hear the Prime Minister will address Australians this evening to encourage Australians to help save fuel for areas that need it. Given his mixed messaging to the Australian people, can actually you tell us: what does the Prime Minister want Australians to do?

Thank you, Senator Cash, for that question. I make the point that we have been making for some time: this is a conflict and a shock to global energy markets which is having an effect on our economy that is being experienced both in terms of supply but also price. I have laid out here the plan that the Prime Minister announced on Monday as well as the measures, in the last weeks, the government has taken to shore-up supply.

As part of that, the Prime Minister has determined to address the nation tonight because this is an unprecedented shock to global energy markets that is impacting on the economy. If I may say, what that question again demonstrates is that this opposition is simply not up to the task. We are facing a conflict in the Middle East. We are facing effects on global supply—the largest shock in energy markets since the 1970s—

Order! Senator O'Sullivan!

And they are complaining that the Prime Minister wants to speak to the country about how we're dealing with it! That just says something about the opposition. If we look at what's been reported about the leaked talking points, where they say that the message of the day is 'to create doubt within the public about whether the government had an adequate fuel plan', that really demonstrates why this is not a serious opposition, why they are not up to the task, why they had the result in the election and why they continue to demonstrate an absence of what is required to lead this country.

Order! When you've quite finished, Senator Henderson.

Senator Ayres! The chamber will come to order. Senator Cash, first supplementary?

Minister, parliament is sitting right now. The Prime Minister has the floor of House of Representatives available to him at this very moment to tell the Australian people exactly what he wants them to do. Why is the Prime Minister waiting for parliament to rise tonight to deliver a televised address to the nation, rather than using the floor of the House of Representatives right now and be accountable to the parliament and the Australian people?

Last time I looked, question time in the House of Representatives was on as we speak. Frankly, Senator Cash, if you think that we're worried about coming to parliament to answer your question, you've really got tickets on yourself.

We are very clear about leadership the Prime Minister is showing on this issue—

Minister Wong, I'm sorry. Come to order! Senator O'Sullivan, you are well and truly out of line. You are yelling so loudly—and I've already called you a couple of times. Minister Wong, please continue.

We have outlined to the Australian people over the last weeks every step of the way what we were doing to secure supply, to release 20 per cent of Australia's stockholding and to change the fuel standards to enable more fuel to be refined in Australia and used in Australia. We have been upfront about how we are seeking to assure supply and the international engagement that I, the Prime Minister, Minister King and Minister Bowen have had. We have outlined the legislation that we passed last night for Export Finance Australia to secure more supply and many other matters. We have been clear with Australians, and we will be. (Time expired)

Second supplementary, Senator Cash?

Minister, can you identify a single consistent message this government has sent to the Australian people during this government's fuel crisis? The Prime Minister says, 'Drive.' The Treasurer says, 'Work from home.' The energy minister says, 'Supply is fine,' and yet almost 900 servos are now dry across Australia. Which one of those messages should Australians believe?

That their government will do everything we can to shield them from the impacts of this global shock. We will do everything we can to shield them from the impacts of this crisis in global energy markets. That is our commitment to the Australian people.

Before I come to you, Senator Stewart, I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Singaporean Minister-in-charge of Energy and Science & Technology, Dr Tan See Leng. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate.

Honourable senators: Hear, hear!

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. It's been over a month since the beginning of the conflict in Iran. Since then, the Albanese Labor government has been working around the clock to support Australians affected and to shield Australians from an unprecedented energy supply shock. What actions has the government taken to support and protect Australians?

Thank you to Senator Stewart. The longer this war goes, the worse the impacts will be. Iran's weaponisation of the strait is causing unprecedented energy supply shocks, impacting oil and fuel prices worldwide. Australians know this is pushing fuel prices up for consumers and businesses.

It is why we are acting now to prepare and shield Australians from the worst of it. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced the National Fuel Security Plan, outlining all Australian jurisdictions' collective response to fuel security, including immediate actions already taken and longer term measures to strengthen our economic resilience.

We are empowering Export Finance Australia to step in to support businesses purchasing critical supplies in the national interest so we can secure additional fuel and other strategic materials, including fertiliser. We've appointed a national fuel supply taskforce coordinator and released 20 per cent of Australia's petrol and diesel fuel reserves, targeted at regional areas. We've changed fuel standards to get more fuel flowing and changed diesel standards so Australia's refineries can supply more diesel.

We've tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel-price monitoring and passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies. Our decision to halve the fuel excise on petrol and diesel for three months will begin to flow through to users this week, and we have engaged with international partners to keep supply flowing, including agreeing a joint statement with Singapore to strengthen energy supply resilience and to help ensure the continued flow of essential fuels. I acknowledge Minister Tan See Leng, who I was pleased to meet with today, and we welcome him to the chamber. Many of Singapore's refineries that provide Australia's petrol and diesel are powered by Australian gas. Nothing better demonstrates our partnership, how much we rely upon each other and why we are committed to being reliable partners.

Senator Stewart, first supplementary?

Thank you, Minister, for that response. The Albanese Labor government has taken early action to support Australians through these energy shocks, and it continues to plan for every scenario to support Australians through this challenging period. What else is the government doing to support Australians?

We understand so many Australians have no choice but to rely on petrol, which is why we are asking Australians to use only what they need. As well as reducing the cost of fuel, our government is also reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months to help truckies continue their vital work for our nation, and we've introduced laws to make sure companies pay truckies fairly when fuel prices spike.

The Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business today announced the ATO will provide temporary relief for businesses unable to meet their tax obligations due to fuel supply issues, where appropriate. We will help small business access easier and faster credit by extending the small business responsible lending obligation exemption for a further 10 years. We have acted early and we will continue to act to support Australians through this challenging period.

Senator Stewart, second supplementary?

The crisis in the Middle East has also required engagement with our international partners to support Australians. What has the government done to help bring Australians home and to engage with our international counterparts to advocate for Australia's interests?

Senator Stewart and many others, I am sure, will have had Australians seeking consular advice, and I'm pleased that over 10,000 Australians have now returned home from the Middle East on direct flights since 4 March. I thank regional partners, commercial airlines and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials for helping to bring Australians home. We are continuing to engage with our partners through this conflict to respond to the unprecedented shock in the global economy. We've joined 34 countries in a statement to condemn attacks by Iran and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz. And Australia co-sponsored a decision of the IMO council condemning Iran's attack on seafarers and merchant vessels in the strait. We will remain focused on building our resilience to withstand global shocks, making sovereign choices to keep Australians and our economy moving no matter what the world throws at us. The Prime Minister will have more to say this evening when he addresses the nation.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to reporting by Sky News reporter Cam Reddin that government ministers have started cancelling travel to reduce fuel consumption, that members of government are considering not bringing staff to Canberra for budget week and that ministers are considering catching the bus to Canberra, because they are concerned about fuel. If ministers don't have confidence in Australia's fuel supply, which the Prime Minister and energy minister have said is at higher levels than before the conflict, how can Australians have confidence that we actually have enough fuel?

First, I would make the point that, as I said and the Prime Minister said, we are saying to Australians, 'Use what fuel you need to but no more.' That is consistent with what you have just put to me. But, if I may say, Senator Duniam, what that question demonstrates is precisely the motivation that your leaked talking points demonstrate. What it says—

Opposition senators interjecting—

I'll take the interjection from Senator Cash. She persistently interjects that she's standing up for the Australian people. No, you are standing up your political interests. And we know that from the leaked talking points. The message of the day was 'Create doubt about fuel supply.'

Minister Wong, resume your seat. Senator Duniam?

On a point around relevance, I asked a very specific question, as you recall. This has nothing to do with it.

Thank you, Senator Duniam. I am well aware of your question. I also remind you that, where senators interject, the minister is perfectly within her rights to take the interjection. So, as I have been saying since 2 pm—I have been calling for order—if you can get people to be quiet then that would be a gold star for you. Minister Wong, please continue.

I was asked by this shadow minister, Senator Duniam, about confidence in the fuel supply. It is exactly what he has been asked to do. It is in leaked talking points that the opposition is being tasked with creating doubt about fuel. You're doing exactly—

Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Canavan?

Given the minister is reading from a document, could I ask for it to be tabled? I haven't seen the talking points and I'm on Andrew Bolt tonight, so I wouldn't mind reading them!

Senator Canavan, please. Resume your seat. Minister Wong.

Senator Canavan, thank you for narrowing down the suspected leakers by exclusion of the National Party; we appreciate it! And I am quoting from the Daily Telegraph and what was published about your leaked talking points. At least Senator Duniam is a loyal member of the Taylor team. He is doing what the leaked talking points tell us about the strategy, which is: 'Create doubt. Sow fear.' The problem for the opposition is that it simply demonstrates why they are unfit to seek to be the alternative government of Australia.

Senator Duniam, first supplementary.

There was no answer to that question. I ask: The National Fuel Security Plan currently states that level 3, 'take targeted action', requires adopting voluntary practical measures to limit fuel use. What specific trigger in the National Fuel Security Plan has been met to justify ministers limiting their travel? And why hasn't this been disclosed to Australians?

As the Prime Minister said when he announced this plan after National Cabinet, we are currently at level 2. Level 2 includes the government taking precautionary actions to shore up fuel supply: buy only the fuel you need, make voluntary choices to use less, and avoid the impact of higher fuel prices. So, Senator, we are acting in accordance with the plan that we have transparently made available to the Australian people, and the Prime Minister will have more to say in his address to the nation tonight.

What I would say, again, is that in a time when we see an unprecedented global shock—the worst shock that energy markets have experienced since the 1970s—we have the alternative government of the day not being, as we have been in the past, when in opposition, willing to put aside partisanship for the national interest. What we see is the opposition trying to make people scared. (Time expired)

Senator Duniam, second supplementary.

Minister, in light of the behaviour of government ministers starting to implement fuel rationing themselves, doesn't this prove that the government is saying one thing publicly while preparing for a fuel crisis behind closed doors? And will the Prime Minister and his ministers be limiting the use of the taxpayer funded spa flights over the coming weeks in order to save fuel?

I'm just waiting for order.

The Australian people have seen, over these weeks, the action the government has taken to shore up supply. The Australian people have seen—

Order!

the action the government has taken to enable more fuel to flow to Australia and to look to deal with distribution issues.

Order!

The Australian people have seen the National Cabinet meetings, including where the National Fuel Security Plan was adopted and made public—

Order! Senator McGrath, you continued your interjections. I called order three times. I called you by your name, and you continued the running commentary.

Senator O'Sullivan is joining you in my desire to try to get you to come to order. Minister Wong.

The Australian people have seen our engagement with international partners and the Australian people will have the benefit of the reduction in excise and the heavy vehicle road user charge. And tonight the Prime Minister will address the nation, because this is an unprecedented shock on global markets.

What the Australian people also see, colleagues, is the behaviour of those opposite, who, true to form, are unable, when things are tough, to ever look beyond their own— (Time expired)

My question is to the finance minister, representing the Treasurer, Minister Gallagher, about the upcoming budget and the effects of the war. Fuel prices went up at the pump almost immediately after the US and Israel invaded Iran. Prices went up straightaway, and they've risen by, on average, 80c already this month, even though that was all on the sale of fuel that was already bought and held before the war began. Yet, when it comes to passing on the relief, the Treasurer says we have to wait for the full 26c of fuel excise cuts to flow through to customers. Why is it that the government hasn't insisted that suppliers immediately lower prices and pass on the fuel excise cut or, better yet, passed stronger anti-price-gouging laws already?

I thank Senator Waters for the question. I think the government has been very clear that the effects of the conflict in the Middle East on the Australian economy, on the global economy—whilst they continue to be highly uncertain, the longer this conflict goes on, the more significant those consequences will be. Senator Waters is right that this has been immediately felt at the household level and the business level through those increases at the petrol pump, whether it be for petrol or diesel. We're seeing ministers work in a whole range of industries with industry leaders about some of the effects they're seeing, in particular industries based on that. The government has responded with our National Fuel Security Plan. We've taken decisive action. We've done a range of measures, which I've updated the Senate on this week.

In relation to the fuel excise, the Treasurer has been very clear that the decision to halve the fuel excise and to have that come into effect from 1 April, today—we will see prices come down. It depends on the purchase of that fuel and purchasing fuel that has the excise taken off it, and so, in some places, it will take a little bit longer. We're trying to be upfront with people about that. It's based on contracted supplies, and, as that works through the system, you will see those prices come off. But we've also given the ACCC—for the work they're doing both themselves and through direction from government—the expectation we have for monitoring and ensuring that, where these decisions have been taken, the flow-on effects and the impact and the reduction in the price of petrol are realised at the bowsers by motorists when they fill their cars up, and we expect that to happen as soon as possible. (Time expired)

Senator Waters, first supplementary?

Today's big-business tax liability delay is another concession which has no requirement to be passed on to workers or consumers. So far, only businesses are getting direct relief, and people again have to wait and hope that those businesses pass it on. Why isn't the government doing immediate and direct cost-of-living relief, putting money in people's pockets to spend wherever they're hurting, whether it's on groceries or bills or petrol or transport?

The government has made a number of announcements, including the partnership and working with business, and we make no apology for that. Ensuring that the economy keeps moving and functioning is an important part of our responsibility, as is looking after households, and that's why the measures the government has implemented over the last few weeks have been targeted at different areas. I would remind Senator Waters that there is an inflation challenge in the economy at the same time, so how we target assistance matters, and the budget that we're putting together will reflect the economic circumstances of the time—as we always do. We always look at what cost-of-living support we can responsibly provide to people as we work through this time, and we will continue to do that.

Senator Waters, second supplementary?

Given Trump has now told us to go and get our own oil, will the Treasury be recommending to the Prime Minister that we withdraw from AUKUS and redirect those funds towards programs that are more clearly and directly in our own economic interest?

Hi. Thanks. Okay. Hi, everybody—last question time. I was just trying to process that and whether it linked to the primary question, but, with the indulgence of the chamber—the government has a number of responsibilities that extend across various areas, including defence. The answer to the question in there is: no, that would not be the government's position. I acknowledge it's the Greens' position, but the Greens don't have to really, with all due respect, worry about these matters. It's up to parties of government that have to take decisions in the national interest based on a whole range of information that might not necessarily align all the time, or at times, with the Greens' political policy. So, no, the government will continue to work in the national interest and make sure that the decisions we take, particularly in the budget, are the right ones for the country and support jobs and support families and support business through these difficult and challenging times. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australians are facing growing uncertainty in the global economy—particularly, the impact of conflict in the Middle East on fuel prices—with the Treasurer noting that the conflict and its consequences will be a defining influence on the upcoming budget. Can the minister update the Senate on how these global economic impacts, especially on fuel, are shaping the broader economic outlook ahead of the May budget?

I thank Senator O'Neill for the question, particularly on this really important question that I think is concerning so many Australians. This conflict is a defining influence on global growth and inflation this year, and that's why it'll be a defining influence on our budget in May. As the Treasurer has said, this budget will be focused on resilience and reform. The war in the Middle East is the most pressing problem confronting the global economy, but it reinforces the three core challenges shaping this budget. Before the war, inflation was too high, productivity growth had been too weak for two decades and, while Australia and the Australian economy had held up remarkably well, the global environment was already highly volatile.

The government is responding to all of these challenges now, but we will also do that in the upcoming budget. As I've said in previous answers, it's adding to the inflation challenge, which we acknowledge was too high before the conflict. It's intensifying uncertainty when it's already elevated and straining our productive capacity when it's already close to the limit.

As the Treasurer has said, we're approaching these challenges from a position of relative strength. Unemployment remains historically low. We've created 1.2 million jobs, and we have seen consistent wages growth above three per cent for many quarters now. That is good news, but there is more work to do. The savings that we've found in the budget and the work that we are doing around continuing to look at every dollar we spend to make sure it's going to where it needs to go, to look at how we return revenue, to lower debt, to lower those deficits and to find savings over time will be a continued focus for us over the next month.

Thank you, Minister. Senator O'Neill, first supplementary?

Today the Treasurer announced that the Albanese Labor government is working with business and finance sectors to help ease the pressure on Australian families and small businesses. Can the minister outlined today's announcement, and how it provides both support and flexibility for Australians at this difficult time?

I thank Senator O'Neill for that question. Today we have announced new measures to give Australian families and businesses more flexibility during this time. It's about making systems more flexible, supply chains more responsive and business more supported. The ATO will provide temporary relief for businesses unable to meet their tax obligations due to fuel supply issues, where appropriate. This will include more generous payment plans, remission in interest and penalties, and support in varying PAYG instalments where there has been a downturn in taxable income.

In relation to small business, we'll help small business access easier and faster credit by extending the small business responsible lending obligation exemption for a further 10 years. This will ensure small businesses aren't slugged with additional regulatory burdens and delays when accessing loans. We welcome the commitments from the banks. Indeed, former senator Birmingham was in the blue room today, saying how they are working across their members to ensure customers, suppliers and employees are supported. (Time expired)

Senator O'Neill, second supplementary?

Thank you very much for that response to Australian families and small businesses. The Australian Labor government has already taken steps to ease some of the pressure Australians are feeling. Can the minister detail what actions the government has already implemented to assist households and businesses and how these actions work alongside today's announcement?

I thank Senator O'Neill. She's right to ask that question about how what we've announced today works alongside those other measures. It's essentially ensuring that the government is responding wherever we can to support industry, support households, support businesses and work with stakeholders about how we coordinate our response to this fuel crisis.

In addition to all that was announced today, there are all the measures we have taken, including: increased penalties to the ACCC to make sure companies are doing the right thing; releasing 20 per cent of our fuel reserves, targeted to ease pressure in regional markets; temporarily adjusting the petrol and diesel standards to increase available supply and ensure fuel keeps moving through the system; continued engagement with international partners and suppliers to support continued shipments and strengthen supply chain resilience; and, of course, the legislation that passed the parliament yesterday to strengthen our response.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister McAllister. No. 34 is an Aboriginal rural health service in Tasmania's north-west. It provides services like mums and bubs groups, youth programs, emotional wellbeing support, mental health counselling and family support work. It's there for people who don't have access to similar services for a range of reasons. Recently, I met with one of the driving forces behind the organisation, and she told me that No. 34 has lost its federal primary health funding. She doesn't know why. She doesn't know where it went. What she does know is that several full-time jobs have already been lost, including identified Aboriginal roles. Minister, can you tell me what happened to the No. 34 funding?

I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and also for advising my office of her interest in this issue to allow me to prepare an answer. The government acknowledges the significant contribution that No. 34 has made in improving the wellbeing of First Nations people in north-western Tasmania. We recognise how important it is that there are culturally safe services for First Nations people in the region.

No. 34 is currently funded under the Indigenous Australians' Health Programme. This program has become the default funding source for many First Nations health initiatives, including those delivered by non-Indigenous organisations. We are actively working with the Aboriginal community controlled sector to evaluate existing funding for that program and rebalance it in line with priorities identified by that sector. They have told us that their biggest priority for funding is community controlled, comprehensive primary healthcare services. Through this prioritised investment, we can ensure funding will have the greatest impact for First Nations people.

The government is committed to genuine partnership with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled health sector. We've committed to this under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, and priority reforms 1 and 2 speak directly to shared decision-making and building the community controlled sector. That is exactly what we're doing. We recognise the challenges that you have raised today, and there is no question that local programs delivering local solutions are important. The Minister for Health and Ageing has been made aware of this case and is considering actions for funding.

Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary?

Beyond the health services they do provide, No. 34 is a safe place to go to have a hot shower or a cup of tea, to be with community and to feel supported. It's a place where people can both receive and give support to First Nations people in need. Minister, do you agree that supporting First Nations people in rural areas is important?

The short answer is yes. Our government is committed to improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in all areas of Australia. We do know that holistic wraparound services provided by community controlled organisations are critical to achieving positive outcomes in First Nations communities. It's why we continue to direct investment to and work in partnership with the community controlled sector. As an example, in the Closing the Gap speech earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced $144 million to upgrade community controlled services. From maternal health to mental health, in remote Australia and in the cities, we are determined to grow community controlled solutions. We're investing in co-design, we are listening to communities, and we are determined to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in all areas in our country.

Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary?

Right now the workers and volunteers at No. 34 are deeply concerned. They're surviving on minimal funding and won't be able to keep providing the same level of care. As you might be aware, in Tasmania, we do have a divide between TAC and a couple of the other organisations not recognising other Indigenous people. Minister, will the government commit to reinstating funding so No. 34 can continue to provide these essential services to First Nations people in the north-west area?

Our government is committed to ensuring there are culturally safe services available across the country, including for First Nations people in north-west Tasmania. We recognise the important role No. 34 plays in the community, and we note its request for continued Commonwealth funding. I thank Senator Tyrrell for her continual advocacy for better health outcomes across Tasmania. The Minister for Health and Ageing has been made aware of this case, as I indicated in my answer to your primary question, and he is considering options for funding.

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Watt. The government continues to spend billions on water buybacks which rip the economic rug out from underneath communities in our nation's food bowl. These buybacks are occurring despite the Commonwealth having more water than it knows what to do with. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, the CEWH, is the largest holder of water in the country by far, and it has rarely if ever used all the water it's allocated in a given year. This week, the Liberal and National parties introduced a bill to conduct a commission of inquiry into the environmental water use in the basin. You dismissed this, saying the call for the commission of inquiry would be pulling apart the plan. Why won't the government support a proper inquiry, which farmers are calling for, into how taxpayer money and environmental water are being used?

Thanks, Senator Cadell. Well, what do you know? In the final sitting week of a six-week block, on the final sitting day before the Farrer by-election, the National Party discover the Murray-Darling Basin. After months of total silence about this issue, the Farrer by-election is called. The Nats are on track to come fourth, as admitted by their former leader Mr Littleproud. We have had One Nation call for a royal commission into water. We've had Michelle Milthorpe, the Independent candidate, call for a royal commission into water. So finally the National Party wake from their slumber and have this original idea: let's have a royal commission into water. That is how slow these people are, and this is why Australians are walking away from the National Party in droves, because they have stopped being thought leaders when it comes to regional Australia and they have started becoming thought followers. They have become a party whose sole reason for existence is to distribute preferences either to the Liberal Party, to a teal Independent or to the One Nation party.

Senator McKenzie?

On direct relevance, a point of order: the minister has gone nowhere near why the government won't support an inquiry.

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. I will remind the minister of the question.

The government will not be supporting the National Party's request for a royal commission following One Nation's request for a royal commission following the teal Independent's request for a royal commission.

Senator McKenzie?

A point of order, and the minister did do this in his speech this morning: we are not calling for a royal commission.

Senator McKenzie, that is not a point of order. Seriously!

Now Senator Cadell, on behalf of the National Party, has squealed and objected to water buybacks. I can tell you someone in this parliament who likes water buybacks, and his name is Angus Taylor, the Leader of the Opposition. Who can remember Mr Taylor's involvement in that dodgy $80 million deal signed off by Barnaby Joyce, who used to be a member of the National Party as well? Barnaby Joyce, as the then minister for water, signed off an $80 million deal to buy water from a company linked to Angus Taylor and headquartered in the Cayman Islands. That's how much the Liberal and National parties hate water buybacks: they want to get in on them, especially when there's an $80 million deal at stake. You have no credibility on water, and that is why Australians are walking away from you.

Before I come to Senator Cadell, Minister Watt, I remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles. Senator Cadell, first supplementary?

Minister, I was at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting last year. It went for two days, and you sent a 10-minute video, so thank you for that. Recently, Senator Canavan, shadow minister for water Michael McCormack and Nationals candidate Brad Robertson visited Narrandera, where they were told of the shocking state of their tap water. The difference between the water we can get in Canberra from the tap and the water they get in Narrandera is visible to anyone who looks on my desk. The people in Narrandera have applied for funding from the National Water Grid so they can have clean drinking water again. When will your government fund a water treatment plant for the people of Narrandera?

Thank you, again, for the supplementary to the dorothy dixer—because, yet again, the National Party are coming late to the party. After 10 years of coalition government, where the coalition spent not a single dollar on the water supply in Narrandera, which happens to be in the electorate of Farrer, all of a sudden you're interested. And what you haven't caught up on is that, after you did nothing for these people for 10 years, we have funded a business case into a water purification plant in Narrandera, which you never did. For 10 years you did nothing at all. We are actually acting, just like we are acting on the voluntary water buybacks that are needed to sustain the Murray-Darling basin.

It's good that Senator Canavan has walked away from his previous position, where he said that farmers are no longer the sole constituency of the National Party. Now he loves farmers, and it's got nothing to do with the by-election whatsoever! Everyone in regional Australia has walked away from you. They are walking to other parties; they are walking to Independents and One Nation. It is over for the National Party.

Senator Cadell, a second supplementary?

Minister, we have spent $13 billion on a basin plan, but we cannot even deliver clean drinking water to the basin communities, and farmers constantly feel under attack. Isn't it time to stop the buybacks and instead invest in providing basin communities with potable and reliable water supply?

Again, after 10 years of coalition government, where they let the people of Narrandera go through drinking water like what you've got on your table, and not a cent spent on fixing the problem, we now have a government that's investing in fixing the problem. And you're complaining after turning your back on these people for 10 years. This is why the National Party is on track to come fourth at best in the Farrer by-election—because people know you have no solutions for them. How much did they get in South Australia? Half a per cent?

No, point seven.

That's why you got 0.7 per cent of the vote in the South Australian election, because people know you have nothing to offer.

Senator Canavan, I'm sure you can see Senator Henderson on her feet, and I'm waiting for silence.

On a point of order, the minister has repeatedly said 'you' in his answers. Could you ask him to—

Senator Henderson.

make his comments through the chair, please?

Resume your seat. Senator Watt, you do need to direct your questions to the chair.

I thought Senator Henderson would be a little bit busy on Victorian upper house preselections, but obviously she's got time to interpret standing orders as well. She's got such a good record that way.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Yes, they all agree. They all agree. This government is finally acting on restoring the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin, which is bringing back waterbirds, bringing back the health of that water system and sustaining agriculture long into the future.

Order, Senator Canavan! I did indicate to Senator Cadell this morning that I thought he had a prop on his desk. He assured me it wasn't and, to his credit, he hasn't used it as a prop. However, Senator Canavan, you have. You know it's disorderly, and please cease doing that.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Hundreds of thousands of people on income support are being forced to spend their limited incomes travelling to appointments, Work for the Dole sites and other compulsory activities under a welfare compliance regime that multiple reports have found is both counterproductive and legally dubious. During previous crises, governments have sensibly paused so-called mutual obligations to lift the burden on people most at risk. Given fuel prices are skyrocketing and welfare recipients are once again bearing the brunt of economic upheaval, will the government suspend mutual obligations and give relief to people forced to live on below-the-poverty-line payments?

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne. I should have indicated to the chamber that Senator Payman passed that question on to Senator Allman-Payne. Minister Watt.

Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. I think for some time now we've understood that there is a difference of position between the government and the Labor Party and the Greens party when it comes to mutual obligations. It is the policy of our government that we stand by the concept of mutual obligations, which involves the community generally, through the government, providing training and work opportunities to those who are unemployed, but there is an expectation from the community that unemployed people seek to find work as well. That's essentially what it comes down to. I know the Greens don't support that position. They never have supported that position, but that is a position that we think is supported by the vast majority of the Australian population.

Of course, this government has increased support payments, whether it be to unemployed people—as was very much necessary. We've increased support payments to single mothers. We've increased support payments to a wide variety of Australians who are doing it tough.

 Remote workers as well, Senator McCarthy reminds me—in addition to the range of other cost-of-living relief that we have provided to Australians. We will continue to stand by Australians who are looking for work and provide them with the support they require.

You might think that is funny, but that's something that we're prepared to do.

Senator McKim, I've asked you to come to order. Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary?

There is clear and longstanding evidence that private job providers frequently exercise their power over welfare recipients in ways that are harmful, including payment suspensions. Advocates are now telling me that, despite the current crisis, many job providers are still refusing phone appointments, forcing welfare recipients to travel. How bad does the fuel crisis need to get before the government considers suspending compulsory obligations?

I am aware, especially from my time as the minister for employment, that there have been occasions where service providers have not done the right thing by those who are looking for work. As a government, we've taken action against those providers who have done so. What we're also doing, led by Minister Rishworth, is a very large-scale reform of the employment services system in Australia, in recognition—

Minister Wong?

President, point of order on disorderly conduct. Senator McKim continues to interject. The minister is treating this question with a great deal of respect; he is seeking to answer it. Senator McKim has not let up in his interjections. I ask that you call him to order.

Senator McKim, I will call you to order again, and I expect you to be silent for the next 36 seconds.

What I was saying is that Minister Rishworth is leading what will end up being a large-scale reform of our employment services system in Australia, in recognition that the current system is certainly not working for jobseekers and it's not working for employers or service providers either. Over time, I'm sure Minister Rishworth will have more to say about that matter, but, in the meantime, we will continue taking action against those service providers who do the wrong thing by job seekers.

Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary?

During the pandemic, the government not only suspended mutual obligations but also doubled the rate of JobSeeker, lifting hundreds of thousands out of poverty and saving lives. Given that the war Labor supports has triggered a global fuel crisis, will you take responsibility to protect those most at risk from this crisis by raising the rate of all Centrelink payments above the poverty line?

I don't think it's quite right to draw the connection between the experience people were having working, not being able to get to work or not being able to work during the COVID period and the situation that we're going through at the moment. There is no doubt that people are doing it tough as a result of the increase to fuel prices. That's why the government, in the last couple of days, announced the halving of the petrol excise in recognition that people are doing it tough and need support. That's, of course, in addition to the range of other cost-of-living support that this government has provided. As I mentioned in my last answer, as a government, we've also increased the JobSeeker payment. We've increased payments to single mothers, and any further decisions will always be made in the context of our budget.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture—

Senator Brown, I'm sorry. Resume your seat. Senator McKim, come to order or leave the chamber.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. We know that the conflict in the Middle East is causing serious challenges for families, farmers and businesses in Australia and around the world. Our farmers, fishers and producers work hard every day to feed millions of Australians and our international neighbours, and they are feeling the pressure of these global disruptions on their input costs and their supply chains. Can the minister outline what the Albanese Labor government is doing to support our farmers and regional communities through this difficult period and to keep Australian agricultural supply chains moving.

The Albanese Labor government will always back our farmers, fishers and producers. They underpin our food security, our economy and our regional communities. Over recent weeks they have faced real challenges from the conflict in the Middle East, which is having impacts globally, and that's why our government has been working day and night to help our farmers manage these impacts and keep Australia moving.

We know our farmers are under real pressure on input costs, particularly fuel and fertiliser. That's why the Albanese Labor government is acting to halve the fuel excise for three months, lowering costs at the bowser for farmers filling up machinery. We've amended fuel and diesel standards and released 20 per cent of our strategic fuel stockpile, and yesterday our government deferred full cost recovery for export services for one year until 1 July 2027, giving farmers and exporters more certainty and allowing our producers to continue to compete on the world stage.

The NFF president, Hamish McIntyre, called these 'practical decisions that will deliver more certainty for farmers and exporters'. The Australian Livestock Exporters' Council called it 'a commonsense outcome'. The Australian Meat Industry Council said that our government has listened—unlike those opposite—and responded to industry concerns. These changes will keep our farmers farming and will mean regional communities are not left behind. That is what's in the national interest, and on this side of the chamber we will always stand up for our farmers, producers, exporters and regional communities.

Senator Brown, first supplementary?

Minister, as you mentioned, our farmers are facing increasing pressure from input costs. Fertiliser is one of the most critical inputs for food production, and we know that supply from the Middle East has been disrupted. Can the minister update the Senate on what the Albanese Labor government is doing to secure fertiliser supplies for Australian farmers?

Fertiliser is critical and our government is acting on multiple fronts to secure supply. The legislation that passed parliament this week gives Export Finance Australia new powers to underwrite fuel and fertiliser purchases from international markets. This means the government can give suppliers the confidence to get product to where it's needed most, and key fertiliser flowing to Australian farmers and producers.

At the same time, Ministers Collins and Ayres have established a fertiliser working group, bringing the Public Service together with representatives from Fertilizer Australia, the National Farmers' Federation and right across industry. This working group will meet for the first time tomorrow to monitor supply and demand and to work through options to increase supply. This may include engaging alternative supplies in South-East Asia and supporting domestic production. We're using every lever we have to keep our farmers farming.

Senator Brown, second supplementary?

Australians rightly expect their government to act when global events put pressure on our economy. Can the minister outline what further measures the Albanese Labor government has taken to protect Australian families, farmers and businesses?

Every part of our government's response to this unprecedented shock is designed to keep our farmers farming. We're also reducing the heavy vehicle road user charge to zero for three months, and we're deferring the next scheduled increase by six months. This reduction will help keep farmers' freight moving in our regions. All these efforts are what a considered plan looks like—practical action that makes a real difference on the ground. Those opposite are really good at attacking, good at playing politics and good at trying to scare Australians, but where are their solutions? As we deal with this unprecedented shock to global energy markets, those opposite can keep trying to scare Australian farming families. The Albanese Labor government is just getting on with the job.

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. How many petrol stations in Australia have dropped their petrol prices by 26c per litre today?

As you would know, Senator, the fuel excise reduction commenced today, and you will understand that will flow through to users in the weeks, or in the days, to come—in the following week.

Weeks or days?

 I misspoke. I said, 'In the days to come'. There already exists fuel under previously existing contracts. But I hope that you will join with so much of Australia in welcoming the reduction in excise and the reduction in the heavy vehicle road user charge.

Senator Hume, first supplementary?

Minister, what was average price of unleaded petrol across Australia yesterday, and what is the average price of unleaded petrol across Australia today?

I fuelled my car up on the weekend—my personal car—and I think it was about $2.60-something at the time. I hope we see lower prices in the days to come.

Minister Wong has concluded her answer. Senator Hume, second supplementary?

Direct relevance—and I was on my feet.

The minister has concluded her answer.

She didn't answer the question, though. That was direct relevance. I asked about yesterday and today, not the weekend.

Senator Hume, I'm not quite sure what you expect I cannot rewind here. The minister had concluded her answer. Please ask your second supplementary.

The bowsers don't lie!

Senator McGrath, I'm sure you can see that Senator Hume is on her feet. Order!

Given today there are 845 service stations around the country that have run dry of at least one type of fuel—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order across the chamber! Yes, far out, Senator McKenzie. I've been calling for order because I would like Senator Hume to be able to ask her question in silence. That is right across the chamber—and particularly at you. Senator Hume, please continue.

Minister, given today there are 845 service stations running dry of at least one type of fuel, at how many service stations across the country will Australians actually be able to find fuel that has dropped 26c per litre over Easter?

As I said, the excise started on 1 April. That will flow through to consumers over the coming days. I'm pleased to report—and this is a South Australian answer—that the Adelaide Advertiser reported that fuel prices were down 30c per litre and unleaded was dropping to $2.29 on Wednesday morning in much of the state's metro area and regional centres, while diesel had also dropped below the $3 bar, following the federal government's announcement on Monday to cut the fuel excise by half, reducing the cost of fuel and saving drivers around $16 when filling up a 60-litre tank. I hope, Senator, that you will welcome that. But I suspect she'll be back where the talking points are, which is—you really don't want to talk about these talking points? Did you give them away?

Senator Hume?

On direct relevance, President. The talking points that Minister Wong refers to—I'd like them to be tabled, because they're different to mine.

Senator Hume, resume your seat! Senator Hume, resume your seat! Order! Senator Hume, when I ask you to resume your seat, you resume your seat. You do not continue to ignore me, trying to make some clever point. You are being disrespectful. Minister, please continue.

When it comes to the leaked talking points, me thinks the deputy doth protest too much.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Getting wages moving again has been a key pillar of our government's agenda to support Australians dealing with cost-of-living pressures. How is the Albanese Labor government delivering better outcomes for low-paid workers?

I've got some very good news, Senator Smith, to round out this sitting fortnight. The Albanese Labor government is absolutely committed to getting wages moving again, especially for low-paid workers. It is this Labor government that has advocated each and every year for a wage rise for workers on minimum award wages, and on Thursday last week we made our submission to the Fair Work Commission, calling for an economically sustainable real wage increase for our lowest-paid workers on minimum award wages. That will help almost 2.7 million workers across the country. Over the course of our time in office, the minimum wage has increased by over $9,000 per year—essential cost-of-living support for the nation's lowest-paid workers.

As a result of this government's workplace reform, we've made sure that gender equality is at the heart of workplace laws, which has led to the commission delivering for workers who've been undervalued for too long. We have funded wage increases for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, to recognise the important work they do, and of course we've legislated to protect penalty and overtime rates for works on award rates, because they deserve to be properly paid for working unsociable hours. This Labor government is also restoring balance to the Fair Work Commission so both workers and employers get a fair hearing before the commission.

Yesterday the independent Fair Work Commission made a historic decision by ruling that young adult workers should earn adult wages. The government welcomes the decision to abolish junior rates for 18- to 20-year-old workers in retail, fast food and pharmacy. This decision, which is up there with the introduction of equal pay for women in the 1970s, means that tens of thousands of young adult workers will earn more at this important time in their lives. In its decision, the commission considered the need for time for employers and businesses to adjust and recommended pay rises be phased in over four years. I congratulate the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association for taking on this case and for securing this really important win for young workers.

Senator Smith, first supplementary?

You're right, Minister. Yesterday's decision by the Fair Work Commission is an absolutely fantastic outcome for young workers in the retail, fast food and pharmacy sectors, among many others. As cost-of-living pressures begin to rise, as the conflict in the Middle East continues, how else is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australian workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn?

Whether it's a tax cut for every Australian worker, opposed by the opposition; advocating for higher wages, opposed by the opposition; or protecting important conditions that put more money in people's pockets, like penalty rates and overtime—opposed by the opposition—the Albanese government is consistently on the side of working Australians. We're absolutely dedicated to ensuring that Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn.

The coalition, on the other hand, have opposed every single measure we've introduced that would benefit the millions of workers facing cost-of-living pressures right now. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and shadow industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Hume, went as far as claiming that real wage increases 'would be the worst thing for Australians'—maybe for the Australians in Toorak but maybe not for other Australians! She also claimed that adding more rights for workers is unreasonable. What an unreasonable thing to do to give more rights to workers! Senator Hume also wanted workers to have to choose between their wages going up and their super. Labor supports working Australia. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, second supplementary?

The campaign to get this outcome for young workers has been hard fought for many decades. Can the minister outline what support the decision to pay adult wages for adult jobs has received?

Yesterday's fair work decision means that tens of thousands of young workers will earn more at this important time in their lives. These are among our lowest paid, and they should be fairly compensated for the work they perform. As Sierra Bell says, who works three casual jobs, including one at Kmart, while studying at university:

Your bills aren't discounted even though you're paid a discounted rate of an adult.

Now Sierra and all those other young workers will be paid what they deserve.

In breaking news, my office has told me that the coalition and One Nation have decided to support this pay rise for young workers. What extraordinary about-face from the coalition, putting aside their ideological opposition for once to support millions of workers and back the union! Oh, hang on—I've just checked the date of this document. It's 1 April. April Fools! The Liberals, Nationals and One Nation will never support a pay rise because you want working people to be worse off.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. If I may take the opportunity to reassure my Senate colleagues and staff, all the best for the Easter weekend.

The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees.

by leave—I move:

Defence — Joint Statutory Committee —

Appointed—Senators O'Neill, Paterson, Sharma and Whiteaker, pursuant to the Defence Act 1903

Education and Employment References Committee —

Appointed—

Substitute member: Senator Barbara Pocock to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into wage theft

Participating member: Senator Faruqi

Taxation of Gas Resources — Select Committee —

Appointed—

Senators Darmanin, Ghosh, Hodgins-May, McDonald, David Pocock and Dean Smith

Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Ananda-Rajah, Antic, Askew, Blyth, Bragg, Brockman, Brown, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Collins, Cox, Dolega, Dowling, Duniam, Faruqi, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Henderson, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McGrath, McKenzie, McKim, McLachlan, Mulholland, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Sheldon, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Walker, Waters, Whish-Wilson and Whiteaker

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the establishment of a select committee on the impact of the conflict in Iran as circulated.

Leave not granted.

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

That so much of 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 establishment of a select committee on the impact of the conflict in Iran.

I don't know how much more urgent it needs to get before this government understands that standing orders need to be suspended and we need to set up a select committee into the impact of their mismanagement, quite frankly, of what has happened since the war in Iran started.

If today's answers in question time don't tell Australians that this is desperately needed, I do not know what does. Because what did we have? In the first instance, you have the Prime Minister, on Monday, standing up and saying to the Australian people: 'Enjoy your Easter. Have a happy Easter break; do not cancel your holidays.' The next thing you know, the Prime Minister is today telling Australians, 'I'm going to stand up and provide a national address.' Guess what that's in relation to? 'We want you now to stop driving and save fuel.' Then, we have the Prime Minister saying: 'Drive. Keep driving. There's nothing to see here.' Then, you have the Minister for Climate Change and Energy himself saying, 'There's no issue with supply in Australia,' but the problem with that is almost 900 bowsers have now run dry across Australia.

Then, of course, we had the very confusing message today from one government minister, who stood up and basically told Australians he doesn't have confidence in the fuel supply, despite what the Prime Minister has said and despite what the energy minister has said because, 'They're actually thinking about bringing down less staff to Canberra in the budget,' and, more than that, 'We're actually thinking of catching a bus.' Catching a bus to Canberra, seriously? The number of mixed messages that this government has given to the Australian people in a time of crisis is appalling.

We are now almost five weeks into this crisis, and the government keeps telling Australians everything is okay. There's more fuel circulating in the economy now than there was before the crisis, and yet, sadly, every single day that this goes on, the Australian people wake up, and what do they see? They see more bowsers running dry across Australia. One of the things that this Senate committee needs to look at is what in God's name has gone wrong on the ground with this government. If there is more fuel in Australia today than there was before the crisis, then there is a distribution problem, and that distribution problem is the fault of the government. It's the fault of the Prime Minister and the energy minister.

The fact is that they cannot pick up the phone to the energy companies or the fuel companies and say to them, 'You need to get that tanker to that servo that has run dry.' It is actually as simple as that because they know that, at any given point in time in Australia, where that fuel is. Yet, sadly, we get mixed messages—drive, don't drive; happy Easter, not a happy Easter; no fuel in Australia, more than enough fuel in Australia. You would not know what is actually happening under this government. What I think is worse is the total contempt that they have for any form of scrutiny when it comes to answering questions that are asked of them. All the Australian people want during a time like this is transparency.

When you have got farmers saying, 'We are not going to be able to plant our crops, because we can't get diesel,' what that ultimately means is that it will impact fuel security. You have Meals on Wheels saying, 'We can't get to our people to feed them.' You've got the taxi industry saying: 'Our taxis for disabled people run on diesel. We can't get access to the diesel to pick up our clients.' You've got NDIS carers saying, 'We can't afford the fuel to put in our tanks to get to our clients.' You've got the waste management industry across Australia saying to the government, 'Do you know that, if we don't get access to diesel, within two days, there will be a catastrophic event in this country, particularly in relation to the aged-care industry and the healthcare industry?' Guess what happens if you don't pick up the rubbish? Disease spreads.

I don't know what else could possibly constitute urgency to suspend the standing orders so the Senate can properly debate and then vote on putting in place a select inquiry to monitor the government's response to this crisis—which quite frankly, to date, has been appalling. (Time expired)

I look forward to further discussions on this over the break. I move:

That the question be put.

The question is that the question be put.

I will now put the suspension motion. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

I present 19 government responses to committee reports as listed in today's Order of Business, including one from 2002. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

Australian Government response to the Report of the Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident

March 2026

Introduction

The Select Committee for an inquiry into a certain maritime incident concluded its inquiry when it tabled its report on 23 October 2002. The then Howard government did not provide a response within the mandated timeframe.

Government Response to Committeee Recommendations

Minority/dissenting recommendations

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee on Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) report:

Final Report and Interim Report

MARCH 2026

Overview

The Australian Government thanks the Senate Select Committee for its inquiry into adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI). The Government thanks all individuals and organisations who contributed submissions or appeared at hearings.

AI is a powerful general-purpose technology. Similarly to other general-purpose technologies, like electricity and the internet, it can reshape productivity, business models and public services. The Australian Government is focussed on ensuring that Australia's AI transition creates a fairer, stronger Australia where every person benefits. This means using AI to help close service gaps in health, disability and aged care, improve education and employment outcomes, and create secure, well-paid jobs in future industries.

The Australian Government is shaping the conditions under which AI is deployed and ensuring that adoption leads to shared prosperity. Realising the benefits these technologies bring requires deliberate policy choices and ongoing engagement with industry, workers, unions and society.

On 2 December 2025, the Australian Government released its National AI Plan (the Plan). The Plan sets out the Government's ambition for AI and how it will position Australia as a leader in responsible, inclusive and innovative AI development and adoption. The Plan has Australians at its centre, with the aim that everyone in Australia benefits from the AI opportunity, across all regions, industries and communities.

It provides a coordinated, whole-of-system approach across government and industry to achieve our economic and social policy objectives.

The plan is anchored in 3 goals, with each supported by 3 pillars of action:

Capture the opportunity

The Government is fostering investment in world-class digital and physical infrastructure, supporting local capability, and attracting global partnerships. By expanding high-speed connectivity, attracting investment in advanced data centres, and backing our researchers and businesses, we aim to lead in AI innovation and application.

Spread the benefits

The Government's goal is to ensure that all Australians, regardless of background or location, can share in the advantages of AI. We are supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs), regional communities, and groups at risk of digital exclusion to adopt AI. Building digital and AI skills, supporting workforce transitions, and improving public services are central to this effort.

Keep Australians safe

The Government is focussed on giving Australians the confidence to adopt AI responsibly while safeguarding people's rights and protecting them from harm. This includes through ongoing review and adaptation of laws, establishing the Australian AI Safety Institute, and engaging internationally.

AI cuts across all sectors and Government portfolios. Achieving Australia's goals in AI requires coordination across government, and with industry, unions and civil society to promote clarity, certainty and coherence.

The Department of Industry, Science and Resources has coordinated this response in consultation with the following agencies:

The Coalition provided commentary on the 13 recommendations of the Final Report, and on Recommendation 5 of the Interim Report. The Coalition did not provide any alternate recommendations for government response.

Part 1: AI data centres and infrastructure

Supporting sustainable AI infrastructure that delivers for Australia

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 13; Additional Comments Greens 1, 4

Smart infrastructure is essential for our local AI capability and to secure Australia's position in the region. Investments in data centres will drive innovation in AI and economic growth, ensuring we remain competitive on the global stage. The Australian Government is taking action to ensure Australia remains a leading destination for data centre investment in the region while ensuring growth is sustainable, secure and delivers local benefits.

Australia offers a stable operating environment, clear legal protections, abundant renewable energy potential, available land and proximity to growing economies.

Australia had the second highest capital investment in data centres globally in 2024, with $6.7 billion USD in investment. Having this infrastructure in Australia can help make sure that jobs, intellectual property, and innovation remain onshore. Australian data centres can also support the development of Australian AI models and applications for the public service and industry.

While data centres are an essential part of our digital infrastructure, they are substantial users of energy and can be large users of water. Data centres also need to integrate with telecommunications infrastructure, including international submarine cables, data transmission networks and internet exchange points.

As Australia's data centre industry grows, this will have implications for Australia's net zero ambitions. There are community expectations on industry to develop sustainable practices. The Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council are progressing actions to respond to the opportunities and challenges of data centre investment on the electricity grid, and the Water Ministerial Council is considering the broader implications of water management on increased data centre construction.

Many data centre operators are already demonstrating that they are interested in investing in Australia in ways that manage these impacts. For example, whilst conventional data centre cooling systems can consume tens of millions of litres annually, some Australian operators are adopting innovative solutions such as closed loop cooling to reduce water consumption, or alternate chip designs that are more efficient and only require air cooling. Many operators are looking for opportunities to support the deployment of renewable energy generation and storage, including signing onto long-term power purchase agreements with solar and wind developers.

Safe and secure data centre growth can support sustainability, strengthen energy security, and drive investment in clean technologies. To achieve this, the Australian Government is working with states and territories to develop voluntary principles to encourage investment in data centres which aligns with Australia's overall national interest. The Government is working with states and territories to explore opportunities to coordinate approvals for data centre projects where investments align with the data centre principles.

Part 2: AI capability and adoption

Growing Australia's AI ecosystem and supporting widespread responsible AI adoption

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 4, 13; Interim Report 1, 5; Additional Comments Greens 1, 4

Australia has considerable strengths we can leverage to build AI capability. We have a strong local technology sector and a world-class research sector with leading capabilities in sectors including computer vision, multimodal AI, AI evaluation, smart sensors and field robotics. We have a competitive edge in developing niche, high-value AI applications for sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, and advanced manufacturing. Australia has an opportunity to develop AI to leverage our nationally connected research infrastructure and capabilities in high-performance computing to further drive scientific discoveries.

As one of Australia's largest employers, the Australian Government is leveraging the Australian Public Service (APS) to lead in AI capability and responsible adoption.

For example, in July 2025 the Australian Government launched GovAI to empower public servants to develop AI skills safely. GovAI is a centralised AI hosting service, providing agencies with a secure, Australian-based platform for developing customised AI solutions at low cost. This approach ensures government departments can innovate responsibly while maintaining sovereignty, security, and cost-efficiency in deploying AI technologies. On 12 November 2025, the Australian Government released an AI Plan for the Australian Public Service to use AI to better serve Australians. It sets out a vision for improving government service delivery, efficiency, and productivity, by increasing the use of AI in government. The AI Plan for the APS expands the GovAI platform and establishes Gov AI Chat, a secure, government-controlled generative AI tool developed specifically for the APS.

SMEs are the backbone of Australia's economy—supporting innovation, creating jobs, and economic growth. Supporting SMEs to adopt AI is essential to ensure they remain competitive, efficient, and well-positioned to seize emerging market opportunities in an increasingly digital landscape. Many Australian consumers and businesses are early adopters of new AI technologies. Forty per cent of SMEs have adopted AI and Australia ranks highly in AI use by consumers.

To accelerate development and commercialisation of AI by businesses across Australia, in December 2025 the Government announced it would launch an 'AI Accelerator' funding round of the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) program. The Accelerator will be in two stages—first as a CRC Projects round in 2026 and then as a CRC round in 2027. The Accelerator will incentivise partnerships between businesses and research organisations. It will connect talented researchers with real-world challenges faced by industry, helping Australian ideas to scale and compete on the global stage.

Data is a strategic national asset and critical driver of modern economies. Both governments and the private sector hold high value data sets which can be used to support a globally competitive Australian AI sector. In the Australian Government's Data and Digital Government Strategy (DDGS), the Government commits to adopting emerging technologies and AI in safe, ethical and responsible ways. As part of this, and through the National AI Plan, the Government is exploring opportunities to unlock high value datasets for pilot AI use cases. This will support the development and training of locally relevant AI applications and models. This work complements and builds on the work under the DDGS on consistent data standards and metadata, building trusted and secure approaches to data sharing, and identifying high value, non-sensitive datasets.

The National AI Centre (NAIC) is Australia's leading government body supporting industry to unlock the economic benefits of AI. It aims to help Australia become a global leader in developing and adopting trusted, secure and responsible AI. The NAIC provides tailored guidance and direct engagement to help SMEs, not-for-profits, social enterprises and First Nations businesses adopt AI responsibly, including:

This work builds on existing government support and investments into Australia's AI ecosystem, including:

Part 3: AI safety and regulation

Preventing and mitigating AI harms to build confidence in AI and keep Australians safe

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12; Interim Report 2, 3, 4; Additional Comments Pocock 1, 3

The Australian Government recognises that preventing and mitigating the harms of AI is essential to maintaining public trust and confidence in AI applications and upholding Australians' rights.

AI technologies are already embedded across the economy, and a comprehensive regulatory approach is essential to protect Australians from AI-enabled harms. Australia has strong protections in place to address many risks, but the technology is fast-moving and regulation must keep pace. The Government's regulatory approach to AI will continue to build on Australia's robust existing legal and regulatory frameworks, ensuring that established laws remain the foundation for addressing and mitigating

AI-related risks. These include economy-wide laws on privacy, administrative law, online safety, corporations' law, intellectual property, workplace laws including work health and safety (WHS), workplace relations, competition and consumer protections, and anti-discrimination.

To support this approach, the Australian Government provided $29.8 million over 4 years from 2025-26 (and $7.9 million per year ongoing from 2029-2030) to establish the

Australian AI Safety Institute. The role of the AI Safety Institute will be to assist Ministers, agencies, and regulators to ensure Australia's laws keep pace with AI developments to protect people and businesses. The AI Safety Institute will not be a regulator.

The AI Safety Institute's activities will include:

The Government is actively monitoring emerging risks and considering where further action will be needed to ensure safety and accountability as new frontier AI capabilities emerge. For example:

Online Safety Act 2021

Criminal Code Act 1995,

Privacy Act 1988

These efforts are supported by the Government's international engagements on AI governance. Australia's international engagement aims to ensure Australia's values, including safety, transparency, and inclusion are embedded in international AI norms and standards. The Government's ambition is to align international frameworks with domestic approaches and to reduce regulatory friction and support innovation. This will further cement Australia as a trusted partner in global supply chains and a leader in secure, responsible AI adoption of trusted technologies across the region.

The Australian Government recognises that strengthening our scientific understanding of AI is essential to manage risks, drive responsible adoption, and expand access to the benefits of AI. We are actively participating in international scientific collaboration and policy coordination on AI safety as a founding member of the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, and through our contributions to the International AI Safety Report. Through the Australian AI Safety Institute, Australia will continue progressing the science of AI safety by leveraging international research partnerships, including through joint testing exercises and setting research priorities to understand and prevent AI-enabled harms.

Part 4: Support and training for Australian workers

Building a workforce ready for an AI-enabled future

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10; Additional Comments Greens 1, 2

The rapid advancement and adoption of AI is transforming workplaces across Australia. As adoption of AI reshapes job roles, skills requirements and employment structures, it is essential that these changes are managed in ways that support safe, secure and fairly paid jobs across workplaces. Proactive planning and collaboration between government, industry, workers and unions is vital to ensuring that Australian workers not only have the skills and supports to adapt to, but can thrive in, an AI-enabled future.

Analysis by Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA) in 2025, as part of the Generative-AI Capacity Study, found that in the near-term AI is more likely to augment rather than replace most work, with only 4% of Australia's workforce in occupations with high automation exposure. JSA's analysis, based on the capabilities of GPT-4 in late 2025, indicated that large-scale job displacement is not occurring in Australia and the most significant employment effects are not expected for at least a decade. However, the Government recognises that there is uncertainty around the direct effects of AI on the labour market, and there are community concerns.

As AI reshapes how Australians work and working conditions, continuing a tripartite dialogue with business, unions and experts to agree on a shared approach to the opportunities and challenges of AI is vital. Consultation and codesign between employers and employees can assist in capturing the benefits of AI in safe, fair and cooperative workplaces. As part of the National AI Plan, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has committed to continuing tripartite arrangements with respect to AI's impact on the labour market. This work brings together key stakeholders across the labour market to work collaboratively towards Australia's AI objectives including addressing skills, training, worker and workforce transitions and strengthening workplace relations settings. This work is particularly important for groups at higher risk of disruption, including women, First Nations people, career starters, mature-aged workers, people with disability, and those in regional areas.

AI must be used as a tool for inclusive growth, whereby workers share in governance and in gains, through wages, equity, skills and security. To achieve this, the Australian Government is taking early action to support workers through this transition, with initiatives underway to boost digital skills, expand training access, and grow an inclusive pipeline of AI-ready workers. For example:

In addition to ensuring workers are positioned to capture the opportunities of AI through skills and training programs, the Australian Government is focussed on ensuring our laws are equipped to manage the risk while recognising the opportunity in new technologies. This includes:

Fair Work Act 2009

Part 5: Copyright and creative sector impacts

Supporting our creative sector in the age of AI

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 8, 9, 10; Additional Comments Greens 2; Additional Comments Pocock 4

The Australian Government is invested in the success of Australia's creative and media industries. It is important that the development and adoption of AI technologies is done in a way that builds trust and confidence in their use. Having provided certainty to

Australian creators by announcing that the Government is not considering a text and data mining exception in Australian copyright law, the Government is working with stakeholders to find solutions to encourage innovation while protecting and supporting Australian creators.

AGD is engaging with these stakeholders, including representatives of the creative, media, and technology sectors, primarily through the Copyright and AI Reference Group (CAIRG). AGD has recently consulted with the CAIRG on 3 priority areas:

The Government is currently considering feedback received from CAIRG participants on these issues. Other issues related to copyright and AI may be the subject of future Government consultations. The Government commits, in its National Cultural Policy—Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place, to maintaining a strong copyright framework that works in concert with other legal and policy mechanisms to ensure reasonable and equitable use of copyright material. Consultations on the next National Cultural Policy will commence in 2026 and be led by the Office for the Arts. The use and impacts of AI on Australia's cultural and creative sector will be considered as part of these consultations.

Part 6: Automated decision-making

Government will use automated decision-making transparently to improve public services

This part addresses the following recommendations: Final Report 11, 12; Additional Comments Greens 3

Automated decision-making (ADM) has many benefits, including improved customer service, but it is important to ensure ADM is used fairly, transparently and lawfully to benefit the Australian community.

AGD is developing a consistent legislative framework for the use of ADM in the delivery of government services, as part of the Government's response to recommendations 17.1 and 17.2 of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme's final report. The Government accepted recommendations 17.1 and 17.2.

The framework is intended to provide an enabling environment to support the safe and responsible use of ADM in government and promote consistency in key legislative provisions, including safeguards and transparency requirements. Policy development for the ADM framework has been informed by extensive stakeholder consultation, including public submissions and an online survey, roundtables, bilateral meetings, and consultations with Commonwealth agencies. Key themes emerging from this consultation included transparency, fairness and accountability and consistency across government in the use of ADM.

The framework will be technology-neutral to enable it to apply to emerging technologies, including ADM systems enabled by AI. AGD is continuing to work across government on the development of the framework to ensure consistency with existing regulatory frameworks and legislation, including reforms on AI and privacy.

AGD's 2022 Privacy Act Review Report proposed providing individuals with a right to request meaningful information about how substantially automated decisions involving personal information are made. The Government is considering this proposal in the context of its work to develop a consistent framework for the use of ADM in government services.

In its first term, the Government delivered a first tranche of privacy reform through the Privacy and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Cth). From 10 December 2026, the Privacy Act will require regulated entities to include information in their privacy policies about how personal information is used in substantially automated decisions which affect individuals' rights or interests. This includes the kinds of decisions that are substantially automated and the kinds of personal information used in these decisions.

Part 7: AI in electoral contexts

Government is expanding digital literacy to safeguard Australian elections

This part addresses the following recommendations: Interim Report 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Additional Comments Pocock 2

The rapid evolution, competency and widespread nature of AI technologies means that bad faith actors have a greater array of tools at their disposal. These tools pose direct challenges and risks to the health of Australian elections. AI generated disinformation can be deployed to influence the outcome of political debates or contests, as well as create public uncertainty leading to reduced trust in the electoral process and engagement with politics more generally.

To address risks related to electoral integrity, the Government introduced the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill in 2024 to prohibit the authorisation of electoral and referendum communications that are inaccurate and misleading, and to require materials modified using digital technology (including AI)

to carry a statement indicating such modification.

As is customary after each federal election, the Government has established a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). JSCEM is a multi-partisan committee and is currently holding public hearings and receiving submissions for its inquiry for the 2025 federal election. The JSCEM provides a multi-partisan forum to consider emerging risks to our electoral system. The Government will consider any changes to electoral laws following the JSCEM inquiry.

The AEC also expanded its Stop and Consider campaign for the 2025 federal election. Digital and social media advertisements directed voters to a Stop and Consider hub on the AEC website, including a suite of new information tools with information and tips on how to detect false or misleading information about the electoral process. The AEC also provided this information through social media channels, community education and public relations activities. The AEC also publishes an AI Transparency Statement that explains where AI is used and where it is not used in election delivery.

The Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce assessed after the 2025 federal election that the use of AI did not interfere with election delivery nor was it likely to have impacted

Australians' trust in the results.

The Australian Government has also committed to delivering a National Media Literacy Strategy to set out a clear and coordinated national approach and help Australians build the skills needed to navigate the challenges and opportunities of the digital world.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:

Inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia

April 2026

Introduction

On 7 September 2022, the Senate referred an inquiry into the extent and poverty in Australia to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report.

The Australian Government (the government) thanks the then Chair, Deputy Chair and Members for conducting the Inquiry and welcomes the Committee's reports.

The government also thanks those individuals and organisations who contributed their views to the Committee through public hearings or via the 253 submissions received by the Committee.

Committee Inquiry reports and government response

The Committee tabled an interim report on 4 May 2023, with one recommendation (Recommendation 1), which the government supports. Also:

The Committee tabled the final report on 28 February 2024, making 14 recommendations. The government supports four (Recommendations 1, 12, 13 and 14), supports four in principle (2, 5, 6 and 9), and notes six (Recommendations 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11). Also:

The government is committed to addressing poverty and disadvantage and providing opportunities for all Australians to fully participate in society. This includes providing a strong safety net through the social security system as well as investing in a range of areas such as health, education, employment, housing, front line services and communities to support vulnerable Australians at risk of poverty and disadvantage.

Addressing the cost of living

The government is committed to providing responsible and targeted cost-of-living relief to ease pressures

on households, while making critical investments to grow the economy's future productive capacity.

In the 2024-25 Budget, the government provided more support for those Australians relying on the social security safety net, including:

This builds upon the government's 2023-24 Budget measures which resulted in around 1.1 million recipients of JobSeeker Payment and other working age and student payments receiving at least a $40 increase each fortnight and increased the maximum rates of CRA by 15%. In addition, the government has expanded access to Parenting Payment (Single).

Across the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Budgets, the government has provided an additional $11.5 billion from 2022-23 to 2027-28 in the social security system.

The basic rate of JobSeeker Payment increases biannually in March and September due to indexation. On 20 March 2026, the typical rate of JobSeeker Payment for a single recipient without dependent children increases to $817.50 per fortnight.

This means that since the government was elected, the rate of JobSeeker Payment for a single recipient without dependent children will have increased by $166.00 a fortnight, or 25%, providing over $4,300 in additional support each year.

The government is providing an additional $114.8 million to strengthen support for Australians experiencing financial hardship. The additional, ongoing funding, provided through Financial Wellbeing and Capability grant programs, will help address demand for critical frontline services over the next five years, and ensure certainty and stability for a number of organisations including those delivering emergency relief and financial counselling. It will help more Australian households to pay and manage unexpected bills or expenses such as high electricity bills, rent, fuel and medicines.

The government has legislated tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer from 1 July 2026, adding to the first round of tax cuts that commenced on 1 July 2024. Every Australian taxpayer will receive an extra tax cut of up to $268 from 1 July 2026 and up to $536 every year from 1 July 2027, compared to 2024-25 tax settings. Combined with the first round of tax cuts, the average annual tax cut is expected to be $2,548 in 2027-28, around $50 per week, compared to 2023-24 tax settings. The tax cuts will improve incentives to work, especially for low-income and part-time workers who are predominately women.

In its submission to the Fair Work Commission's 2024-25 Annual Wage Review, the government recommended that the Commission award an economically sustainable real wage increase to Australia's award workers. Relative to all employees, award reliant employees are more likely to be women, work part-time, be under the age of 35 years and employed on a casual basis. On 3 June 2025, the Fair Work Commission subsequently announced a 3.5% increase to all modern award minimum wage rates. Increases to the minimum and award wages are an important tool to help address cost-of-living pressures, particularly for the most vulnerable workers.

The government's $4.7 billion Cheaper Child Care package announced in the October 2022-23 Budget made child care more affordable for Australian families.

On 8 August 2024, the government committed to support a wage increase for the early childhood education and care (ECEC) workforce through a Worker Retention Payment. The government is delivering a 15% wage increase over two years: a 10% increase on top of the current national award rate in the first year from December 2024, and a further 5% in the second year from December 2025. This will support retention of early childhood educators and teachers and attract new employees to the sector and recognises the essential role this majority female workforce plays in our economy and society (approximately 96% of the workforce are women). The funding is tied to a commitment from ECEC providers to limit fee increases to 4.4% over the 12 months from 8 August 2025. This is an important condition that will keep downward pressure on child care fees for families.

On 11 December 2024, the government announced next steps to building a universal early education and care system through:

These reforms have been informed by the Productivity Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's work on early education.

The government's $3 billion Energy Bill Relief Fund in 2022 provided electricity bill rebates to eligible households, with $1.5 billion provided by the Commonwealth and matched by states and territories. The Commonwealth has committed an additional $5.3 billion from 1 July 2024 for households to receive up to $300 in electricity rebates and $325 to eligible businesses in 2024-25, and up to an additional $150 in 2025-26.

In the 2025-26 Budget, the government announced an investment of $7.9 billion to introduce the new Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program and expand eligibility for bulk billing incentives to all Australians, enabling more people to access GP services at no cost. This is an expansion of the 2023 initiative that tripled bulk billing incentives for Commonwealth concession card holders and individuals under 16 years. Over nine out of ten GP visits for these cohorts are now bulk billed, reflecting the success of the measure.

The government has delivered cheaper medicines through reforms to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). From 1 January 2026, the maximum general co-payment will decrease from $31.60 to $25.00 per script. This reduction is expected to result in more than five million Australians saving over $200 million each year in out-of-pocket costs. This is in addition to the almost 300 medicines now available at part of the government's expansion of maximum dispensing quantities through 60-day prescriptions. The maximum co-payment will remain frozen at $7.70 for pensioners and other concession holders.

Cost of living pressures are exacerbated for First Nations people living in remote communities, where low incomes and the high cost of food and other essentials, such as household goods and fuel, are major drivers of food insecurity. To support cost of living and food security in remote First Nations communities, the government has committed $131.5 million to implement the National Strategy for Food Security in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities.

A key initiative is the Low-cost Essentials Subsidy Scheme, which is helping to ease cost of living pressure facing many families in remote communities by subsidising the cost of 30 essential product lines in eligible remote stores. The Scheme is resulting in savings of up to 50% for the subsidised items, with prices comparable to urban supermarkets, in more than 113 stores to date.

Additionally, the Stores Efficiency and Resilience Grants Package is improving the reliability and affordability of food and essential items by mitigating against price increases over the high-risk weather season and increasing store capacity to bulk purchase goods, driving costs down.

Targeting entrenched disadvantage

The government has also provided over $230 million to target entrenched disadvantage as a package with eight integrated initiatives. The package included funding for place-based partnerships to drive better outcomes in education, employment, child and maternal health, youth justice and participation.

It also included a government commitment of $100 million for an Outcomes Fund to deliver projects in partnerships with states and territories and service providers, using outcomes-based contracting and aligning stakeholder efforts, to focus on improving outcomes for children and families, helping those experiencing barriers to employment and supporting people facing homelessness through improved access to services.

Wages and full employment

In Working Future: The Australian Government's White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities(Working Future), the government outlined its objective for sustained and inclusive full employment. Working Future provides a roadmap for a dynamic and inclusive labour market, including investment in education and training, reforms to the migration system and better incentivising and expanding opportunities to work.

Since 2022, the government has delivered a range of workplace relations reforms designed to promote job security and gender equality, boost wages, and address systematic loopholes. The government is providing $94.6 million over four years from 2023-24 to improve the workplace relations framework and close the loopholes that have been used to undercut fairness, pay and conditions and job security in the Australian labour market.

Further, the government is committed to reforming employment services to better meet the needs of individuals, employers and the economy.

In remote communities, where employment outcomes are disproportionately worse, the government has committed approximately $2.6 billion to reform remote employment through the Remote Jobs and Economic Development (RJED) program and the Remote Australia Employment Service (RAES).

The RJED program is creating 6,000 jobs, with proper wages and conditions, with 1,700 new jobs already rolled out. Remote job seekers are also able to access the new RAES program, replacing the previous Community Development Program, supporting around 40,000 job seekers across 1,200 remote communities to build their skills and address the barriers faced with remote employment.

The government has also committed to delivering 500,000 Fee-Free TAFE places from 2023 to 2026. Enrolments have been prioritised for groups excluded or under-represented in the labour market including people with disability. The government has also legislated to make Free TAFE permanent, supporting 100,000 Free TAFE places per year from 1 January 2027.

Social and affordable housing

The government is making significant new investments to increase the supply of social and affordable homes and is working with state, territory and local governments to improve housing outcomes.

This consists of a number of important initiatives, including the establishment of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) to support 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes, as well as a range of acute housing needs, including repair and maintenance in remote Indigenous communities, crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence and older women at risk of homelessness, and housing support for Veterans who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

A total of $600 million has already been committed for a dedicated First Nations funding stream, with specific support provided to First Nations providers through the application and delivery process. There is also a 10 per cent First Nations tenancy target across all social housing delivered through HAFF.

In the Northern Territory, the Australian and Northern Territory Governments have jointly committed $4 billion over 10 years to halve overcrowding by delivering up to 2,700 new houses and improve housing quality through the delivery of property, tenancy, and management services. This funding is guided by an overarching Partnership Agreement between the Australian and Northern Territory Governments, Aboriginal Housing Northern Territory, and each Northern Territory Land Council, embedding shared decision making so First Nations people can have a seat at the table on decisions about delivering this significant investment.

Additionally, the government invested a further $1 billion under the National Housing Infrastructure Fund (NHIF) for crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children experiencing family violence and youth experiencing, or at particular risk of, homelessness (NHIF CT). This is in addition to the $1 billion already available under the NHIF for housing-enabling critical infrastructure (NHIF CI) and for social and affordable housing (NHIF SAF).

Further, the government provides funding to state and territory governments through the five-year, $9.3 billion National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness to support the effective operation of Australia's social housing and homelessness services sectors.

The government is also contributing $800 million to the $1.1 billion Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative (SHEPI). In partnership with the states and territories, SHEPI is supporting social housing tenants in more than 100,000 dwellings to benefit from home energy performance upgrades. Upgrades include solar systems, batteries, efficient electric appliances and insulation. The SHEPI is benefitting tenants through sustained savings on energy bills, and improvements to tenant comfort and health.

Acknowledging the gendered and diverse experiences of poverty

The government acknowledges that some groups of people are more at risk of poverty than others. Factors such as age, gender, family relationships, ability to participate in paid work, sources of income, disability and other characteristics can all have an impact. Gender-based violence, including financial abuse, can also exacerbate experiences of poverty.

Working for women: A Strategy for Gender Equality acknowledges that gender equality cannot be achieved while there is still a high gender pay gap and while women experience higher levels of poverty than men. It notes that women are more likely to live in poverty than men and experience poverty differently and that the gender pay gap can be wider for women who experience other forms of discrimination, such as First Nations women. New government reforms and programs are required to account for these differences through mechanisms such as gender-responsive budgeting, which weaves consideration of gender impact through the budget process and is a keyway the government can identify and fund measures that close gender gaps.

Economic Inclusion

Poverty is a complex issue, and the government is focused on addressing the complicated mix of factors that can push people into disadvantage. This is not something that will be comprehensively solved with quick fixes, but through persistent, whole of government, long-term approaches.

The government uses a range of metrics, measures and mechanisms to monitor the wellbeing of people and communities, including the Measuring What Matters wellbeing framework.

The government has established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice ahead of every Budget on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments.

The government has also established the First Nations Economic Partnership, a mechanism for First Nations people to share in decision making about reforms to economic policy in order to advance the economic empowerment and lasting economic security for First Nations people, communities and organisations.

_____

Australian Government response to the Finance and Public Administration Reference Committee report:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and justice services

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 4 March 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and justice services, with particular reference to:

the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have access to legal assistance services;

the adequacy of resources provided to Aboriginal legal assistance services by state, territory and Commonwealth governments;

the benefits provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities by Family Violence Prevention Legal Services;

the consequences of mandatory sentencing regimes on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration rates;

the reasons for the high incarceration rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and juveniles;

the adequacy of statistical and other information currently collected and made available by state, territory and Commonwealth governments regarding issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice;

the cost, availability and effectiveness of alternatives to imprisonment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, including prevention, early intervention, diversionary and rehabilitation measures;

the benefits of, and challenges to, implementing a system of 'justice targets';

and any other relevant matters.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, the Government provides the following update:

The Government is delivering First Nations-led justice reinvestment initiatives nationally and establishing an independent national Justice Reinvestment Unit to support up to 30 community-led justice reinvestment initiatives. The Government also supports the Justice Policy Partnership, which brings together First Nations’ peak bodies and experts and Commonwealth and state and territory Governments.

Through the National Access to Justice Partnership, the largest investment in legal assistance in over 20 years, the Government is improving access to justice for people experiencing vulnerability and financial disadvantage.

Dear President

I am writing to advise you that the Australian Government responded and implemented the recommendations of Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 [Provisions] through debate in the Senate on 19 June 2023.

I have enclosed the relevant extract of the Hansard from 19 June 2023.

I have copied this letter to Senator Marielle Smith, Chair, Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Yours sincerely

Jason Clare

26/3/2026

_____

Dear President

I am writing to advise you that the Australian Government responded and implemented the recommendations of Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023 [Provisions] through debate in the Senate on 19 June 2023.

I have enclosed the relevant extract of the Hansard from 19 June 2023.

I have copied this letter to Senator Marielle Smith, Chair, Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Yours sincerely

Jason Clare

26/3/2026

_____

Dear President

I am writing to advise you that the Australian Government responded to and implemented the recommendations of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Cheaper Child Care) Bill 2022 [Provisions] through debate in the Senate on 21 November 2022.

I have enclosed the relevant extract of the Hansard from 21 November 2022.

I have copied this letter to Senator Marielle Smith, Chair, Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee.

Yours sincerely

Jason Clare

26/3/2026

_____

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

Win-win under our oceans: Climate-related marine invasive species

April 2026

Introduction

On 5 September 2022, the Senate referred an inquiry into the spread of climate-related marine invasive species to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report, with the following terms of reference:

The spread of climate-related marine invasive species, particularly long-spined sea urchins (Centrostephanus rodgersii) along the Great Southern Reef, with particular reference to:

a) the existing body of research and knowledge on the risks for and damage to marine biodiversity, habitat and fisheries caused by the proliferation and range shifting of non-endemic long spined sea urchins;

b) management options, challenges and opportunities to better mitigate or adapt to these threats, and governance measures that are inclusive of First Nations communities;

c) funding requirements, responsibility, and pathways to better manage and co-ordinate stopping the spread of climate-related marine invasive species;

d) the importance of tackling the spread of invasive urchin 'barrens' to help facilitate marine ecosystem restoration efforts (such as for Tasmanian Giant Kelp Macrocystis pyrifera); and

e) any other related matters.

In November 2023, the committee released its report, Win-win under our oceans: climate-related marine invasive species. The Australian Government thanks the committee members for their work in delivering the report and associated recommendations.

The committee's report recognises that climate change is one of the greatest threats to the ocean. This is supported by the National Climate Risk Assessment which recognises risks to the natural environment system as a nationally significant climate risk. The Australian Government has a strong climate response and recognises that climate change is affecting ocean health in multiple ways such as through marine heatwaves, ocean acidification and warming of ocean waters. The warming waters in turn are causing a poleward range shift of marine species, both introduced and native, as they follow their preferred temperatures. This creates new challenges for marine ecosystem and fisheries management.

The Australian Government response to the committees' report focuses on fisheries and marine ecosystem investment, development, management and monitoring related to spread of climate-related marine invasive species, particularly the long-spined sea urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii, or 'Centro') along the Great Southern Reef.

The Australian Government notes that the climate-driven range expansion of Centro occurs alongside other emerging risks to temperate marine ecosystems, including the recent and ongoing harmful algal bloom (HAB) event observed in South Australia. While HABs are not directly addressed through this inquiry, they illustrate the increasing complexity of climate-related marine impacts on temperate marine environments.

Response

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the government consider working closely with relevant state governments to capture and harness the benefits offered by an emerging fishery for long-spined sea urchins, including:

Response

The Australian Government supports this recommendation.

Developing a new fishery for Centro, while supporting existing fisheries for rock lobster and abalone; and Maximising employment opportunities in harvesting and processing for urchin products

The Australian Government recognises the commercial opportunities presented by the climate-driven range extension of Centro and is engaged in activities that will continue to support the economic development of these fisheries, such as through participation in the Australian Fisheries Management Forum (AFMF).

In addition to a commercial fishery in New South Wales, which has been operating for more than 50 years, fisheries are now developing in Victoria and Tasmania. While the total annual catch was low for the first 10 years of the Tasmanian fishery, which began in 2009, it increased fivefold in the five years to 2023/24. The Tasmanian commercial fishery now exports nationally and internationally. Development of these fisheries would create associated employment opportunities.

Coordinating research and policy across jurisdictions to encourage an economically and ecologically self-sustaining Centro fishery

In support of this recommendation, the Australian Government is best placed to operate in a research coordination role. The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and CSIRO are the key research organisations coordinating work on Centro for the Australian Government.

As discussed in the committee's report, these organisations and several universities have been working directly with the New South Wales, Tasmanian and Victorian governments as part of the Centro Task Force, which has investigated options to collaboratively address the challenges and harness the benefits of Centro range expansion. Examples of other FRDC-funded research projects relevant to the control and harvesting of Centro are detailed in the Australian Government's response to Recommendation 2 of the Committee's report.

DAFF ensures the Australian Government engages on the issue as appropriate, including through the AFMF. This forum comprises heads of fisheries management agencies from each Australian jurisdiction, and considers high-level, national fisheries issues and how collaboration can be enhanced to achieve shared goals in fisheries management and policy.

Fostering programs to protect and restore kelp and reef ecologies and the species that depend upon them, including innovative cross-sectoral work with industry, environmental organisations and communities

The Australian Government recognises the importance of Australia's kelp forests in supporting diverse ecosystems and is committed to their protection. In 2012, the 'Giant Kelp Marine Forests of South East Australia' ecological community (Giant Kelp Ecological Community) was listed as Endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This listing protects the Giant Kelp Ecological Community under national environmental law and a Conservation Advice is in effect to guide conservation and recovery action.

The Giant Kelp Ecological Community is listed as a priority place in the Australian Government's Threatened Species Action Plan 2022-2032. The Threatened Species Action Plan maps a pathway to protect, manage and restore Australia's priority threatened species and important natural places. In May 2025, the Australian Government convened an expert workshop to identify current research and management needs for the Giant Kelp Ecological Community.

The Australian Government has invested over $12 million towards a suite of projects aimed at supporting temperate marine ecosystems, including monitoring and kelp forest restoration and resilience. Of this, $3.5 million was allocated to the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies project to improve ecological conditions for the Giant Kelp Forests of Tasmania. The project, funded through the Saving Native Species program, is removing overgrazing Centro in their expanded range from priority kelp habitat, replanting juvenile giant kelp and stocking sites with lobsters that eat urchins. Over 5 hectares of rocky reef was replanted in 2024 and 2025, including propagation of over one million juvenile giant kelps, removal of 10,000 invasive sea urchins and translocation of 50,000 undersized lobsters to the restoration sites

Involving local, regional and First Nations communities in these opportunities

The Australian Government acknowledges First Nations people's connection to Country and Traditional Knowledge of sea Country is based as it is on millennia of connection and care, is a key input to understanding, protecting and managing the ocean.

Involving First Nations communities in opportunities with range-expanding species provides valuable knowledge to improve environmental outcomes and build partnerships, and supports Closing the Gap, including strengthening cultural connections to Country and providing employment opportunities and supporting intergenerational benefits.

Assisting to grow overseas and domestic markets for urchin products

Australian seafood exporters already have access to a substantial range of export markets for sea urchins and sea urchin products. Exporters can consult the Manual of Importing Country Requirements (MICoR) website to identify markets where access for sea urchins and sea urchin products already exists.

Where no trade agreement exists, or where improvements are needed to address technical market access issues, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), in collaboration with the seafood export industry, supports exporters through the Seafood Market Access Working Group and the associated Seafood Market Access Prioritisation Tool.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the government consider making an immediate national investment into Centro control, guided by the Centro Task Force Plan's action areas and goals.

Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government has invested significantly in research and business initiatives related to controlling long-spined sea urchins, protecting and repairing kelp ecosystems and growing an urchin fishery.

The FRDC, a party to the National Centro Task Force, funds fisheries research, development and extension activities that support economic, social, and environmental benefits for fisheries, aquaculture and the wider community. Examples of recent projects that have been funded through the FRDC that relate to the sea urchin issue include:

The Australian Government's NESP funds multidisciplinary, applied research that supports decision-makers to better understand, manage and conserve Australia's environment.

Previous projects that have been funded through NESP that relate to temperate reefs, including the Great Southern Reef and giant kelp, include:

NESP also provided funding of $4,829,464 from 1 January 2017 to 31 March 2021 for the NESP Marine Biodiversity Hub's project 'Implementing monitoring of Australian Marine Parks and the status of marine biodiversity assets on the continental shelf'. One component of this funding was to investigate the impacts of no-take reserves on urchin barrens including whether no-take reserves offer resilience against long-spined sea urchins around Governor Island Marine Reserve in Tasmania.

The Australian Government allocated up to $3.5 million in recovery actions for the Giant Kelp Ecological Community, including addressing threats such as overgrazing by Centro. This work commenced in 2024 and is supported under the Saving Native Species program.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the government consider the continuation of the Centro Task Force to govern the national investment delivery, and drive coordination, implementation, and reporting.

Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government acknowledges the participation and contribution from the relevant state agencies to the Task Force. The Australian Government continues to engage through the AFMF as the most appropriate forum to coordinate and collaborate on cross-jurisdictional fisheries matters.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the government consider the establishment of a Centro Advisory Group led by the Commonwealth, to include representatives from Aboriginal community-controlled organisations, industry, researchers, commercial dive, processing and the recreational dive sector, to provide guidance, co-design, coordination and delivery of actions at a state and regional level.

Response

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The Australian Government is committed to leveraging existing forums, such as the National Centro Task Force and AFMF, to avoid duplication of efforts while enhancing coordination and delivery outcomes.

The Australian Government will continue to engage in National Centro workshops and work with relevant jurisdictions. Attendees to the workshops have included a diverse range of stakeholders including government regulators, leading researchers, cultural leaders of Sea Country, commercial industry members from the diving, processing, and export sectors, as well as recreational fishers. Australian Government representatives have also participated in discussions and exercises at these workshops.

The Australian Government will continue to engage with the Task Force and relevant states and stakeholders to explore whether additional mechanisms or refinements are required to support its objectives.

_____

Australian Government response to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report:

Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 [Provisions]

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 26 August 2021, the Senate referred the provisions of the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Amendment Bill 2021 to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021. The bill was referred to investigate ‘the impact of the bill on the standards for ATSI Corporations’.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, the Government provides the following update:

The Government continues to support and work with the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations to deliver good governance and accountability of registered corporations under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006 (CATSI Act).

_____

Australian Government response to theFinance and Public Administration Legislation (Senate) report:

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 2 September 2021, the Senate referred the provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021 to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 October 2021.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, the Government provides the following update:

On 1 November 2025, the Labor Government delivered on its commitment to replace the Community Development Program with the new Remote Australia Employment Service (RAES).

The Remote Jobs and Economic Development program (RJED) is underway, creating 6,000 jobs in remote communities across Australia.

_____

Australian Government response to the Finance and Public Administration Reference Committee report:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and justice services

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 4 March 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander experience of law enforcement and justice services, with particular reference to:

the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have access to legal assistance services;

the adequacy of resources provided to Aboriginal legal assistance services by state, territory and Commonwealth governments;

the benefits provided to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities by Family Violence Prevention Legal Services;

the consequences of mandatory sentencing regimes on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander incarceration rates;

the reasons for the high incarceration rates for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men, women and juveniles;

the adequacy of statistical and other information currently collected and made available by state, territory and Commonwealth governments regarding issues in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander justice;

the cost, availability and effectiveness of alternatives to imprisonment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, including prevention, early intervention, diversionary and rehabilitation measures;

the benefits of, and challenges to, implementing a system of 'justice targets';

and any other relevant matters.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, the Government provides the following update:

The Government is delivering First Nations-led justice reinvestment initiatives nationally and establishing an independent national Justice Reinvestment Unit to support up to 30 community-led justice reinvestment initiatives. The Government also supports the Justice Policy Partnership, which brings together First Nations’ peak bodies and experts and Commonwealth and state and territory Governments.

Through the National Access to Justice Partnership, the largest investment in legal assistance in over 20 years, the Government is improving access to justice for people experiencing vulnerability and financial disadvantage.

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Report on Implications of climate change for Australia's national security

March 2026

Introduction

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee concluded its inquiry when it tabled its report on 17 May 2018. The then Morrison government did not provide a response within the mandated timeframe.

Government Response to Committeee Recommendations

Minority/dissenting recommendations

_____

Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee Report on

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)

March 2026

Introduction

The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee concluded its inquiry into United Nations Sustainable Development Goals when it tabled its report on 14 February 2019. The then Morrison government did not provide a response within the mandated timeframe.

Government Response to Committeee Recommendations

_____

Australian Government response to the Human Rights (Joint, Senate) report:

Eleventh report of 2013: Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and related legislation

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 15 June 2012, the National Congress of Australia’s First People wrote to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights requesting consideration of the Stronger Futures legislation for examination for compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the report, which did not issue recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive government response is no longer appropriate.

The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 (Cth) ceased on 17 July 2022, consistent with its legislative provisions.

_____

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

Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Censorship) Bill 2018, Freedom of Speech Legislation

APRIL 2026

OVERVIEW

On 16 August 2018, the Senate referred the following bills to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report:

Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Censorship) Bill 2018 (The Censorship Bill).

Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Insult And Offend) Bill 2018 (The Insult And Offend Bill).

Freedom of Speech Legislation Amendment (Security) Bill 2018 (The Security Bill).

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

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

Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 [Provisions]

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 12 November 2020, the Senate referred the provisions of the Immigration (Education) Amendment (Expanding Access to English Tuition) Bill 2020 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2020.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive government response is no longer appropriate.

_____

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

Allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers, with respect to the visa status of au pairs, and related matters

March 2026

Introduction

The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee concluded its inquiry into Allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers, with respect to the visa status of au pairs, and related matters when it tabled its report on 19 September 2018. The then Morrison government did not provide a response within the mandated timeframe.

Government Response to Committee Recommendations

_____

Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia report:

The engagement of traditional owners in the economic development of northern Australia

APRIL 2026

OVERVIEW

On 18 October 2018 and 1 August 2019, the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia wrote to the then Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator the Hon Matthew Canavan seeking endorsement to conduct an Inquiry into the Opportunities and Challenges of the Engagement of Traditional Owners in the Economic Development of Northern Australia.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations. Given the passage of time since this report was tabled, the Government provides the following update:

On 2 August 2025, the Prime Minister announced $75 million in additional funding to support native title holders. This will help build PBC capacity and ensure native title holders are well placed to support, engage in and benefit from a range of opportunities.

_____

Australian Government response to the Select Committee on

Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities

Final Report

April 2026

OVERVIEW

On 19 March 2008, the Senate resolved to appoint a Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities to inquire into and report on:

The effectiveness of Australian Government policies following the Northern Territory Emergency Response, specifically on the state of health, welfare, education and law and order in regional and remote Indigenous communities;

The impact of state and territory government policies on the wellbeing of regional and remote Indigenous communities.

The health, welfare, education and security of children in regional and remote Indigenous communities; and

The employment and enterprise opportunities in regional and remote Indigenous communities

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

The Government notes the recommendations, and provides the following update:

On 27 July 2022, the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs was appointed to inquire into and report on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs.

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in accordance with informal arrangements agreed to by the whips.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash, Duniam and Hume today.

We saw from the government another pathetic attempt to try and deflect from the complete mayhem that they have been in over recently weeks with respect to the management of the fuel crisis that we have in this country. Of course, for two weeks they denied there even was a problem. They told us every day here at estimates that there was plenty of fuel in the country, that every ship that was due to arrive had arrived, that every ship that was due to come would come. That's what they told us for two weeks. Then the day after the parliament rose, Minister Bowen went out and held a press conference when there was no opportunity for the parliament to continue to scrutinise what the government was saying, and suddenly there was a crisis.

It took them two weeks to work out what our constituents had been telling us for that whole time—that supply chains were running dry, that fuel stations were running dry, that farmers could not get fuel and that the only diesel the fishing industry had left was what was in their tanks when they got back from sea. They couldn't go back out again because they couldn't get supply.

They still are struggling to understand the supply chains that supply fuel out into the country, because there are over 800 fuel stations in the country today that are out of either diesel or unleaded petrol. They are still struggling to come to terms with that. But what do they do? They do what they always do. They deflect. They try to blame someone else. Today they even handed up a dodgy set of talking points that they'd concocted to try and deflect attention away from themselves.

Then, of course, we heard today that the Prime Minister is going to make a statement to the Australian people tonight at 7 pm. Why doesn't he use the people's house? Why doesn't he walk into the parliament and, on the floor of the people's house, fess up and tell the Australian people what the situation is? The answer is simple: he does not want the scrutiny of the parliament. He would rather wait, just like Minister Bowen did two weeks ago, until the parliament rises, and go out and have a chat to the press and then walk away when it starts to get uncomfortable—all the usual tactics: deflect, blame somebody else; it's somebody else's fault this happened.

This government has been in charge for four years now. At some point they have to take responsibility for the issues in front of them that they have to manage. It is clear that they have no understanding of the supply chains that operate in this country, and they try to blame somebody else for trying to create uncertainty. Well, the Australian people need no help from anyone to be uncertain about what's going on in this country, because the government's doing a bloody good job of it on its own, because it can't keep its story straight. It can't tell the Australian people, truthfully, what's actually going on. And of course the Australian people remember things like $275 as a reduction in their fuel bill that was supposed to be coming. They remember lower housing costs and a better standard of living that were promised by this government. So why should anyone believe them on fuel today? (Time expired)

I look forward to making my contribution to this debate taking note of answers. I want to say that I understand supply chains as well as anyone in this place, I can tell you. I just thought I'd throw that across to my learned friend over on the other side, Senator Colbeck, who's one of the good ones—like you, Mr Deputy President. But I do want to say this: there is a well-worn track here.

I'll go back—and I'm shooting from the hip, but I think it was about 2015—to when the Rural, Regional Affairs and Transport Committee conducted its first or second inquiry, and I'll be held to account on that, on Australia's future oil supplies. Mr Deputy President, you were a proud member of that magnificent committee, but I don't know whether you were on that inquiry, the first one or the second one. One was done when we on this side were in government—so, obviously prior to 2013. Then I did one as the chair of the references committee in opposition in 2015.

Back then, we had serious concerns about our fuel supplies. A lot of people in this building get bits and pieces. We understand there is a treaty—and I always forget the initials; it's the nuclear mob—that says we're supposed to have 90 days of fuel supply. This is going back to when we had—I will be corrected if I'm wrong—about eight refineries on our shores. We held the inquiry, we travelled through the states, and the message was simple: nobody knew how many days we had. Now, the evidence is all there. It's all written into the report—and I'm talking about the 2015 report, because that's the one I signed off on. No-one had a clue. We were told it was 40, then we were told it was 30, and I remember suggesting to the department at the time, 'Have another guess,' after which we said, 'Don't dig any deeper,' because no-one knew.

What the public needs to know is that when we were looking at how many days of fuel we had—and I'll throw this at you—the number of days they threw at us included, when we had eight refineries, fuel that was on land: 30 days, 40 days, whatever; they couldn't work it out. We thought, 'Okay; that's fair enough.' But then we dug a bit deeper. And this will shock a lot of Aussies: included in those 30 or 40 days or whatever the figure was that's there in the report was oil on its way on ships from Korea, Singapore or Japan or wherever the fuel was coming from. We thought, 'Well, that narrows it down a little bit.' But then came the hook, the third part of the evidence: it also included orders that had been put in but hadn't left Korea or—

Senator Scarr, you're shocked; you should have seen the shock on my face when we were at the parliament house in New South Wales having the inquiry. It also included orders that hadn't been filled.

So I just want to go back. The report that I wrote—three recommendations is all there were; I can't remember them word for word—was seriously saying to the government back then: 'You need to have a very serious look at what is happening on our shores when we have eight refineries.' And nothing happened. That was in 2015. I'm not passing the buck, but nothing happened. And I can talk as someone who does value fuel. I know that fuel is. For those who don't know, I'm from the trucking industry. I get fuel. I get our supply chains.

I will say one thing, as this is a real nerving issue for people out in the regions. And I'm not talking about the truck stops, where the truckies are telling me they're still getting their fuel; it's there every day. Their usage is regular all the time. I do acknowledge those little towns in regional Australia where there are one or two outlets and they run out of fuel. So I've asked my trucking mates, 'How has that happened?' when I have no doubt we have a lot more fuel on our shores now than what we had before. We now have a line of sight of the ships coming— (Time expired)

I rise to take note of answers to questions by Senators Cash, Duniam and Hume. We've been speaking for a number of weeks in this place about the shortage of fuel in this country and the service stations that have run dry either of all fuel or of diesel fuels in particular. I note, in particular, that, when we first raised this issue a number of weeks ago, we were told that we were scaremongering, that we were causing people to panic buy and that we were acting irresponsibly. I do believe I may have even been on take note on the particular day when that occurred.

What has come to pass is the knowledge that, within 24 hours of that and after this parliament had adjourned on Thursday, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy did in fact then say that we did have a crisis in relation to fuel in country. Why am I raising that? I'm raising it because it relates to transparency. It relates to the same lack of transparency we've seen in the answers to all of those different questions that we've asked today. The other side were at pains to talk about talking points. Ultimately the answers to our serious questions about fuel supply in our country came from talking points from the other side. The one thing I want to note is that Australians deserve to know what is going on with fuel supplies; how much we have and if it is enough to sustain what we need to do; and, if we have more supply than we've ever had, why we are not expediting those supplies into the service stations that are empty—exactly what Senator Cash said.

The Prime Minister is holding an address to the nation this evening. When we asked why the Prime Minister wouldn't just tell us today what he had to say, the other side said that we didn't want him to talk to Australians and that we didn't want Australians to hear from their prime minister. In fact, we do. But the Prime Minister is here today in Parliament House, the seat of democracy in our country, and he hasn't told us what he is going to say tonight, because he does not want to be held to account by the people in this chamber. I am told—and I would seek to know whether this is accurate; those opposite might be able to tell us—that tonight's message has been prerecorded. The Prime Minister has already recorded the national address to the country that will be broadcast at 7 pm tonight. If that is actually the case, then we must know why the Prime Minister has seen fit to record a message that he would not make from the dispatch box in the other place.

What does he have to hide if that is actually true? If it is true, then it is shameful. If it is true, the very next time we come back here, he must answer to every single one of us as to why he refused to stand up in his spot as the Prime Minister of our country and, at the dispatch box, tell the whole country what has perhaps already been prerecorded and will be shown to Australians at seven o'clock tonight. Is that so that the rest of us in this chamber and in the chamber in the other place cannot hold him to account? That has become the hallmark of this government: to prevaricate, to hide and to evade until they are ready to tell us what they want us to know rather than the truth.

This government will do everything that we can to shield Australians from the impacts of the global shocks occurring from the war in Iran. What Australians don't need is political leaders creating more doubt and anxiety when people are already worried. People are already worried right now. What we've seen from the leaked talking points from those opposite is that one of their political tasks is to sow doubt into your minds about what's happening with fuel right now. That is an absolute shame on them. People are already worried, and their job, their political task, is to go out and make people more worried. I think that is absolutely shameful right now. On this side of the chamber, and on the government's side of the chamber in the other place, we will do everything that we can to shield Australians from the global shocks. We will stand up for Australia's interests, whilst those opposite only stand up for their own political interests.

The second thing that I would say is that we have a National Fuel Security Plan so Australians can see what the forward plan looks like. The plan has four levels. The first level is 'Plan and prepare', the second is, 'Keeping Australia moving'—that's where we are now—the third is 'Taking targeted action' and the fourth is 'Protecting critical services for all Australians'. That is the plan that Australians can have a look at.

There are a number of things that we've done right now, in the immediate, in response to the global shocks. We've convened National Cabinet a couple of times now. We've agreed, with premiers and chief ministers, to the National Fuel Security Plan that I've just outlined—the four-point plan. We've halved the fuel excise, saving Australians 26.3c per litre, and paused road user charges for truckies for three months—and we've just heard from Senator Sterle about the importance of the trucking industry.

We've passed new laws to double penalties for petrol companies for false and misleading conduct and cartel behaviour, up to $100 million. We've tasked the ACCC to ramp up fuel price monitoring and issue on-the-spot fines. We've begun the release of 20 per cent of Australia's fuel reserves. We've changed petrol and diesel standards to get more fuel flowing. We've created new trading powers to underwrite shipments of fuel from overseas. We've given the Fair Work Commission powers to demand truckies are paid fairly when fuel prices spike. We've appointed a national fuel supply taskforce coordinator, Anthea Harris. We've created a $2 billion emergency pool to respond quickly to domestic fuel issues.

We've made it easier for Australia's refineries to access government funding when they run at a loss. We've unlocked $2 million in financial counselling funding for impacted farmers. We've deferred the next increase of the heavy vehicle road user charge by six months. We've engaged with international partners, including opening a supply agreement with Singapore. We've engaged with the states and territories on supply and distribution. We're holding a special energy ministers meeting on activating the National Coordination Mechanism, which has met twice.

We are absolutely moving with the urgency this situation demands, deploying a national plan that prioritises security and shields Australians and industry from global uncertainty and shocks.

I think that one of the best tests for whether or not this Labor government is handling this crisis appropriately is to look at consumer confidence, and the confidence of Australian people, the confidence of Australian consumers, is at its lowest rate in 50 years. It's at its lowest rate since 1972. The Australian people have lost confidence. As President Roosevelt said, we have nothing to fear except fear itself, and that lack of confidence is of great concern in relation to the Australian economy. It's even lower today than it was at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the coalition was in government and had the job, during a crisis, to manage the messaging to the Australian people and to instil confidence in the Australian people that the Australian government was pulling the levers it needed to pull in order to protect the national interest and the interests of all Australians. So, from my perspective, that result, of consumer confidence being at its lowest level in 50 years, is quite damning of the government's response to the crisis we're in.

The second point I want to make is in relation to the Prime Minister's national address, which is going to occur tonight. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is going to speak to the Australian people. I believe there should have been more of it and that it should have occurred earlier and more often. The concern I have is that this parliament has been sitting for four of the last five weeks. It appears—and my colleague Senator Kovacic raised this—that this message is prerecorded. It raises the obvious question as to why the Prime Minister isn't giving that message now—and didn't earlier today—in the Australian parliament so all of us here as Australian senators have an opportunity to raise concerns and interrogate the messaging that's contained in that address and to raise issues of concern to the people we represent? Why are we being deprived of that opportunity?

For four out of the last five weeks, this parliament's been sitting, yet the Prime Minister makes a decision to give that national address on the afternoon of the last day of those four weeks of sitting. Why? Of greater concern is that this parliament will not be sitting for five weeks, until the national budget, so the Australian people will be deprived of their representatives having the opportunity to interrogate the government and the executive with respect to its response to this crisis.

The last point I want to make is that the Australian people are being hit from all sides in terms of this cost-of-living crisis, and my attention was caught by this quote:

Westpac chief economist Luci Ellis said even factoring in the reduction of the fuel excise, she expects headline inflation to peak at 5.4 per cent in the June quarter. She also now expects the official cash rate to peak at 4.85 per cent this year. Ellis previously forecast one additional rate hike in May, but now also sees follow-up hikes in June and August …

That is devastating news for those Australians, including young Australians, who are servicing their home loans. The Australian people are copping it from all sides under this Labor government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers to questions that I asked of the Minister representing the Treasurer.

From the moment that Trump and Netanyahu's war began, fuel companies started jacking up their prices, increasing the price of fuel that they already had in their tanks. There was no shortage of petrol or diesel at that point; there was just plain old price gouging. Yet Labor's solution is not to stop price gouging or to implement powers to force petrol stations to immediately pass on the price reduction. Instead, we're told to rely on those big fuel companies to, out of the goodness of their hearts, just pass on those savings to the consumer without any obligation that this government has placed on them to do so.

On what planet is that good enough or reassuring enough for the community? War has already made billionaires and big corporations richer. It's just another business model for them. People are already at their limit. Before this war, the cost-of-living crisis was deep and real, and now it's even worse, so it is critical that the government pulls all the levers that it can before things get even worse. But, for some reason, the only cost-of-living relief measure that the government are pulling the levers on is direct relief for business. Where is the cost-of-living relief going directly to ordinary people, things like free public transport? People need real cost-of-living relief directly, not funnelled through big businesses with no obligation to pass it on.

Prices are going up everywhere, not just at the bowser, but Labor are backing big business and not people. Businesses are getting that immediate, direct help, but people are told to wait and just hope that the big corporations will be kind enough to pass on the savings to them—like that's ever happened before. A cut to the fuel excise, which those fuel corporations might pass on in a couple of weeks time, will do nothing to help people who are pulling their hair out and making difficult decisions at the checkout today. People, not petrol companies, need help now.

We need short- and long-term solutions—cost-of-living relief now and electrification in the medium and long term for our genuine energy independence. We should not be so dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Whether or not you can fill your car to get to work shouldn't be dependent on whether Trump is dragging us into yet another illegal forever war.

But this is business as usual from the three war parties. Labor, the coalition and One Nation are united in their support for this war, united in spending hundreds of billions on nuclear submarines that we're probably never going to see and united in support of an increasingly erratic US president. And Labor want to argue that we're defensive and not offensive. Get a grip. The US and Israel do not distinguish. Australian personnel and our resources are embedded in this conflict. We are involved. In the last 24 hours, Donald Trump has started attacking his alleged allies and called on them to attack Iran and take Iranian oil alongside the US and Israeli military. Where is the pushback on that lunatic suggestion from our government? We have heard absolute crickets. We need a sober reassessment of our relationship with the United States. Australians are realising more and more clearly every day that maybe it's not such a great idea to be tied at the hip to Donald Trump and that, with agreements like AUKUS, we have contracted far too much of our sovereignty out to the US—particularly a US that is led by Donald Trump.

AUKUS was a dud to deal from day one. It's bad for the community, it's bad for the environment, it's bad for Australia's place in the world and it's bad for our budget bottom line. Australia's resources and our people should be withdrawn, and all pressure should be placed on Trump to end this war. We must get out of that dud deal of AUKUS and start investing in helping our community with genuine cost-of-living relief, not following Donald Trump into whatever crazy idea he has in a week or two's time. Bring our people home, start delivering some cost-of-living relief directly to people and get out of that dud AUKUS deal.

Question agreed to.

Senator McKenzie?

I seek leave to table a non-conforming petition—

No, that is for the other crossbenchers. It's five minutes for the Greens. That time is for the other crossbenchers. I'm happy to take one more submission, but what I've said is correct.

Firstly, that was not communicated to me at any point. Secondly, my understanding of the arrangements is communicated to me through the whips, and that is not what has been communicated to me. I will refer the matter to the President, who happens to be in the chamber, but that was never communicated to me. Senator McKenzie, you have the call.

by leave—I table a non-conforming petition that includes an addition of 3,607 signatures. That takes the number of signatures that have signed 'say a hard no to the Labor Party's unfair gun law changes' to over 70,000 Australians.

I seek leave to make a 2½-minute statement.

Is leave granted? I will remind the chamber so that we're all very clear: the arrangement is that the last position goes to the crossbench. It has nothing to do with whether questions are swapped or not. It's a crossbench position.

The rules have changed. It's now two five-minute slots. That's what we're asking.

Senator Waters, you're not in a debate with me. I'm trying to explain very clearly to the chamber that the additional spot is for the crossbench. This came because Senator Lambie put a very strong position. It doesn't matter who took a question. I am moving on. I am not entertaining any more questions. I will put the question. Sorry, is leave granted? Leave is granted for two minutes, Senator Allman-Payne.

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Watt in relation to my questions around suspending mutual obligations and increasing the rate of income support payments while we are in this crisis caused by the illegal war committed by the US and Israel in Iran. In his answer, the minister first went to the difference in position between the Greens and the government on the implementation of mutual obligations. Today's question was not about whether or not we should have mutual obligations; the Greens' position on that is on the record. It was a question about whether the government is going to recognise that people on income support are struggling in this fuel crisis caused by a war that this government supports.

Rents are so high that people on income support live further and further out of our cities and are pushed out into regions and rural areas. They do not have the benefit of public transport in the way that many people in our community do, yet this government is still requiring them to buy fuel and to get into their cars to attend appointments with job service providers just to keep their payments. Cancelling mutual obligations happens with cyclones, happens with floods, happens with heatwaves and happened during COVID. This crisis is apparently so serious that our Prime Minister needs to address the nation this evening. Well, I would submit to the government that a very simple thing they could do to help hundreds of thousands of Australians who are absolutely doing it tough in this crisis would be to suspend mutual obligations now.

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

Leave granted.

The report read as follows—

Selection of Bills Committee

REPORT NO. 5 OF 2026

1 April 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Leah Blyth

Senator Cadell (Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 31 March 2026 at 7.11 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the provisions of the following bills be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2026 (see appendix 1 for statement of reasons for referral):

(b) the provisions of the Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 May 2026 (see appendix 2 for statement of reasons for referral),

(c) the provisions of the Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2026 (see appendix 3 for statement of reasons for referral), and

(d) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2026 (see appendix 4 for statement of reasons for referral).

3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:

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

  (Tony Sheldon)

Chair

  31 March 2026

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Aviation Consumer Protection Bill Aviation Consumer Protection Levy Bill

Aviation Consumer Protection Levy (Collection) Bill

Aviation Consumer Protection (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill (To be originated in the House of Representatives Wednesday 1 April 2026)

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): April—June 2026

Possible reporting date: 19 June 2026

(signed)

Appendix 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Customs Legislation Amendment (False Trade Marks Infringement Notices) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): April- May 2026

Possible reporting date:5 May 2026

(signed)

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Appendix 3

Name of bill: Secrecy Provisions Amendment (Repealing Offences) Bill

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To scrutinise this legislation and to hear from stakeholders.

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): April—June 2026

Possible reporting date: 19 June 2026.

(signed)

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering an Efficient and Trusted Tax System) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and stakeholders

Committee to which bill is to be referred: Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s): April 2026

Possible reporting date: 30 April 2026

(signed)

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Question agreed to.

If there is no objection, the business is postponed.

At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) on 24 July 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 27, relating to Treasury advice concerning first home buyers, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Monday, 28 July 2025,

(ii) on 27 August 2025, the Senate agreed to order for the production of documents no. 119, relating to the Home Guarantee Scheme, requiring the Minister representing the Treasurer to comply with the order by no later than midday on Tuesday, 2 September 2025,

(iii) since those orders were agreed to, the Senate has agreed to a further 8 motions concerning the minister's failure to comply with the orders, rejected a public interest immunity claim raised by the Minister for Housing and required a minister to attend the Senate to provide an explanation of the failure to comply with the orders on 4 separate occasions,

(iv) most recently, on 25 March 2026, the Minister representing the Minister for Housing attended the Senate to provide a second explanation of the failure to comply with order for the production of documents no. 119 or to respond in full to the order,

(v) the additional explanation provided by the minister was not satisfactory and did not address the minister's failure to comply with the order, and

(vi) the orders have still not been fully complied with; and

(b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Housing to attend the Senate immediately following the consideration of any proposals under standing order 75 on Tuesday, 12 May 2026, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the orders or to respond in full to the orders, 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.

The question is that general business notice of motion No. 476, standing in the name of Senator Bragg and moved by Senator Cadell, be agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator David Pocock, move:

That on Wednesday, 1 April 2026, general business notice of motion no. 475 standing in the name of Senators Shoebridge and David Pocock, relating to a request to the Auditor-General to reinstate the Australian National Audit Office's annual major project report:

(a) be called on immediately after formal business;

(b) have precedence over all other business; and

(c) be determined without amendment or debate.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum and to have my second reading speech incorporated.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

ONLINE SAFETY AMENDMENT (FIX OUR FEEDS) BILL 2026

I rise today in favour of the Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026. This Greens bill will amend the Online Safety Act 2021 to insert a provision requiring social media platforms to provide users with the option to opt out of algorithms at any time, as part of implementing a broader digital duty of care.

For too long big tech giants have been profiting off toxic business models that are designed to keep people hooked, just like cigarettes or pokie machines. Multi-billion dollar companies like Meta and Google are making massive profits off a product that is deliberately designed to be addictive, even when it is harmful.

While the harms of social media are new, the consequences of big corporations profiting off our most vulnerable are not. The gambling industry designed their poker machines to be addictive, the tobacco industry designed their cigarettes to keep consumers coming back even when they knew it was toxic and deadly, and now we have the social media giants targeting their users with addictive content. A US Court recently handed down a landmark decision that ruled that multi-billion dollar companies Meta and Google were found legally responsible for deliberately designing addictive products that led to harm.

Big Tech is the new "Big Tobacco" and it is critical that our Government takes action.

I would like to thank Chanel Contos and the team at 'Teach Us Consent' who have put forward this critical campaign to 'Fix Our Feeds.' After decades of Government unwillingness to tackle the harms of social media algorithms, this campaign puts forward a clear cut solution—users should have the right to opt in or out of social media algorithms at any time.

These toxic algorithms are not only deliberately addictive, they also feed hate and division, fuelling sexism, misogyny, hate and extremism online, and in the community. Social media apps and their insidious algorithms have become the breeding grounds for extremism and radicalisation, curating a feed that is wired to fuel the user's vulnerabilities. Whether it's racism, sexism or blatant misogyny, these toxic algorithms create echo chambers of hate and division which translate into users' everyday lives. As noted by Teach Us Consent, it takes just 23 minutes for a social media account mimicking a 16-18-year-old boy to be fed misogynistic content, regardless of the account's viewing preferences. Worse yet, studies show that 73% of online users claim to have seen misogynistic content online. This harmful content puts men and women in danger of serious harm, with the increasing rates of misogyny and sexual violence intrinsically linked to the thousands of anti-feminist and 'manosphere' videos flooding people's algorithms.

This should not be the status quo for online users and this Greens bill to amend the Online Safety Act would put the power back in the hands of the user—not the big tech giants.

We need regulations and guardrails that limit the power these big tech giants have on what their users are consuming. The Greens 'Fix our Feeds' bill would implement a simple opt out option for users to decide whether they want to be flooded with harmful content or not. We know what the consequences are when big industries, like the tobacco and gambling industry, are given free rein to sell addictive and harmful products to vulnerable consumers. The US Court's ruling should be a warning for all governments to act now.

While the Australian Government implemented its world first social media ban on under 16s three months ago, it is clear that a blanket ban on social media does not go anywhere near combatting the harm of social media to users of all ages. Toxic and dangerous algorithms are still running wild and social division has reached its highest point. At the time of the social media ban's introduction into this place, the Greens were clear from the start—you do not make social media safer by kicking kids off the platforms. Big tech giants must be responsible for and made to ensure all users are safe on their platforms.

The Government promised to implement a digital duty of care alongside their social media ban, but it has now been 18 months and we are yet to see any further progress. While the Government has been slow to act, the Greens are getting on with the job and will implement a digital duty of care on tech companies as part of this bill. By imposing a duty of care on companies like Meta and Google, the big tech giants will have a legal responsibility to ensure their platforms are safe for use and are not harmful to any users. This bill would force the tech companies to comply with a range of legal obligations, including to assess and mitigate risk, ensure transparency over functions of their service such as algorithms and advertising, and protect Australians' privacy. For too long, the Government has let the big tech companies off the hook—this digital duty of care would finally hold the tech companies accountable for the harm they have caused.

Governments and courts across the world are acknowledging that the big tech giants cannot be trusted to protect their users from the harm caused by their product. In 2022, the European Union implemented their Digital Services Act, which allows social media users to opt out of algorithms and puts the safety of online users at the centre of social media regulation. Australia should follow in the EU's lead and support the Greens' Bill to fix our feeds.

By fixing our feeds and implementing a digital duty of care, this bill reflects the urgent need to take on these multi-billion dollar social media companies and ensure their toxic business models are regulated. This will be a critical step in holding the big tech giants to account, and would finally put the user's online safety above big tech's corporate profits.

Public sentiment is clear—people want the Government to take on big tech giants and prioritise the safety of Australians online. Users of all ages and on a variety of platforms are exposed to harm from toxic algorithms and the dangerous content they push. Any solution to combat the harms of social media must protect all Australian users, regardless of the year they were born.

I urge the Government to listen to Australians and support this solution. The 'Fix our Feeds' bill would take Australia one step further to protecting all users by putting them back in control of the content they consume, limiting exposure to harmful content and addictive algorithms. Big Tech is on track to become today's Big Tobacco and it is the responsibility of our Parliament to safeguard future generations from their insidious harms.

I urge the Government, and the Parliament more broadly, to honour its promise and support this bill to fix our feeds and finally implement a digital duty of care to give all Australians a safer online experience.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I, and also on behalf of Senator David Pocock, move:

That the Senate requests the Auditor-General to urgently reinstate the Australian National Audit Office's annual major projects report in order to continue reviewing the Department of Defence's major equipment acquisition projects.

Question agreed to.

Senator Sharma has submitted a proposal, under standing order 75, today, which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red:

After four years of the Albanese Labor Government, Australians have endured the biggest fall in living standards in the developed world, and this Easter too many families are asking not what they can buy, but what they must go without.

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.

As Easter approaches, we have Australian households doing it tough not only because of the fuel crisis prompted by the conflict in the Middle East but because of what has happened over these past four years under the Albanese government. The truth is that Australians have endured the biggest collapse in living standards across the developed world in the past four years.

This is a tale of woe in the lead up to Easter. We have Australians working harder than ever, but they are worse off than ever. Australians are not earning any more, because real wages and real incomes are flat. More of what they earn is being taken from them by taxes. More of what they take home after the government has taken its cut in taxes has to go to service their mortgage and higher interest repayments. And what they are left with after all of this—after they've paid their tax and paid their mortgage—buys less because everything is more expensive. This is a toxic brew—no real-wage growth, high taxes, high interest rates, high inflation.

The best measure of this—the best measure that reflects Australia's lived reality right now—is the decline in Australia's real household disposable income per capita. This figure sounds archaic, but it measures what households are left with after government has taken its cut through taxes, after the bank has taken its cut through interest repayments and after inflation has taken its chunk. In Australia, real household disposable income per capita went down by seven per cent from mid-2022 to mid-2025, and it hasn't improved since mid-2025—a seven per cent decline in living standards over three years. The same period, across other advanced economies—Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, the United States, Canada—has seen real household disposable income increase by six per cent. Australia is not part of a global phenomenon here; Australia is an outlier. Australia is the worst performer in the advanced world. Let's unpack each of these in turn.

Real wages—we have not seen them grow in four years. The wage price index has not kept pace with the consumer price index. Why? This is because productivity is going backwards—the result of stifling regulation, the result of heavy handed industrial relations interventions. Without productivity gains, you cannot have sustainable real-wage growth.

We've got taxes that are higher than ever. You will hear those opposite talk about cost-of-living relief through the stage 3 income tax cuts, but, if you look at what the government has been taking from people in income tax, it has grown massively. Personal income tax receipts were $242 billion in 2022. According to the latest estimates in MYEFO, in 2025-26 they'll be $325 billion. That is the government taking $83 billion more in income tax over the past four years—a 34 per cent increase. So you're not earning any more. The government is taking more tax, and now you're having to pay more to the bank because we have seen 14 interest rate rises here in Australia under this government, which means the decision the week before last by the Reserve Bank is adding to people's mortgage repayments and the decision last month by the Reserve Bank is adding to people's mortgage repayments. In fact, the cumulative total of all those RBA rate increases under this government means that an average mortgage holder is paying $27,000 more a year in interest rates.

Then we've got inflation, with prices high across the board, meaning that what you're left with, after the government has taken its cut—after your real wages have not moved, after you've paid more in interest—buys less. Electricity is up by 38 per cent, gas by 42 per cent, food by 16 per cent, child care by 14 per cent, insurance by 39 per cent and rents by 22 per cent.

If we had a serious government, they would have used these good economic times to restore our fiscal balance sheet and get our economic house in order. Instead, all they've done is tax more and spend more. If we had a competent government, they would have done more to prepare us for this fuel shock coming from the Middle East. And if we had a good government, they would have been up-front with the Australian public from day one about the problems we face, rather than having us wait with bated breath for a 7 pm press conference by the Prime Minister.

I rise to speak against this motion by Senator Sharma, and I want to start by saying that we know Australians are doing it tough. We've said it—I've said it—in this place over the past couple of weeks. The Prime Minister has said it. Colleagues have said it. And that's an important conversation for us to have. But I think what is actually reckless, to use the words of Senator Sharma, is when those opposite continue to not be up-front with the Australian people about the facts. So I'm going to share some facts here that might assist them, because I think we continue to see the reasons Australians in recent years and across recent elections have come to no longer trust the coalition on running the economy. We've seen the party who used to be trusted on managing the economy having lost that trust of the Australian people, and I think today is yet another example of why that is the case.

So here are the facts. Living standards grew by two per cent through to the December quarter last year. The latest OECD data shows that our living standards are growing at twice the average of major advanced economies. What is the coalition's record? When they were sitting on the government benches, what did Australians see? They saw a deliberate strategy of keeping wages low. They saw consecutive quarters after consecutive quarters of wages going down, inflation rising and a trillion dollars of debt. When we came to government in 2022, inflation had a six in front of it. And to talk about higher taxes is incredible to me—from a political party who took to the last election a plan to have higher taxes than Australians have under this Labor government. It is extraordinary.

But, on our watch, the story is different. We have had stronger wage growth and rising living standards that Australians did not see under the former government. We brought inflation down from its peak. We've had eight consecutive quarters of annual wage growth, the longest period in more than a decade. Annual nominal wages have grown by above three per cent for 14 quarters in a row, the highest streak in more than 15 years. Come July, every Australian worker will see another tax cut delivered by the Albanese government, and they'll get another one next year, too. I say it again: those opposite took to the last election a plan to not deliver those tax cuts. If those opposite had won the election in May last year, Australians would be paying more tax today than they are under this government.

We saw no evidence of good economic management from those opposite when they were in government. We certainly saw no effort on their behalf to raise the living standards of ordinary Australians. Our government is committed to helping Australians get ahead. Our government is committed to making sure Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn. We have seen record investment from this government in helping Australians meet the cost of essentials, whether it's making sure that Australians can access cheaper medicines, whether it's making sure that more Australians can see the GP for free or whether it's cutting student debt. We fought hard for wage rises for some of our hardest working Australians, such as aged-care workers and childcare workers, and this week our government has come out asking for the Fair Work Commission to increase the wages of minimum-wage workers.

This is the work of a Labor government that is absolutely committed to helping Australians when times are tough. We know that people are under pressure, and that's why we are doing something about it, while still finding savings in the budget. We are delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer. We are delivering cheaper medicines. We are slashing student debt and we are backing higher wages. We are committed to doing the work that those opposite showed they were simply not up to doing when they were last in government.

Perhaps one of the most damning facts of all is that the level of consumer confidence in this country is the lowest it's been for 50 years. That really is a damning statistic. One of the fundamental obligations of a federal government is to provide the Australian people with confidence—confidence to employ their fellow Australians, to spend and invest money and to live their lives as they deserve to in our beautiful country—and yet the level of confidence in Australia is at its lowest level in 50 years. We're actually hearing that from everyday Australians, certainly from those in my home state of Queensland.

It's hard for the Australian people to have confidence in the Labor government, because of the mixed messages the Labor government has been giving with respect to the supply of oil during this oil crisis. As the number of petrol stations that were running out of fuel of different types increased, from 600 to 700 to now over 800, we had Minister O'Neil last week—it's hard to believe this—saying that there was more fuel supply in Australia than there was before the crisis. What sort of parallel universe is Minister O'Neil living in? I don't know if she's changed her position. I'm certain she won't be quoted in the Prime Minister's address this evening. I'm sure he won't be quoting Minister O'Neil in that regard.

Australians have never had it so good!

Absolutely not. At the same time, we have farmers who are sleeping next to their equipment because they're concerned people are so desperate for diesel that they'll come onto their property and take it. How did we get into this situation? It's quite extraordinary.

As Senator Sharma correctly observed, the fact of the matter is that probably one of the best indicators of the standard of living of average Australians is household disposable income—that's how much income people have in their pockets to spend on the things they need—and in real terms, after considering the impact of inflation, there has been a seven per cent decline in household disposable income, from mid-2022 to mid-2025, and it just keeps going down under the Labor government. There is no-one the Labor government can blame except themselves. And, at the same time as real household disposable income has been declining by that material amount—this is quite extraordinary—we've seen an increase in income tax paid by the Australian people, from $242 billion in 2022, which is an extraordinary figure in itself, to $325 billion. That's an increase of $83 billion in three years. I think, Senator Sharma, 36 per cent—

Thirty-four per cent.

Thirty-four percent—thank you. It is a 34 per cent increase in three years. That's extraordinary.

So there's this wave of income tax revenue, this tsunami of income tax revenue, that the government has been receiving, but, at the same time, it's been spending like a drunken sailor, and we have this huge inflationary impact which is hurting the Australian people and has fed into the 14 interest rate increases we've had under the Labor government. Earlier today, I quoted from the chief economist at Westpac, who's predicting an extra three interest rate increases for the balance of the year. Interest payments are $27,000 a year more for Australians with an average mortgage—an extra $27,000 in interest payments under Labor, paid by an average Australian family with a mortgage. It's an extraordinary amount. Inflation keeps going up. Australians are just being hit from all sides in a cost-of-living crisis. We're getting these mixed messages from the Labor government, and the Prime Minister has the audacity to give a national address after parliament rises.

I rise to oppose this MPI brought by Senator Sharma. It's actually an interesting debate that we're having here today, not because of what has been brought forward by Senator Sharma but because of what is missing from the motion that has been brought by Senator Sharma. Those opposite want the people to forget what this government inherited when we came to government in 2022, and they want people to not factor in what is happening in the world today—a serious conflict that has disrupted countries all around the world. They want to pretend that the government has stood still while households have been under pressure. The contribution that I was just listening to never mentioned, as far as I heard, anything about the war in the Middle East.

But it is a good time, and it's opportune—and I thank Senator Sharma for the opportunity—to talk about the facts. The facts, when Labor came into office, were that inflation was rising; wages had been kept low—deliberately kept low as part of the federal coalition government's plan for workers in this country; Medicare had been weakened year after year after year while those opposite were in government; and too many Australians had been told they were on their own. I won't even go into robodebt and what they thought about people who were on social security.

Since then, the Labor government has focused on something simple but important—that is, helping people now and rebuilding the systems that they rely on. That is why every taxpayer has received a tax cut, with another coming in July. It is why minimum-wage and award-wage workers have seen pay rises worth more than $9,000. It is why we have expanded paid parental leave and made sure that super is paid on it. It is why we are cutting student debt by 20 per cent, with average savings of around $5,000. And it's why we're backing paid prac for students training for essential jobs. If anyone in the coalition had been out talking to university students about paid prac, they'd know how popular it is but also how absolutely needed it is. Those things are extremely important—and that is not doing nothing. That is a government making choices to assist Australians. It's making the choice to rebuild the systems that the former coalition government had weakened.

The same is true in health. The cost of living is not just what happens at the checkout; it affects whether you can afford to see a doctor or fill a prescription. As I said, we've strengthened Medicare. We've also expanded bulk-billing and opened Medicare urgent care clinics right across the country. In my home state of Tasmania, those clinics are now up and running and making a difference to people, to families. They're up and running in Bridgewater, Burnie, Devonport, Kingston, Launceston and Sorell, with two clinics in Hobart, giving people access to seven-days-a-week urgent care close to their home. And, of course, as of 1 January, PBS medicines are now $25 or less. That matters to people trying to hold the household budget together.

This government cares about Australians, and we'll continue to support them. (Time expired)

I rise to support this matter of public importance from my fellow senator, Senator Sharma. It is extraordinary to sit here and listen to the contributions from those opposite. I think it's fair to say that they are gaslighting the Australian people. After four years under this Albanese government, Australians are going backwards. You only have to go out there and speak to someone at the grocery store or at the school gate and they will tell you that their life is much worse now than it was four years ago. Around the kitchen table, they will tell you that they are struggling to pay their electricity bills and they are struggling with the cost of insurance. We've just heard Senator Brown prattle off all the urgent care clinics and what they're doing with Medicare. Today people have had to put up with increases in their private health insurance premiums, on top of what is happening with the cost of fuel. To sit here and listen to those opposite tell us that everything is absolutely fine and Australians have never had it so good absolutely makes me feel sick.

Australians are going backwards. Material income is down by seven per cent. Those opposite say we've had record wage growth in Australia, but how is that keeping pace with inflation? Inflation means families have less money in their pockets to spend on the things that they want to do. Instead of sitting around thinking, 'What are we going to do with the kids this Easter? Are we going to catch up with family?' families are asking themselves, 'What can we cut this Easter?' They cannot afford to take the family road trip or buy Easter eggs for the kids, because of the rising cost of groceries and the rising power prices. This is a result of very poor policy choices by this government.

We have had 14 interest rate rises under the Albanese Labor government, and I think it's fair to say there is more to come. And this was all before the conflict in the Middle East began. Things were already challenging for the Australian people. We already had a cost-of-living crisis, and now, on top of that, Australian families are having to put up with a fuel crisis in our country. We will probably see more interest rate rises in Australia this year. We have sticky inflation. Senator Scarr mentioned that this government is spending like a drunken sailor, and it is. We are headed towards $1 trillion in debt. That is about $50,000 per minute in interest payments that the Australian taxpayer is picking up the bill for, and there is no stopping this government's spending. Inflation will stay higher for longer, we will have significant issues in our economy and we will see our living standards go backwards. The only reasons we aren't in recession are that they not only are spending like drunken sailors but have opened the floodgates to migration here in Australia. The only reason we are not in a recession is the number of people they are bringing into the country to prop up those numbers. That is having an impact then on housing for Australians. That is having an impact on accessing hospitals and medical services. It's having an impact on everyone's back pocket.

I think it's fair to say that the policy choices that this government is making are driving Australia into the ground. It is breaking the back, quite frankly, of hardworking Australians. That's what it's doing. When Labor spends, it is the Australian people who pay the price. That's the bottom line here: Labor will keep spending. They will keep gaslighting the Australian people and telling them that everything is fine, but, when Australians go to get their groceries and pay that grocery bill, when Australians have to pay their rent and when their mortgages keep going up and have gone up for the 14th time, I think it's fair to say that the Australian people have had enough. It's time for this government to, as it's asking the Australian people to do, balance the books and live within its means.

Order! The time has expired for that motion.

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

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

That, in a cost of living crisis, and with climate-driven disasters rising in their frequency and severity, the government must make polluters pay to fund a transition, clean up the damage and lower the cost of insurance.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

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

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

At the request of Senator McKim—I move:

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

That, in a cost of living crisis, and with climate-driven disasters rising in their frequency and severity, the government must make polluters pay to fund a transition, clean up the damage and lower the cost of insurance.

Everywhere you look in the country, there is evidence of climate ruin. It is only going to get worse. Last week Cyclone Narelle wreaked havoc across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia, with multiple regions experiencing their worst flooding in decades. Ningaloo Reef was torn up by Cyclone Narelle. Coral, sea birds, fish, sea snakes, eels, turtle hatchlings and dolphins have washed up on the shores—all now dead. This follows the worst coral bleaching event in the reef's history from rising sea temperatures last summer. In Exmouth, the cyclone ripped roofs, obliterated the airport, upheaved trees, toppled boats and flooded communities.

While so many communities are beginning a long journey of recovery, home insurance premiums have risen by more than 50 per cent in the last five years. The most expensive areas in which to insure a property are the ones hit hardest by climate driven disasters. Older Australians are really feeling the repercussions as the cost of insurance wipes decades off their retirement plans. APRA recently found that one in seven Australian homes is uninsured today, with that number likely to rise to one in four homes being uninsured by 2050 due to climate change. Members and senators here have heard so many times directly from affected communities about the impacts of climate driven disasters on their lives and livelihoods, yet governments refuse to act.

Every year climate disasters grow deadlier and more frequent. Every time ordinary people suffer. The home insurance crisis deepens while insurance companies get richer and coal, oil and gas corporations continue to destroy the environment, rake in massive profits and escape all accountability. It shouldn't be communities who are bearing the brunt of the cascading and compounding cost of living, housing and insurance and the climate crisis. It should be the polluters who are forced to pay to transition to renewable energy, to clean up the damage and to lower the cost of insurance.

Thanks to successive Labor and coalition governments—bought out by fossil fuel corporations—we are now experiencing climate whiplash. Across Australia this summer, we had communities preparing for catastrophic bushfires and heatwaves of over 45 degrees and then days later watching their cars be washed away in flash floods. There was snow in Tasmania over Christmas and, less than two weeks later, Victoria was doused in flames. Over 400,000 hectares burned and 54 homes were burnt down in Ravenswood and Harcourt.

With every coal and gas approval, the Albanese government is literally pouring fuel on the fire, engulfing the country in flames. In just the last three years, severe and extreme weather events cost $15½ billion in insured losses. As with any crisis, we know that it is vulnerable communities and First Nations people who will be hit the hardest.

We know that adapting to a changing climate is going to be expensive, and those who have broken the climate—the big polluters—must foot the bill to fix it. The Albanese government should start today by imposing a 25 per cent gas export tax, putting the pain where it belongs—on the big corporations. Instead, the Albanese government sticks to the same old rules: don't interfere with the big profits of big corporations and the billionaires, don't upset the ruling class, and, above all, don't upset your big coal and gas donors.

The Albanese government talks the talk about climate change, but it has sold our oceans, environment, wildlife and future in service of coal and gas profits. They have also sold out ordinary Australians to a war we never wanted. Ordinary people get crumbs while big corporations make a killing. Families, renters and retirees should not be paying for a climate crisis that they did not cause. The ones who should pay are the ones who caused the crisis and who are profiting from it every single day. We deserve a government willing to stand up to the climate polluters, the planet wreckers and the war machine.

I rise today to discuss Senator McKim's urgency motion. You don't need to look far to see what people are dealing with right now. It's there in everyday conversations, at the shops, at home and in every community we represent. You don't need a briefing pack to realise that people are feeling the pressure right now. You see it when your rent goes up and when your insurance renewal comes through and you have to double-check that it's not a typo. It's when groceries somehow cost more but your bag feels lighter. Insurance is a big part of that story, because what we're seeing isn't random. It's the reality of more frequent and more extreme weather events—floods, fires, storms. That risk is going up, and insurance prices are going up with it. This isn't theoretical; it's what people are living through.

But I think where we need to be a bit careful is pretending that there is a single, simple fix that solves all of this overnight. There isn't. What the government is doing, and what I think really matters here, is focusing on the practical things that bring costs down and make communities safer, because the cheapest insurance claim is the one that never has to be made. That's why we've already committed $1 billion over five years to the Disaster Ready Fund, actually investing in resilience, in mitigation and in making sure communities aren't left exposed in the first place. That's why we've set up the Hazards Insurance Partnership—which sounds a bit technical, but what it's about is government and insurers finally sharing data properly so we know where risk is and where investment will make the biggest difference. It's why we're looking at things like standardising definitions in insurance contracts, because people shouldn't need a law degree to work out what they're covered for. These things might not be flashy, but they're what actually shifts prices over time.

At the same time, we're not ignoring the broader cost-of-living pressures that people are dealing with right now, because this isn't happening in isolation. We've delivered tax cuts for every taxpayer, with another one coming this year. We've backed real wage increases, especially for people on minimum and award wages, because your pay should reflect the value of your work. We've expanded paid parental leave. We're investing more into Medicare. We're cutting the cost of medicines down to $25 or less, which is huge for people managing ongoing health costs. We've got 30 per cent off home batteries to bring power bills down permanently. We're helping first home buyers get into the market with lower deposits. We're even freezing the excise on beer, which I know is getting a workout in some parts of the country. We've also cut student debt by 20 per cent. That is not nothing. All of this matters because, when we talk about cost of living, we're not talking about one bill; we're talking about the pile of them sitting on the kitchen counter.

On the climate side of this—because this is a part of the conversation—I don't think anyone seriously disputes that climate change is making these things worse. We had almost a decade of inaction on that, thanks to the coalition. That had real consequences, and we don't have the luxury of another decade of chopped legislation. Yes, there is a broader transition happening. Yes, there are questions about who pays and how we manage that fairly, but we need to get that balance right, because, if the goal is to lower costs for households, we have to be focused on policies that actually do that, not just ones that sound good in headlines but don't translate into lower premiums or safer homes.

I think Australians are pretty practical about this. They want action on climate. They also want to be able to afford their insurance, their groceries, their rent—all of it. The job of government is to bring those things together in a way that works in a real way in the real world, not pick one and ignore the rest. While I understand the intent behind this motion—and I think the concern is valid—the real test is: what actually delivers for people? What actually makes their lives more affordable, more secure and a little bit less stressful? That's what we're focused on, and that's what people expect of us.

Climate pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels is rewriting the risk book on our weather. The National Climate Risk Assessment warned of more powerful and destructive storms, and that's what Cyclone Narelle was—a historic cyclone. Cyclone Narelle hit Australia four different times, striking three states as a category 3. This is the second time this has happened in our history, the last time being 2005, and it was a much bigger storm. This cyclone was born in the Coral Sea off the back of ocean temperatures in the Coral Sea in 2025 being the warmest on record. The warmest summer on record in the Coral Sea—the warmest ocean temperatures ever recorded—was in February 2026.

Then it made its way to Queensland and rivalled Cyclone Yasi as the most intense cyclone to ever make landfall as a category 5 cyclone in this nation's history. It then crossed the Northern Territory after they'd had a horrendous wet season of flooding and then reformed in Western Australia, eventually heading south and cutting its way across Western Australia to end in the Great Australian Bight and be subsumed by a big storm from the Southern Ocean. This is what climate change looks like, and it's because we refuse to act on climate change in places like this parliament that this is happening.

I especially feel really sorry for the community in Exmouth, who scored a direct hit—200 kilometre-an-hour winds. A big shout-out to them all from the Australian Senate today. The community's coming together. There's incredible energy there to rebuild. They're under immense pressure, especially going into tourism season over Easter. It's, of course, one of the premier places in Australia to go to now. I would like to give a special shout-out to the community, who are not only cleaning up and helping each other out but looking after the precious wildlife that suffered so terribly from the storm. If any senators have some spare money through their electoral allowances or otherwise, please donate to Balu Blue. You can go online. The work they're doing is absolutely amazing—heartbreaking scenes of hundreds of turtles, sea snakes, dead dolphins and all sorts of marine life washed up on the beach.

This is coming off the back of a second major climate event off the coast of Exmouth in the last 12 months. Those ocean temperatures off north-west WA down to Exmouth last year were record breaking. They recorded temperatures of around 36 degrees Celsius in the water. To give you an idea, the temperatures in the Coral Sea this year were 30 degrees. Above 26.5 degrees, you can get a tropical cyclone. Off WA, at the Montebellos, last year, they got to 38 degrees in the ocean. And, of course, we had catastrophic bleaching impacts on the Ningaloo World Heritage listed reef—absolutely one of the treasures of our country, not to mention the Montebellos and a bunch of others incredible reefs off WA. By the way, at the same time, we were having a mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef—the seventh mass coral bleaching in the last 15 years. Do you think we might be waking up to the fact that something is happening to our climate? Don't take my word for it. Tale the words of the hundreds of scientists who put together the National Climate Risk Assessment and warned us that, if we didn't act on climate change, this was going to be the future—a future of danger, destruction and suffering for our community and our precious biodiversity and wildlife.

It beggars belief that the National Party—for example, Senator Canavan—is calling for more oil and gas drilling in our oceans and more fossil fuel. You would think Queensland senators like you, Senator McDonald, would understand the threat these cyclones pose to our communities and the damage they're doing to our economy and agricultural businesses. Yet you go out there, ignore the science and call for more fossil fuel development at a time when we know we need to be transitioning to renewable energy.

While we're at it, why don't we tax the big gas corporations and their exports, like we should—we've been pushing for 20 years to do that—and spend that bloody money on helping our communities? They are suffering from the years that those corporations have profited from polluting our environment and our atmosphere and causing dangerous climate change.

We all know how tough things are for people in the community right now. Families, businesses and battlers in Tassie and across the nation are really feeling the pinch of the cost of living, but I think they know that their Labor government is supporting them. Throughout the country and throughout the years, we've also seen more climate related natural disasters. They are occurring more often and hitting harder. But this Labor government is taking action to fix and address climate change and to provide cost-of-living support to Australians.

We are working hard to reduce climate related harm, and we are delivering that relief to everyday Australians. And it's in stark contrast that our opponents, the Liberals, had to be dragged kicking and screaming just into accepting the science of climate change. To be truthful, I still don't know whether all of them actually do accept it—definitely not in the Nationals. For a lost decade, they sat on their hands. They denied the problem, they delayed action, and they left communities vulnerable. While fires rages and floods hit, they offered nothing. That inaction drove insurance premiums higher for everyone, and families are still paying the price for their denial, delay and neglect.

Meanwhile, One Nation continue as well to reject the science of climate change. They want to scrap net zero. They want to abolish the climate change department and pull Australia out of the Paris Agreement. That position would make insurance costs and cost-of-living pressures even harder for families. People need to have a look at One Nation, because what they say and what they actually do matter. While One Nation and the Nationals publicly talked down net zero and climate change, they are lining up and getting solar panels on their houses. They're doing one thing and saying another.

Extreme weather and rising insurance costs have been a global challenge, and here in Australia we've been rolling up our sleeves, getting on with tackling the effects of climate change and mitigating natural disasters. Labor has committed $1 billion over five years to the Disaster Ready Fund. The money is strengthening homes and towns, and it's improving evacuation routes and early warnings. We've established the Hazards Insurance Partnership, a collaboration between government and insurers to share data to better understand where to invest to reduce risk and insurance costs. At the same time, we're tackling the cost-of-living crisis, and it's still our No. 1 priority.

Labor know people are doing it tough, and we're working every day to deliver cost-of-living relief for them. That's evidenced just this week by what the Prime Minister announced after he convened National Cabinet. Labor is cutting the fuel excise by 50 per cent. That's taking 26.3c per litre off the price of fuel. In my hometown of Devonport in Tassie, the cost of fuel has today dropped down to $2.19 a litre. It's still too high, but it's a massive decrease from yesterday, when it was pipping over $2.50. And we've seen diesel come down to under $3. That is providing relief every time you fill up your tank at the petrol station.

We are delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer, with the next round coming up in July. That will be a tax cut of up to $268 per year, which was opposed at the last election by those opposite.

We are supporting pay rises for minimum and award wage workers. We recently made a submission to the Fair Work Commission to support that pay rise for those who are paid least. That means a lot for those people, who would not be supported by those opposite. Paid parental leave will now be paid for up to 24 weeks. It's world-leading legislation.

We've got our solar batteries program providing incentives for people to be able to get batteries and to be able to store the solar energy that they generate, which will save them on their power bills. We've been providing $10,000 bonuses for tradie apprentices, which is making a difference to skill up the workforce for the jobs that we need to build the houses that we need.

We've been supporting paid placements for student nurses, teachers and social workers. We've got record funding for hospitals, and we've tripled the bulk-billing rate for GPs, which is resulting in more bulk-billed GP visits. We've lowered the costs for women's health care, which is absolutely fantastic. More first home buyers can buy their first home with just a five per cent deposit. This government is taking action to reduce the cost-of-living pressures on everyday Australians.

This is what the climate crisis looks like in real time—not future climate modelling, not theory, real damage happening right now to communities across this country. Over the weekend, Cyclone Narelle ripped through Exmouth and straight across the Ningaloo Reef, leaving devastation in its wake. Volunteers walked the beaches and counted more than 300 dead turtles—baby turtles—in one stretch. It's not just a handful; it's hundreds of dead baby turtles. That is the reality on the ground after one storm hit an already-stressed ecosystem. This is the second hit in a year. Last summer's marine heatwave cooked huge sections of coral and turned parts of Ningaloo's reef into a graveyard. Whole systems were knocked out, and scientists are still trying to work out the full damage, but anyone who has been in the water can tell you that it's bloody bad.

Now, it gets smashed again before it has time to recover. That is the pattern: warmer oceans, harder hits and less time to recover. This isn't random; this is exactly what happens and is what the climate scientists have been warning about for decades. While that's happening, the same companies keep expanding under this climate-wrecking Labor government. Woodside Energy is pushing ahead with gas projects right next to these precious, priceless ecosystems. They dig it up, ship it out and book the profits. The public is left to clean up the damage.

We are talking about seagrass in Exmouth Gulf being wiped out, dead sea life up and down the coastline and reef systems that took thousands of years to build devastated beyond recognition. It's not just in WA. In my state of Victoria, we've had bushfire after flood after bushfire, all in the matter of a week. Last week was the one-year anniversary of the devastating algal bloom in South Australia. Fisheries were hit, tourism was hit and ecosystems were decimated. It was another signal that our precious environment is under immense pressure from heating waters. At the same time, companies like Santos are making billions and paying next to nothing in return for this destruction. I brought 100 dead weedy sea dragons into this place to illustrate just a small part of that destruction, and that's the deal right now: these big corporations profit while everyone else bears the brunt of their damage.

This Labor government is not only letting it happen but continuing to subsidise this disgusting destruction of our precious ecosystems. Labor keeps approving new coal and gas projects while talking about climate action—talking out of both sides of their mouth. Australians see through it. You cannot run both lines at once, and you need to pick a side.

The side that you need to pick is pretty obvious. Right now, the rules are clearly flipped in favour of Santos and Woodside—protect the industry, not the environment and not the communities. If we are serious about changing that, then we need to make the polluters pay. A minimum 25 per cent tax on gas exports could start to do this as a floor, definitely not a ceiling. It is a basic step to claw back some of the money being made off the back of this damage. Use it to fund recovery, to lower bills and to invest in getting off fossil fuels faster.

But be honest about this as well. If you keep approving new fossil fuel projects, you are pouring fuel on the fire. You don't have a plan. The real line in the sand is this: no new fossil fuel projects. Stop perpetuating the problem. Make the existing polluters pay, because what is happening at Ningaloo isn't some sort of one-off event; it is a preview of our future—more heat, more shocks and less time to bounce back. Once these ecosystems go, they generally don't return. I want my kids to be able to enjoy the beaches and the reefs. I want a safe climate future for them and generations after them.

So this comes down to political choices: keep backing those big donors to the major parties like Santos and Woodside and accept more of this devastating damage, or step in, tax them properly, make them pay for their destruction and start winding this industry down before they can wreck this planet even more. Those dead sea turtles on the beach are the real cost of delay, and it will only get worse if we keep letting Woodside and Santos take advantage of the free ride we are so willingly handing them.

The question is that the motion in the name of Senator McKim moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to. A division is required. It being after 4.30, the division will be held over to another time.

I move:

That—

(a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 12 May 2026, at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and

(b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.

Question agreed to.

Colleagues, I wish you all a safe and happy Easter—a season for renewal. I look forward to seeing you back here for the budget session in May.

Senate adjourned at 16:58 until Tuesday 12 May 2026 at 12:00