Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (09:01): On budget night this year, Australian veterans found out that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs had decided to cap allied health services. I was so alarmed that I put out a media release which pointed out that capping care for veterans flies in the face of the recommendations by the royal commissioners, that access to timely health care supports was key to getting veteran suicide numbers down.

Just a few minutes ago, Minister Keogh told Australian veterans that the cap had been scrapped. I thank the minister for hearing us loud and clear, but we still need the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026. We need it to protect veterans into the future. I would like to thank my co-sponsors, Senator Pocock, Senator Shoebridge, Senator Thorpe and Senator Payman.

This bill is about a very simple principle. If a veteran needs treatment because of their service, they should be able to get that treatment. It should not come down to a number on a spreadsheet and a limit imposed by Canberra. The government said that it was not a cap because veterans can apply for additional treatment once they reach that threshold. But let's be honest about what that means. A veteran who needs ongoing physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychology, exercise physiology or another allied health service may reach that threshold.

Veterans have a trust deficit with the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and they have had it since the Vietnam War. Who can blame them, when the average liability claim takes the DVA over 300 days to process? Numerous reports, not to forget the seven-volume report from the royal commission, confirm that the DVA has made these assurances before and has failed to deliver. Placing an arbitrary cap on these allied health treatments just confirms what we already know, that the DVA will do whatever it can to make veterans fight and wait for the care they need.

For some veterans, like me, these services are not optional extras. They are what allow us to walk, work, manage pain, keep our independence, take part in family and still belong to the community. This bill prevents any limit on costs for individual treatment, total costs during a particular period or a limit on the number of treatments for a service related injury. This extends beyond just allied health treatments and can apply to medical specialists, hospital and rehabilitation services, mental and health professionals and any other treatment for service related injury. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide made it very clear that timely, accessible and ongoing health care matters. Recommendations 71 and 72 are directly concerned with improving access to health care for veterans and strengthening the health system that supports them. This bill says that, when a veteran has an existing entitlement to treatment, that entitlement should not be cut off because a particular amount of money has already been spent or because a particular number of services has been used. It would prevent treatment entitlements from being limited by the specific cost for an individual treatment or a total cost over a period for a specified number of treatments. That means there's no arbitrary limit on allied health treatment where more treatment is clinically required.

It also means the same principle can apply across other healthcare settings where treatment is needed. Veterans might need ongoing treatment from GPs, medical specialists, hospital and rehabilitation services, mental health professionals and other appropriately qualified health professionals. For some veterans, these services might be required regularly, while for others it's for many years because of the nature of their service related injury or disease. Their access to necessary treatment should not be restricted simply because some bean counter somewhere thought he could save the department money. You can never ever put a price on a veteran's life.

I also want to be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not mean there should be no oversight or that every treatment should be automatically funded. There should still be proper clinical governance. There should still be standards for quality and safety as well as safeguards against fraud, abuse and, critically, inappropriately provided conduct. That is why we're standing here today—because of provider conduct. But those safeguards should not be confused with an arbitrary financial cap.

I'm calling on the major parties to put the interests of veterans first and support this bill. Veterans should not have to wait for another review or another approval process before they can access the treatment that is needed, because it plays terribly on their mental health. This is about making sure that, when a veteran has accepted service related injury or disease, they can get clinically necessary treatment when they need it.

Finally, I would like to thank all the veterans; the advocates; the mothers, especially you, Julie-Ann Finney; and the Australians, especially the over 30,000 that shared and signed my petition. You got this done. When we stand up united, we win.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (09:07): Later today, this chamber will have the opportunity to consider two bills which substantially advance the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. These bills will implement 20 recommendations and support the implementation of an additional 20, and I look forward to that debate because I acknowledge the commitment in this chamber to supporting the veteran community. I acknowledge, in particular, Senator Lambie, who, in her entire time in the Senate, has chosen to use that time to advocate for the veteran community and, in doing so, has engaged in a very constructive way with our government. That is something that we appreciate very much.

Our government has deep respect for our veterans, who have served and who continue to serve our country, and anyone who pulls on the nation's uniform to serve in our name deserves nothing less than respect. Our 2026 budget featured a proposal to make the biggest increase to allied health fees, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs to support veterans, in 20 years. This proposal was coupled with a plan to reduce the administrative burden for 90 per cent of veterans, allied health practitioners and GPs, with the removal of the current treatment cycle in favour of a new system. The proposed threshold measure set out to reduce the burden on veterans to go back to a GP every 12 allied health visits for a new referral, instead expanding this to a $5,000 threshold before a veteran's care is reviewed.

We've been consulting on this measure, and we have heard from veterans that there are concerns about this approach. We've been listening carefully, and today the government is taking the proposed $5,000 threshold off the table. We will not change our commitment to improving access to allied health care through the fee increase to allied health providers. Fees for allied health providers supporting veterans will increase on 1 July 2027, as planned.

We will continue to engage with the veteran and provider community on how we can continue to deliver on the objective of achieving better veteran wellbeing outcomes while ensuring the integrity of the system. I thank those members of the veterans community who have engaged with us on this question so far. We appreciate very much the constructive nature of that engagement and your feedback.

As I said, I wish to thank Senator Lambie for her advocacy and cooperation on this measure in particular. We cannot support the bill that is being brought forward today by Senator Lambie because of the changes that we've announced today and because the way it is drafted potentially introduces unintended consequences, but we will continue to work with the veterans community and we will continue to work with Senator Lambie as we continue our work to support veterans.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:10): I too rise to speak on the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026. At its heart, this bill is about the principle. When an Australian veteran has an accepted service related injury or disease, access to treatment should be determined by clinical need, not by an arbitrary monetary or numerical cap imposed by the government.

That brings me to what has just occurred, and that is the announcement by the Albanese Labor government that the $5,000 cap on allied health will no longer be proceeded with. Let's just remember, though, how we got to this stage and, in particular, why Senator Lambie has today brought this bill before the Senate. Sadly, this is not because the government listened. This is because the Australian Senate, the Australian people and veterans across Australia shouted their disgust at what this government had proposed.

For over two weeks now in this place, the Australian Senate, the opposition and the crossbenchers—not the government side—have made it clear to the government that we are opposed to this disgraceful treatment of our veterans. In fact, the Australian Senate—again, not the government senators but the entire opposition and crossbench—united to amend a bill, the Statute Update Bill, to scrap this $5,000 cap.

That was last week. On Monday, that bill was presented to the House of Representatives. Instead of acknowledging the pain and suffering that they had caused our veterans; instead of acknowledging that veterans had travelled to Canberra and had laid down their medals at the front of Parliament House; instead of acknowledging the will of the Australian Senate, on behalf of the veterans of Australia, in saying that this $5,000 cap was nothing more and nothing less than cruel and, what's worse, a budget saving by the Albanese government, who've lost control of spending—do you know what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs did? They said, 'We'll deal with it at another time.'

Instead of owning their mistake—we'll go through the number of mistakes that this government has had to own when it comes to our veterans—they didn't have the guts to deal with it there and then. They didn't have the guts to deal with the fact that the Australian Senate—again, not the Labor senators; they'll go down, don't worry; it's recorded in Hansard where their vote went—the entire opposition and crossbench, united to say this is wrong. We amended legislation and sent it to the House. The government didn't have the guts to deal with it.

Then the government today—not because they listened, but because of the political pressure that has been put on the Minister for Veterans' Affairs yet again—has had to stand up and say they won't proceed with the $5,000 cap. But, as with anything that this government does, I suggest you listen to the announcement and then you read the press release because, whilst they may not be proceeding with their cruel $5,000 cap on our veterans' allied health, the press release makes pretty clear they've still got to look for savings. What a total joke.

So this government hasn't actually made a considered policy choice today. It's backflipped because the Australian people yet again united against Mr Albanese and Mr Keogh. They stood up and they said, 'We have had enough,' on behalf of the veterans of Australia. The veterans stood up. Let's not forget how Minister Keogh treated them when they came to parliament. He didn't want to meet with them. He was then forced to meet with them. When they arrived at his office, he didn't shake their hands. The minister for veterans didn't shake the hands of men and women who have actually fought for this country, men and women who protect our freedoms on a daily basis. He didn't want to shake their hands. It's been reported by veterans that he rolled his eyes at them. What's worse is he crossed his arms and then said: 'I could have been down at drinks with the blasted Governor-General.' You've got to be kidding me. That's how the Minister for Veterans' Affairs treats our veterans.

The veterans stood up. Their families stood up. The Australian people stood up. Veteran advocates stood up. Allied health professionals stood up. The Australian Senate—minus, of course, the Labor senators, and, as I said, don't worry; you can make as many excuses as you like today but your vote is there on the Hansard record—all stood up. Australians who simply believe—and this is what this bill that Senator Lambie has brought before the Senate does today—that the men and women of our country who served our country deserve better stood up.

Today we've seen the end result of what happens, Australia, when you stand up and you speak with one voice against the government. The government hasn't made a considered policy decision, sadly, but it has been forced to backflip. The message I think that all of us here today have for the government is: 'Don't think you're getting off the hook. There's a bill before the Senate here today that you could support.' What we've just heard from the government is that they won't be supporting it. Why don't you show the veterans here today that you stand with them? Why don't you support Senator Lambie's bill? You're happy to come here and congratulate Senator Lambie on what she does each and every day for our veterans, but then you won't support her bill.

So we put the government on notice that we will watch them in this space, because they have a pattern of behaviour here, sadly, of making decisions that are not in the best interests of veterans and then, because of public pressure, they have to back down. Look at the pattern. On retrospective honours there was a retreat. There was the Baird family. I have to say, coming from Western Australia, in particular, where we are the home of the SAS, that decision to take away the funding that was given to Cameron Baird's parents so that they could travel around our great country and just remind people of what our veterans do and why people like their son are actually awarded the Victoria Cross—a measly few thousand dollars—I will never understand. I will never understand how the Minister for Veterans' Affairs signs off on a brief that says, 'Take that money away.' On taking money from Invictus Australia they've retreated. On refusing to meet with veterans who came to the parliament they retreated. And now there's the $5,000 allied health cap retreat.

Sadly, as so many now say, the minister for Veterans' Affairs in this country doesn't deserve the privilege of being this minister. It doesn't really matter what he says today or what the Prime Minister says today because of their actions and the pattern of behaviour that they have indulged in since they have been in government, taking decisions that are actually not in the best interests of our veterans. We'll remind the Australian people of them each and every day—don't worry about that—because they know that you are not dinkum when you stand up today and you say that you're backflipping on the $5,000 allied health cap. Let's see what else you do to your veterans, and we will hold you to account.

The Senate spoke, the veterans spoke, the Australian people spoke. We have Senator Lambie's bill that is currently before the Senate. As I said, it's a very simple proposition in terms of what it actually does. We should never forget why we are today in the position that we are (a) as a Senate debating this bill but (b) listening to the minister make the backflip. Veterans fought, families fought, Australians fought, and the Australian Senate minus every one of those Labor senators fought. They stood up and they said: 'We're going to hold you to account, Mr Albanese. We're going to hold you to account, Minister Keogh, for your disgraceful behaviour when it comes to the veterans of Australia.' Our veterans fought for Australia. They should not have to keep fighting their own government. They deserve better, and I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this bill before the Senate today.

Senator CADELL (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (09:21): We've had the announcement this morning that the government will no longer hurt the allied health provisions for our veterans, but it needs to go further. Part of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans’ Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026 is going further. It's about helping them. Not hurting is not good enough. We have gone through this process. So many people in this room—Senator Lambie; Senator Scarr, who's not here; Senator Shoebridge; and I—heard this when we were in estimates and went down that path. We knew it was wrong then. It has come to this point two or three months later. It's taken this long. Veterans have gone through all of this journey, being worried about what would happen. Senator Lambie did a great speech the other day when she said, 'Don't worry. We've got time to fix it. We're going to get it fixed,' to try and help some of their mental health that was exacerbated. Their problems were exacerbated even by saying this was going to happen.

We've got a backdown. We don't know how solid that will be. We don't know if the increasing in fees that was part of this will be there. We don't know the help—the things that have to happen to help veterans. We don't know what form this backdown takes. That's why passing this bill is important. We need to solidify and concrete these aids. We need to get on the record that we value the service of our veterans. We value the vow they made to defend our country, and we will not change our word. We will not go back on our deal. We will support them in black and white. This is what we'll do—not words, actions. That is why we hijacked—let's be honest; this Senate hijacked—the statute bill. We had to. We had to have something they had to consider over there. We had to have something they needed to pass to get this through.

This is not a victory for the Senate. It's not a victory for most people. It's a victory for the veterans. It is for Dr Tim Nelson. It is for Ruth Rogers in Singleton. It is for James Burns in Scone. It is for Phil Thompson. It is for Senator Lambie. It is a victory for the people that honoured their word to defend Australia while we decided to revoke ours. We can't celebrate this backdown. We should commiserate that it ever had to get to this. We should question a government that decides a saving is more important than our veterans. We should be saying, 'How is this a thing?' When we saw these people, as Senator Cash said, laying down their medals, when we saw them coming in trying to meet people and get their—'I needed a cup of tea with a Governor-General.' Having a cuppa with the Governor-General is more important than honouring the people you're meant to represent in the cabinet.

We've got the announcement. It's time for action. This bill is the action we need to codify what we expect, to codify the changes and to make sure this cap is not just gone but dead, buried, cremated and then distributed to the far corners of the Earth. Anything short of that can be turned around tomorrow. 'Let's just change it tomorrow.' That is why we brought it in here today. We're going to have a long, big, deep dive into how this has failed, because there are so many failures.

A friend of mine sent an email the other day. They've got medallic recognition for something. They can purchase their own medal if they want to wear it. I always thought the first medals were free and replacements cost money. But, no, they can purchase their medallic recognition. We've heard about the other failures.

So well done to the veterans out there. Well done for standing up. You shouldn't have to fight your own government simply for volunteering to potentially fight our enemies. That is the sickness of where this has come to. And, if there's one thing this government has shown to every other group out there, it's to get angry and get vocal. We know their answers on just about everything aren't working. On just about everything—they'll pass some legislation; they'll move some stuff—they aren't working. They're not doing what they want them to do. You have to get vocal, you have to get angry, you have to stand up and you have to put the government in a position where they have to do something they don't want to do and where, though they don't want to do the right thing, they have to do the right thing. Well done, veterans. Once again, we value you. Congratulations on your victory. We will support this bill. You need more victories like this.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (09:25): It's pretty extraordinary that we need a piece of legislation that says the government can't put arbitrary caps and ceilings on the legitimate health services for veterans. It is extraordinary that we have to come in here and legislate to say, for any class of Australians who need allied health care and medical help, that the government can't put an arbitrary dollar cap on it. But that's what we have to do today.

To all those veterans out there who were feeling so anxious—and they were right to be anxious—about what this government had decided to do to them—to put in place a $5,000 cap on allied health; to all those veterans who had the mental strength, the social connections and the political connections to come together and campaign against that; to all those veterans who needed their friends, colleagues and partners in this place to do it—to all of you, I want to say congratulations on the campaign. We just saw this morning the government cave in and say they're going to scrap the cap, and that's been the call from veterans.

I want to give a shout out to Senator Lambie for her work in this space. Bringing lived experience onto the floor of this chamber is absolutely critical. Telling it like it is—someone who's been ground through the system—is absolutely critical. I think it cuts through in this space and lets us do work around her and support that work to actually get outcomes for veterans. So I want to acknowledge the work of Jacqui—Senator Lambie. But I absolutely want to give acknowledgement to the veterans community.

I know that there is this position from the coalition that somehow Labor is uniquely bad on veterans. It's just not true. Labor are following a great coalition tradition of screwing over veterans. When the coalition were in government—I can't remember how bloody long it was, but it was the better part of a decade—the wait list for veterans to get basic entitlements had blown out to the tens of thousands. Veterans were waiting years to get a decision out of Veterans' Affairs.

I'm going to beat up the Albanese Labor government every time they fail, but I'm going to acknowledge that they put the funding into Veterans' Affairs to deal with those wait lists. It was a real thing; it was a real investment. And I'm going to say that I saw Minister Keogh try and drive through that change—tick! But what the bloody hell was with the caps? You do all that—you start building trust amongst veterans—and then you just wipe it all off the table by coming in with a $5,000 arbitrary cap on allied health care. The little bit of trust that veterans might have been getting with the system just shattered again. And they're sick of it. Veterans I talk to are sick of it. They're sick of having to be political playthings and having to play politics to just get basic decency out of the government. Just like they had to play politics when the coalition wouldn't process their claims and left them hanging for years without treatment and without compensation, now they've had to play politics again and find everyone they can work with in order to overturn this appalling $5,000 cap. Again, I am going to say it is good to see the minister finally accept reality today and scrap the cap.

I can tell you this: we've got Senate estimates coming up in a few weeks time, and I and my party, the Greens, are going to make bloody sure that the cost saving of three-quarters of a billion dollars that the government wanted to gouge out of veterans is stripped out of that budget. We can have all the talk we like in this place about legislation, but, at the end of the day, it comes down to their putting their money where their mouths are and our making sure they're not ripping three-quarters of a billion dollars away from veterans' health care.

This was always a budget cash grab. If we were going to find out where the real nasties are in government, I reckon it was the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and some of the other senior leadership team in government, no doubt including the leader of the Senate here, all coming together and working out how they could get three-quarters of a billion dollars back into the budget. And they thought veterans would just suck it up—well, they didn't. Veterans got organised and started contacting my office and Jacqui's office. They probably started with Jacqui's office. They contacted the crossbench and then they went to the coalition as well because they just needed the numbers. To all those veterans listening, and I reckon a few of them are listening, I hope you've learnt that there are people who'll stick up for you and basically stick up for decency. That's actually a lesson we need to keep remembering in politics—that it's not all just a bunch of self-serving weasels who want to suck money from you. You need to lean into decency in politics when you see it, and veterans did. Congratulations to all of you for doing that work.

But I also say this: I don't reckon this is over. I reckon the budget cutters—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, no doubt—are probably still looking to get a cost saving out of veterans, and, if they can't get it through the front door, I fear they're going to try it through the back door, and we will be there fighting for you each time. The Greens went in to fight for people on the NDIS who had the government come after them to shamefully take away their benefits. And the government did that. They got the coalition onside and they stripped away benefits for people on NDIS, just a few weeks ago. We fought for the entitlements for hundreds of thousands of Australians on the NDIS. We didn't win that one, but we're not going to forget those Australians either, who deserve entitlements and deserve their benefits.

I will finish with this. The government are saying they won't support this bill because of unintended consequences. This seems to be now a Labor pattern. I don't know if anyone remembers, but it was barely a week ago when they said they wouldn't support sanctions against illegal Israeli settlements because of 'unintended consequences' on Palestinians. They seem to not want to take action to protect a group because taking action to protect the group in the large may have tiny unintended consequences over the side here. That is a rubbish reason for not supporting this bill—unintended consequences on veterans. I reckon, if you did a straw poll of 1,000 veterans and said, 'Are you willing to take as yet unspecified unintended consequences floated by Labor in a bill that says they can't make arbitrary cuts to your entitlements? Or do you want the bill to go through which says they can't do arbitrary cuts on your entitlements?' 100 per cent of veterans would line up and say, 'Support the bloody bill.'

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Shoebridge, I'll just interrupt you for a second. I've listened intently since I've taken the seat, and I know you're passionate about this, but there are schoolchildren on the second level behind you and I ask you to consider your choice of words, please.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I don't know what schoolkids you mix with, but—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I don't need an argument, Senator.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: I think a word beginning with 'b'—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Resume your seat. I don't need an argument. I'm quite happy to entertain it should that be the case, but I'm not going to embarrass this chamber anymore in front of our visitors. There's another group of schoolchildren over there. I've asked you to consider your language. I didn't ask you to withdraw—I could do, but I didn't.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: The standing orders wouldn't support you getting me to withdraw that. There have been multiple rulings, so you can ask me, but I won't.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator, for your social medias, that might be pretty cool. I didn't ask you to withdraw. You have the call. I ask you again: please choose your words cautiously.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: Thank you. I do choose my words carefully. I've got to tell you this: veterans are red-hot angry about what this government has done, and they're red-hot angry about politicians who are going to vote against this bill, and they're red-hot angry at the Labor Party for trying to shut down debate. They're red-hot angry about the Labor Party bringing in legislative measures to strip away three-quarters of a billion dollars from veterans without ever talking to them. And they're red-hot angry about politics in this place that tries to disguise the reality of what's happening. And they're red-hot angry about politicians who won't speak the truth about what's going on. And they're red-hot angry about this. They use language far, far coarser than I've used in this debate, and they direct it at the Labor Party and at politicians who don't tell the truth. So I'm not interested in having the Labor Party police my language in this. I'm not interested in talking nice about a plan to gouge three-quarters of a million dollars from veterans who need their health care.

I'll tell you what: veterans aren't interested in being tone-policed by a government that wants to strip away their rights for life-saving treatment. That's why they're saying: 'Support this bill.' They don't want a tone language from the Labor Party trying to hide and disguise their reasons for voting against this bill. Do you know what? If you want to stop the red-hot language, then stop attacking people with less power than you.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (09:35): I rise in support of Senator Lambie's bill the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans’ Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026. I want to start by thanking Minister Keogh for the roundtable last night where he heard directly from Canberra veterans about their concerns. He stayed until after 9 pm, answering every question. I appreciate all the Canberrans who came to really engage in good faith. They put questions to the minister and raised concerns, trying to interrogate some of the reasons behind this $5,000 threshold, as the government has started calling it, and really point out the consequences of that—the consequences for gold card holders, for widows and for their children who are wanting to access psychology and just how much stress this has placed on the veterans' community and the stress placed on them in the broader context of a DVA system that many of them feel grinds them down. Yes, we should acknowledge the Labor government's investment in DVA, but there is still a lot of frustration with the way the system is working. I think this is just another thing, and we have to congratulate the veteran's community on the way they have come together, campaigned, contacted elected representatives and run an outstanding campaign against this cap.

While last night's roundtable was welcome, there were clearly very serious frustrations. At 9 pm last night, it seemed like it was full steam ahead with this $5,000 threshold. This morning they scrapped it, when they were faced with a Senate that said, 'Absolutely not. There is no pathway for you to do anything like this in this parliament, with this Senate.' This is a win for veterans. But it's a fight they should not have had to have had. They've got other issues on their minds. They didn't need yet another thing to say to the government and to the country: 'Listen, we've served you. Our understanding was that you'd look after us, and now you're placing yet another barrier, another thing, another piece of paper, another visit to the doctor for us to worry about.'

Something that's been on my mind as this debate has unfolded is the question of whether it's a cap or a threshold. The government is at pains to say that this is not a cap, and how dare those in the opposition or on the crossbench refer to it as a cap. So my team went back to the budget papers where all of this started, and it says this:

Savings include:

$748.0 million over three years … from the introduction of an Annual Monetary Limit for veterans' allied health services

I think most Australians would read a 'limit' as a cap. You don't read 'limit' as 'threshold'. Clearly, given the very swift backlash from veterans, this limit has now been called a threshold. The talking points have been updated, but it's very clear that it started as a hard cap. Terminology aside, I think the concerns from veterans have been really well articulated in the added burden this places on them. It's another hurdle to accessing critically important allied health care to help them be well.

I really welcome this move from the government. I wanted to thank Senator Lambie for her advocacy in this space. She has been a steadfast and tireless voice for veterans in this Senate over many, many years now. I think she has huge respect amongst the veterans community for her work. I also wanted to acknowledge Senator Collins, who had an inquiry before this place to look at this issue, Senator Shoebridge and his work on this, including at his outstanding work at estimates, Senators Hanson and Cadell—I know Senator Roberts has had a lot to say about this too. There's been a lot of good work done in this chamber to raise voices from our states and territories and to hold the executive to account, and I welcome it.

I say, as the Senate, we should be working more together to hold the executive to account, because that is what the Australian people expect of us. I'd also like to acknowledge those in the other place on the crossbench who've raised concerns about this, as well as Phil Thompson and Michael McCormack in the coalition. This is a victory for veterans. It's a victory for the Senate holding the executive to account, and I support this bill.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (09:41): The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026 will ensure that eligible veterans can access treatment for accepted service related injuries and conditions based on their clinical needs rather than on the arbitrary monetary or numerical limits that this uncaring Labor government was trying to introduce. The Senate amended the government's statute update bill last week, yet, in the House, the government deferred it. That was a big middle finger to vets, to serving ADF and to all Australians, in fact.

The budget cuts that drove this were short-term budget cuts because of Labor's waste. They cut veterans services and other services around the country, and they increased tax, because Labor's waste is driving high expenditure, high spending. The people pay—always the people pay—directly or indirectly. As other senators have mentioned this morning, we are winning. The vets are winning. Thank you for your strong advocacy to the veterans. I also thank Senator Lambie for this bill and thank all senators who support it and who are supporting this campaign from the vets. Thank you. As Senator Pocock said, it is amazing what can be done when we take a united stand.

The Labor policy driving this unfortunate situation arose out of the recent Labor budget designed to steal from and punish Australians. This bill establishes that an entitlement to treatment must not be subject to a predetermined and arbitrary limit on the cost of treatment, pitched at $5,000, being the total amount that may be spent during a particular period, or the number of times a treatment may be accessed. In David Farley's seat, where he is representing the seat of Farrer in southern New South Wales, and across Queensland—we have some very large electorates. Vets have to travel for treatment, and the travel eats up this $5,000 limit.

Early in my listening to serving and retired Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans during the last 10 years, I became deeply concerned about veterans not being adequately cared for under the previous government and under this government. I raised my concerns with the proposed cap at Senate estimates hearings, where it became apparent that Labor's proposition was not thought through and had raised the levels of anxiety of returned veterans or the already vulnerable to those thoughtless threats to their receipt of treatment.

Veterans already have a very high suicide rate that should not be exacerbated under threats of withdrawal of support. I was told that the bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans' Affairs had developed no objective criteria to determine if funding beyond the proposed cap might be approved—none—nor had they determined what processes may be required to extend the cap nor had they developed what evidence they may need to establish a case for increased funding. No appeals processes had been created—none. That's why there was a limit. It's just an arbitrary slashing of care. It was not clear why this attack on veterans was devised, and I believe penny pinching was a contributing factor. It is, seemingly, the major driver.

If issues of fraud or financial abuse are of concern, there already exist measures that can be taken to address these problems. I was told that, historically, approximately 10 per cent of veterans entitled to treatment have needed allied health care that would cost more than the $5,000 limit. This is thousands of veterans. Why punish these vets, making them jump through hoops in order to receive the care that they genuinely need and that their practitioners tell them they genuinely need? How disgusting it is to try to treat vets on the cheap with such disrespect.

Many very distraught veterans and representative groups have approached me directly, seeking support to oppose the proposed cuts in support. I do support this bill, and I am pleased to see that the crossbench is pulling together on this worthy remedial exercise. How the Labor government could even come up with this punitive idea in the face of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is beyond comprehension.

Our veterans represent the best of our Australian community. The vast and overwhelming majority of veterans are honest Aussies who have genuine need for clinically identified health problems. The government is happy to send them off to fight for our freedoms, yet treats them so poorly and with disrespect—sometimes with disdain and neglect—on their return. Many of these veterans come home vulnerable and in need of nurturing care and support. They do not need to face barriers and hurdles, nor should they have to fight to receive the necessary support and treatment. This does not need to be done on the cheap or, worse, with deceit. Many of our vets have given their all and deserve to be treated well, not in a system based on minimum or even token support, with massive red tape which they have to cut, hack and slash their way through.

This bill removes potential barriers, financial and administrative, to veterans' access to allied health care, supporting improved health and wellbeing of our veterans, and I must say it's well written. I call on my colleagues in the Senate and those members in the other house to support this bill as a matter of respect for those veterans deserving of the support this bill will ensure. Veterans and ADF members have served 28 million Australians and have provided us with security. We need to thank veterans with sincere care.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (09:48): I rise to support this incredible and timely bill, the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026, from Senator Lambie and I want to thank Senator Lambie for bringing this to the floor of the chamber. Isn't it absolutely wonderful to see a united Senate—a united parliament—on this? The coalition, the crossbench and the Greens are all getting behind this, and it's because we all spoke to the veteran community. We heard them and we knew their concerns about this allied health cap and what it would do to the veteran community. We didn't have to hear those concerns, though, because we knew what this would do. Yet the government made the coalition for veterans come down to Canberra and beg for them to lift this cap.

I am pleased to hear that the cap has been removed today, but the damage has been done. Quite frankly, the damage has been done. People have been hurt. We heard from the coalition for veterans last week that people's mental health has absolutely plummeted from the damaging effects of this allied health cap. So I stand with this bill—no caps, not ever. It is a very important protection for our veterans, the people who put their hand up to serve this nation, whose families have sacrificed so much and whose health has been sacrificed so much. The very least we can do is provide them the support when they need it most.

United we stand against a Labor government that has, frankly, shown a pattern of contempt this year for the defence community and the veterans community. First, it started on 14 February when the defence minister handed down a shocking defence estate audit report with a predetermined outcome to sell off the foundational estate. It came as a complete surprise to the defence community and the veterans community. That was a big hit on their mental health. It still is and continues to be, and, if they follow through with this, it will have a devastating impact not just on the veterans community but on the serving community, the cadets, the reserves and all the communities connected with it. And yet they charge on. They charge on with this.

Then they brought to the other house a bill on the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal which would prevent our veterans from appealing decisions on awards and medals. That received such backlash from the people that we consulted with through an inquiry. Of the 63 submissions to that particular inquiry, 62 said: 'What on earth is this? Why are you doing this? Why are you doing this to the veteran community and the defence community? We say "no".' Only one submission said that this is a great idea, and guess who submitted that? The Department of Defence. And so, because of the pressure that we put on and the backlash from the public, the Labor government removed that bill.

Then, of course, they went ahead and tried to remove the funding for Corporal Cameron Baird's parents. He was a recipient of the Victoria Cross, and his parents go around the country sharing his legacy and his story of valour and honour, particularly with school children. They tried to take that away that funding. Shame. And now, of course, we've had this battle over the allied health cap.

And so you can see over time the pattern of contempt that the Labor government has shown towards our defence community and our veteran community, and you can see here today that united we stand against that. The message that we have for the defence and veterans community is that we stand with you and we will not let this happen. It shows that you simply cannot trust this Labor government. You cannot trust them. They've gone and backflipped again. They got it wrong. They did the consultations, typical Labor, after making a decision. They go and see the damage that they do, and then they backflip. We will keep the pressure on. When they come forward with these bad ideas, we will keep the pressure on. So, again, I thank Senator Lambie for this bill. Senator Lambie is doing great things for the veteran community. She's a fighter. She will always be a fighter. There are lot of people that count on Senator Lambie. There's a lot of people that count on the rest of us too. But thank you for taking the charge on this. I want to thank the rest of the Senate chamber, too, for standing with Senator Lambie on this important bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (09:54): I move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (10:02): As no committee stage is required, I call Senator Lambie.

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (10:03): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

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

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (10:11): The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of delivering once-in-a-generation reform for high-quality, world-class aged-care services for older Australians. We're investing $47 billion in aged care this year, and that is the largest amount in the nation's history. The 2026-27 budget makes one thing very clear: the work of fixing aged care did not end with the passage of the Aged Care Act. With $3.7 billion to keep building and strengthening our aged-care system in the 2026-27 budget, our government is continuing to invest, continuing to listen to older Australians and continuing to listen to the people who care for them. Generational reform is not a single moment; it's a long-term project. Our government is getting on with it.

The subject matter of the order demands particular care. I'm advised that complying with this order requires searching for, extracting and cross-referencing waiting list data against mortality data across the financial year. That is not a small undertaking. It requires care in identification and it requires care in checking the resulting figures before they are put before this chamber. In responding to order for the production of documents No. 633, the minister advised the Senate that this data is still undergoing validation. The government has a responsibility to ensure that figures of this kind are accurate before they are released. I wish to assure the Senate that work to comply with this order is continuing and a response will be provided to the Senate. These are matters of real consequence for older Australians and their families, and they deserve to be treated with appropriate care

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:12): I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

I stand to condemn the government for their failure to properly comply with the order for the production of documents in relation to a very serious issue: how many older Australians have died waiting for the care that this government has assessed that they need.

Older Australians were promised care. In 2022, the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, said:

… we will look after our older Australians.

No one held back. No one left behind.

But nothing could be further from the truth. This Prime Minister has overseen a policy agenda that has not only held back and left older Australians behind but has actively sought to pit grandparents against grandchildren. Of all the policy failings of those opposite, the most abhorrent has to be their absolute disregard and disrespect for older Australians.

I want to share some words from Lynne Meehan. Lynne has bravely become a public advocate for change in the home care system, sharing her dad's story in the hope that other families do not have to go through what they have. Recently, she spoke to the Senate inquiry into Support at Home. About her dad, John, she said:

He wasn't just a number; he was a respected member of society, a taxpayer all his working life, a husband, a father, a great grandfather and a great great-grandfather who was dearly loved.

Lynne had convinced her parents to engage with the aged-care system in 2023 so that, when the time came, help would only be a phone call away. Instead, when John needed that care in 2025, he was assessed as needing the second highest level of support at home, but only after serious advocacy by Lynne, who spent countless hours and days on the phone and writing emails. But, even after all that, Lynne was told that her father would have to wait 10 months for that care. Days after his funeral, the family received a congratulatory letter about his funding coming through. That was after John had passed away while waiting for that care. Lynne said, 'For Mum, who'll be 90 in October, the remnant of all of this is a profound sense of loss, both for dad and for the help they could have received.' She feels let down, as though she's been kicked in the guts by the government of Australia. John is so much more than a number. So are Lynne, her mum and her family.

Their family is not alone. The waiting list for Support at Home has nearly quadrupled under this government, from fewer than 50,000 when the coalition left government to closer to 200,000 today. For too many, that wait never ends. That is a number which this government is trying to keep secret and it's why we are here today. How can we fix something if the architects are unwilling to face the reality of the current state of the system?

On 9 September, the Senate ordered the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors to produce one thing: the number of older Australians who, like John, died waiting for a Support at Home care package. But the minister refused, saying that that search was too expansive. The Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors, Senator McAllister, has just said that, basically, it's too much trouble to actually find out how many people have died while on the waiting list.

As I said, the minister has staff who are paid to do the work. Older Australians, on the other hand, rely on their families to overcome the roadblocks and hurdles this government has placed between them and the care they need. That is why the Senate ordered the Minister representing the Minister for Aged Care and Seniors to come into this chamber today and to explain that failure. An explanation is not compliance. It's an admission that the government is shamelessly hiding from Australian families how many of their loved ones died waiting for the care this government itself had assessed that they needed.

This explanation should not be taken as good enough, and the order should be complied with in full without delay. It has previously been complied with much, much earlier than the middle of September. The only conclusion that anybody listening could reach on the failure of this minister to provide that number is that he doesn't want Australians to know how many people have died waiting for the care they were assessed as needing by this government.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (10:18): I rise to also speak to the government's failure to provide the Senate with the information requested on how many people are dying waiting for their aged-care packages. The minister has said that this number can't be provided to the Senate today because it is a big responsibility for them to get that right. If only the government and the minister took as seriously the responsibility to get aged care for older Australians right.

Right now, over 200,000 people are waiting for aged-care support. The royal commission said clearly and unequivocally that aged care in this country needed to stop being rationed and for people to get the care they need at the time they need it. Previous data has told us that around 5,000 people a year are dying while waiting for care. In a rich country, that is shameful. We can only surmise that the reason the minister has not provided us with the latest statistics is that they are not improving. It's not a complicated statistic. If you're on the waitlist and you die—how many has that happened to? We don't need to know why people died or how they died. We're simply asking how many people died before they got the package that they were assessed as being entitled to receive. The public has a right to know that information, the Senate has a right to know that information, and it should have been provided before now, yet the minister has come back and said, 'You all need to wait.'

It would seem that waiting is par for the course with this minister because waiting is exactly what older Australians are being asked to do week after week, month after month—for some people, it's up to a year—to get the care that they need. This is such a false economy. As the former inspector-general of aged care, Ms Siegel-Brown, said, for every person who waits, we're paying more in hospital admissions and early entry into residential aged care. The government should be doing everything they can to address this.

You can't tell us that this is a problem that wasn't foreseeable. We've known for 30 years that we were going to have an older or an ageing population. In the Senate today, the government has put amendments to their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner Bill to give people a pathway for review for their failed integrated assessment tool. This is just another example of the government and the minister not actually understanding what the problems are. The integrated assessment tool is broken. We've heard expert evidence that it is not assessing people appropriately. There is no human override for that assessment, so we have assessors sitting in front of people knowing that the assessment is incorrect and not being able to do anything about that. The minister's solution, put into the House today, is not to rework the integrated assessment tool—not to actually fix the problem—but to give people another option for a review.

Hundreds and thousands of people are already waiting for reviews, and that is further delaying their access to the support that they need. The government's fix to the problem with the IAT is to put more people into a system where they need to get a review—so yet more waiting to get the care that they need. No doubt, more people will die waiting for the care that they need, but will this chamber know how many people that is? No, because the minister is too cowardly to give the information to the Senate so the public knows exactly how many people in this country are dying waiting for care.

Question agreed to.

Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (10:23): I rise to speak on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill. The opposition will be supporting this bill. We do so because we recognise both the importance of the reforms before the Senate and the obligation that we all owe to our men and women who have served and who continue to serve the ADF.

The Australian way of life that we enjoy today has been secured through the enduring service, courage and sacrifice of those who've worn our nation's uniform. Throughout times of armed conflict, peacekeeping operations and natural disasters, members of the ADF have served with professionalism, distinction and dedication. They have protected our nation, supported communities in times of crisis, contributed to international stability and upheld Australia's responsibilities both at home and abroad.

In return, we have a solemn responsibility to ensure that those who serve are treated with dignity, respect and fairness. We have an obligation to support them not only while they are in uniform but throughout their lives after service. We have a responsibility to care for them—for both the physical and their psychological wounds that can arise during their military service. That obligation extends to ensuring that our systems, our institutions and our laws operate in a way that protects serving members and veterans and responds appropriately when deficiencies are identified. This bill seeks to do that.

It implements a number of recommendations arising from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. That royal commission was established by the former coalition government in July 2021 after listening to calls from veterans, families, advocates and the broader community for a national inquiry into the systemic issues affecting current and former defence personnel. When the coalition established the royal commission, we did so because there could be no greater priority than understanding why too many Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans were taking their own lives and than identifying the reforms needed to prevent that tragedy.

The commission's work was extensive, and it was confronting. The final report confirmed what veterans, families and many within the ex-service community had been saying for years. It identified systemic shortcomings, it highlighted the need for greater accountability, and it made clear that meaningful reform is required. The coalition has consistently supported the implementation of agreed recommendations arising from the royal commission. At the last election, we committed to implementing the agreed response to the royal commission. We supported legislation to establish the Defence and Veterans' Services Commission, we've engaged extensively with veterans organisations and advocacy groups, and we remain firmly committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide among serving and former defence personnel. More than half a million Australians have served or are currently serving in the ADF. What is clear from the findings of the royal commission is that we must do better by those who defend our nation, our families and our way of life.

This bill provides the framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 of the royal commission while also introducing broader reforms to modernise Australia's military justice and discipline systems. At its heart, the bill seeks to reduce harm and suicide risk for Defence members involved in military justice processes, improve fairness within those processes and align military disciplinary proceedings more closely with contemporary community expectations regarding accountability, transparency and procedural fairness. The coalition recognises the importance of each of these objectives.

Our military justice system plays a critical role in maintaining discipline, accountability and operational effectiveness within the ADF. Discipline is not an abstract concept within defence; it is fundamental to military capability. It supports command authority, it promotes cohesion within units, it underpins operational readiness, and it ensures confidence throughout the chain of command. When disciplinary matters are not resolved efficiently, fairly and transparently, serious consequences can follow. Delays can undermine morale, uncertainty can place unreasonable strain on personnel, confidence in the system can diminish and relationships within units can become strained.

In some circumstances, unresolved disciplinary issues can affect the safety and wellbeing of defence members and the broader defence community. That is particularly true when allegations involve serious misconduct or conduct that affects operational environments. For those reasons, our military justice system must be fair, effective and timely. It must protect personnel while maintaining discipline, it must support confidence while ensuring accountability, and it must allow the ADF to remain capable, professional and mission ready.

The coalition has a long history of supporting reforms that strengthen military justice in Australia. Previous coalition governments introduced reforms to modernise the Defence Force Discipline Act, streamline disciplinary processes and strengthen responsiveness to cyberbullying, harassment and unacceptable behaviour within the ADF. We've consistently maintained that bullying, harassment and misconduct have no place within the ADF. We also recognise that military justice systems must evolve over time.

The challenge for legislators is ensuring that reforms improve accountability and fairness while preserving the operational effectiveness and integrity of defence institutions. The measures before the Senate seek to address that challenge. Schedule 1 of the bill directly implements recommendations 18, 20, 23 and 63 of the royal commission. Among other things, these provisions establish a more consistent framework for the suspension of defence members who are under investigation for serious civilian criminal offences. At present, a member may be suspended during investigations into service offences, yet suspension is generally unavailable where serious civilian offences are being investigated until formal charges are laid. The royal commission identified concerns in this area. The bill seeks to provide more consistent mechanisms across service, civilian and overseas investigations. The bill also strengthens consideration of victim impact in serious violent and sexual offence matters to ensure service tribunals can take account of the broader effects of offending when determining sentences. Importantly, schedule 1 also provides for serious service offences to be recorded on criminal records through disclosure to the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission and removes outdated and stigmatising language from the Defence Force Discipline Act.

Schedule 2 implements recommendation 34 and introduces greater transparency within military justice proceedings. Under these reforms, convictions and sentencing decisions by superior tribunals must be accompanied by reasons. Sentencing responsibilities are modernised, court martial processes are updated, military justice administration is streamlined, and the role of judge advocates in legal decision-making is strengthened in a manner more consistent with contemporary legal practice.

Schedule 3 addresses mental health provisions within the military justice system. These reforms recognise that mental health conditions may affect an individual's capacity to participate in proceedings, even when they do not meet the threshold of legal incapacity. The bill introduces powers permitting adjournment or the dismissal of charges in certain circumstances involving mental impairment. It also establishes a framework for defence mental health tribunals to deal with situations where a member may be unfit to plead. The coalition supports the principle that military justice systems should be capable of responding appropriately and compassionately to mental health issues while maintaining procedural fairness and good order and discipline.

Schedule 4 seeks to reduce complexity and delays by streamlining summary disciplinary arrangements. The royal commission identified inefficiencies in the existing framework. The simplification of processes can contribute to a more efficient and responsive discipline system.

Schedule 5 contains 16 parts dealing with a range of other amendments. These include updating evidentiary rules, aligning the grounds for the termination of judicial officers, strengthening review processes, modernising the powers of investigating officers and introducing removal orders for intimate images. It also enables the provision of evidence by video link, provides for victim impact statements and allows for the extinguishment of historical homosexual service convictions that would not be offences today. These measures seek to improve the coherence of the system and align the Defence Force Discipline Act with contemporary Australian law and practice.

Schedule 5 also allows the minister for defence to issue guidelines to the Director of Military Prosecutions. This provision is modelled on section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, which provides the Attorney-General with the power to issue directions and guidelines to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. This schedule also makes amendments to vest all statutory disciplinary powers in the CDF, rather than in the CDF and the service chiefs, allowing the CDF to delegate those powers to service chiefs and other ADF officers at or above the rank of commodore, brigadier or air commodore.

The remaining schedules establish transitional rule-making power to provide for the transition between the existing discipline system and the new legislative framework.

The coalition recognises the broader purpose of this legislation and the importance of progressing reforms that respond to the findings of the royal commission. They demand action, and the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations represents an important and overdue step towards addressing systemic shortcomings, strengthening accountability and improving outcomes for defence personnel and veterans.

The coalition will be proposing some amendments that we believe will improve the bill's implementation, including by enabling parliamentary oversight of the new powers of the minister for defence to direct the Director of Military Prosecutions. I'd like to recognise the diligent work by my colleague Senator Jess Collins during the committee process and in initiating these amendments.

We will continue to scrutinise the implementation of these reforms closely. We'll engage constructively with stakeholders, we will monitor the operation of this legislation, and we will hold the government accountable for delivering the reforms to genuinely improve outcomes for those who serve. But, having considered the bill in its entirety, the coalition have determined that ADF members, veterans and the veteran community are best served by our supporting its passage.

Legislation alone will not solve every challenge identified by the royal commission. No single reform can. However, this bill represents an important contribution to the broader reform effort and provides a foundation upon which further improvements can be built. Our ADF personnel deserve a military justice system that is fair, transparent and effective. Our veterans deserve confidence that the lessons learned from the royal commission and the agreed recommendations will be acted upon. And the Australian people deserve assurance that those who serve our nation will receive the support, respect and protection that they've earned through their service and sacrifice for our country.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (10:34): I indicate at the start that the Greens will be supporting the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. The reason we are is that it's one of those occasions where a government has actually had a royal commission, looked at the royal commission, taken the recommendations seriously and then tried in good faith to actually implement those recommendations. When you see that happen, it gives you a little bit of hope that, actually, politics can from time to time get it right.

What are the key recommendations from the royal commission that are being implemented with this legislation? The first one is recommendation 18, 'Strengthen workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations'. Enormous credit is owed to the royal commission, Commissioner Kaldas and the team, for the way in which they created a safe space for veterans, serving and retired, to come and tell the truth about what was happening. I've got to tell you, my office has heard from so many veterans, overwhelmingly women, who had appalling treatment inside Defence, including appalling sexual misconduct, with—I think we should just say it like it is—a boys club coming in and protecting the senior officers. That's the reality for far too many women inside Defence. Men behave badly and then an empowered boys club comes in and protects the perpetrators. The royal commission heard that, and they put it in nicer language than I did, but that's the truth of it. Recommendation 18 set out a number of key elements to protect women, overwhelmingly, in those situations who are survivors of sexual misconduct and who deserve to be protected and supported through the process. This bill, the Greens believe, goes a significant way to implementing recommendation 18, and we support it.

Recommendation 20 is 'Amend the legislation related to sentencing perpetrators of military sexual offences'. I think the community would have been horrified to see the way in which people inside Defence who have been accused and then, indeed, found guilty of instances of sexual misconduct keep the uniform. Sexual abuse of, normally, junior members of Defence have been found to be true, and then they keep the uniform. That has to end. There's got to be a position which says those two things don't coexist. You don't get to keep the uniform and the entitlements and the respect after you've been found guilty of sexual offences. It's got to end. That's what recommendation 20 says, and that's where this legislation finally takes the law.

Recommendation 23 is 'Record convictions of sexual offences in Australian Defence Force records and civilian criminal records'. It was remarkable—and again I credit the royal commission for doing the hard work—to find out that there could be records of convictions of sexual misconduct and other serious offences under the military defence system and those records are never matched and given to the state, territory or federal criminal justice systems. So, if somebody who might have been found guilty of a sexual offence inside the military then continues offending outside of the military, when they appear the first time in the criminal courts in the non-military system, it's as though they have a clean record and have never offended before. That's got to end too, and this legislation allows the information to be shared to make that happen.

Recommendation 63 is 'Reduce stigma and remove structural and cultural barriers to help seeking'. It's probably worthwhile reading the text of that recommendation:

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) should identify and remove cultural and structural barriers to help seeking and make a greater concerted effort to reduce stigma. This should include:

(a) the Australian Government should remove reference to the word 'malingering' at Section 38 of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (Cth)

(b) Defence should review all its policies and procedures and amend or remove those that are stigmatising

(c) the ADF should develop a dedicated training program and a communications campaign to reduce stigma and promote help seeking.

Of all the structural things that you see, the idea that those who have been the subject of appalling treatment inside Defence and have had to have some time off are then getting charged with malingering under the Defence Force Act because of what people in positions of authority have done to them is just so offensive. The word is weaponised inside the Defence Force against people who are seeking help and against people who have been the victims of appalling treatment. It's about time that ended, and this legislation does end that.

The Greens do support this legislation because it amends those recommendations. Credit to the veterans who had the courage and the ability and the strength to go and tell the truth to the royal commission. Credit to the royal commission for listening, hearing and coming up with recommendations. And, in this case, I'm going to say credit to Minister Keogh for turning those words into legislative reforms. I hope we can pass this bill in a hurry.

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (10:40): I support the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. In doing so, though, I want to place on the record the words of someone who served this country admirably until he was subject to the abuse of discipline from the supposed leaders who are meant to protect our personnel. Daniel Dare served in the Royal Australian Air Force, and his words are so very meaningful. He's written a letter to me about Australian Defence Force discipline. It reads as follows.

Dear Senator Roberts,

I support reform of the Defence Force Discipline Act, but this bill must be treated as a beginning, not an end.

My experience shows how readily military justice can be weaponised by senior officers, how fiercely the system resists scrutiny and how dangerous it becomes when a member is unwell or inconvenient.

I joined the ADF at 17 under a 14-and-a-half year Initial Minimum Period of Service.

I spent more than 11 years trying to become the officer the service said it wanted.

I hoped for a lifelong career.

Eventually that hope became: "I just need to survive to the end."

Service should not feel like a prison sentence administered by officers who hide poor judgement behind process.

In March 2023, my Commanding Officer attempted to punish me over a message I did not write, send or know even existed.

A defective fact-finding process proceeded without interviewing me.

He sought to impose a 12-month formal warning and cancel my approved flying-instructor posting.

It stopped only after I retained Cameron Niven of Soldier's legal Counsel.

An ADF member should not need a civilian lawyer to stop a senior officer misusing command and exercising powers he did not properly have.

Yet Mr Niven is inundated by soldiers, sailors and airmen who say the system has been weaponised against them.

In one incident reported to him, a RAAF commanding officer initiated a termination process against an airman who parked in the Commanding officer's space.

That is petty authority armed with life-changing power.

Defence's own May 2026 Inspector General inquiry received 362 submissions. It found that weaponisation, while not widespread, "can and does occur at multiple" ADF levels; that rigid, inept or blind use of military justice can itself amount to weaponization; and that current fact finding is no longer fit for purpose.

It recommended stronger sanctions for deliberate abuse, including increasing the maximum penalty for prejudicing ADF discipline from three months to 12 months.

Defence has now admitted the disease exists.

Parliament must ensure it is treated.

The episode with my CO broke my trust and pushed me beyond the point where I could safely continue serving.

I sought an orderly solution: transfer to the reserves, repayment of any service debt and use of proper channels.

Instead, I met delay stonewalling, opacity and escalation.

Although entitled to seek medical discharge, I tried to remain available through the reserves should Australia face war or national emergency.

I failed to present for duty on second April 2024 amid a documented medical concerns and prior maladministration. My crime was taking unapproved sick leave.

My request for sick leave for that day was approved by the medical branch just days later, something I only found out through freedom of information.

Defence responded with that proportion, judgement or care.

Military and civilian police were sent to my home.

A five-year arrest warrant was issued.

An international pursuit used the ADF, AFP, DFAT, foreign agencies including the FBI and US Marshals.

Air Marshal Robert Chipman, now Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, oversaw and directed this persecution, assisted by Air Commodore Maria Brick.

Air Marshal Stephen Chappell continued it after becoming Chief of Air Force.

The pursuit failed, yet taxpayers continued funding a ten-day prosecution brought by Director of Military Prosecutions Air Commodore Ian Henderson.

In my case, an officer presented as independent has behaved like another marionette of the hierarchy.

This is irrational, emotional and incompetent—a pathetic display of institutional weakness, with senior officers saying yes to one another while taxpayers fund the consequences.

Yes-men do not win wars.

They lose them.

Air Marshal Chipman withheld critical information that medical staff had extended my sick leave, albeit late, and prevented a request for my input into a medical classification review from reaching me.

He sought to have my sick leave removed and denied me access to medical resources.

I was an ADF member stranded overseas with serious mental-health concerns and no access to Defence care.

More recently, I spent six weeks in hospital with acute mental-health issues.

Defence accused me of faking illness and sought an arrest warrant.

Will the senior officers responsible be reviewed?

Almost certainly not.

In the ADF's most senior officers cannot get the basics right in peacetime, why should Australians trust them in war?

I am increasingly less concerned about an enemy overseas than the enemy within: senior officers eroding the ADF from inside while protecting, rewarding and promoting their own.

Discipline is essential, but it must serve capability, fairness and good order.

The present system lets the hierarchy that mishandles the problem define it, control the record, escalate the response and declare its own conduct lawful.

This is rot from the top.

Senior officers mistake command for entitlement, discipline for domination and institutional loyalty for loyalty to each other.

They preach values downward and protect breaches upward.

This directly damages recruitment and retention.

Experienced members leave after watching senior officers reward compliance theatre, careerism and polished briefings over courage, competence and moral judgement.

Young Australians see the same conduct and decide not to enlist.

Australia needs a lethal, trusted and sustainable force, not one that treats injured or disillusioned members as administrative waste.

Defence Force Discipline reform cannot be cosmetic.

It must limit command discretion where liberty, reputation, medical vulnerability and civilian livelihood are at stake.

It must require independent scrutiny before serious escalation involving health concerns or maladministration; strict proportionality for warrants and external agency involvement; enforceable disclosure of exculpatory medical and administrative information; and consequences for senior officers who misuse the system.

Power without consequences becomes culture.

As an aside, there are so many meaningful and powerful statements in this letter. I'll continue with Daniel's words:

Culture without accountability becomes rot.

I wrote to Minister Matt Keogh and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles seeking reasonable intervention.

Mr Keogh's reply did not engage with the substance.

Mr Marles did not reply, and Freedom of Information material shows his office chose to ignore the matter.

When the hierarchy escalates and ministers look away, a member is left with lawyers, FOI requests, oversight complaints and public advocacy.

This bill would empower the Defence Minister to issue directions and guidelines concerning the Director of Military Prosecutions.

That power demands transparency, firm safeguards against political interference and scrutiny of any direction affecting prosecutorial independence.

Will ministers exercise moral courage or again protect the status quo?

My experience gives little cause for optimism.

The DFDA must not remain a managerial hammer that turns administrative failure into individual misconduct, allows senior officers to create harm and ignore warning signs, then punishes the member for breaking under pressure.

A Defence Force that does this is weak and morally corrupt.

What message reaches young Australians considering service?

"Join us.

We will hang you out to dry, protect our own and damage your civilian future if you become inconvenient."

Senior officers who permit that message to stand are sabotaging recruitment, retention and public trust.

A simple reform is 360-degree reporting: hold officers accountable to those they lead, not merely those whose approval advances their careers.

And, as an aside, again, this improves discipline. It doesn't take away authority from senior officers. Daniel continues:

Give subordinates a protected voice.

Promotion should require demonstrated competence and discipline, administration and complaint handling, as the IGADF itself recommends, and expose dysfunction concealed beneath polished reporting chains.

I also hold grave concerns for Australia's strategic sovereignty if Defence and government cannot acknowledge these failures in peacetime.

Officers prioritise careers.

The major parties look away.

I thank you, Senator Roberts, for listening not only to me but to others who have experienced institutional abuse, and for giving them a voice.

One Nation was once dismissed as marginal; its importance is now clear.

Labor and the Liberals have failed Australians for too long.

Another urgent issue is the IMPS and ROSO system.

Members should not escape reasonable service obligations: training costs money.

But outside war or national emergency, the Defence Regulation 2016 should prevent the ADF denying a transfer to the reserves where a member can repay the service debt.

Not every 17-year-old can safely complete an obligation lasting 14-and-a-half years. Treating volunteers as prisoners feeds abuse, increases harm and suicide risk, and drives away both serving members and potential recruits.

Despite my medical discharge in August 2025, Air Commodore Henderson is pursuing a ten-day Defence Force Magistrate trial against me at taxpayer expense, commencing 26 October at HMAS Moreton in Brisbane.

The trial is public.

I invite Australians to attend and decide whether they are witnessing proportionate discipline or a personal vendetta prosecuted with public money.

I ask you to support reform, but also to expose where this bill falls short.

If it leaves the same incentives and unaccountable power intact, the same abuses will continue under cleaner language.

Service members deserve a system worthy of their sacrifices.

Taxpayers deserve a Defence Force that spends public money on capability, not vendettas, theatrics and institutional face-saving.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Dare

I add: discipline, to be effective, must be based on truth, data and facts. It must be objective. It must be fair, proportionate and honest. How can a once-young man have his career crippled by military justice? How? That's the question. There's much more work that needs to be done with Defence, but we will be supporting this bill.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:53): I rise to speak on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. I state from the outset that the opposition will support this bill. I want to thank Senator Roberts for bringing those personal letters, personal stories, to the fore to remind us of why it is so important to support this bill today. The coalition recognise the importance of reform in this area. We took to the last election a promise, a commitment, to support reform and to support the recommendations of the royal commission into veteran suicide. We have here in this chamber, in this parliament, an obligation to support the men and women—and their families—who put their lives on the line, are committed to putting their lives on the line and make sacrifices and to do all we can to support them during their service and after their service. We have a solemn responsibility to treat them with dignity, respect and fairness, and this bill seeks to do that. After the harrowing time that the veteran and Defence community has had this year—the consistent slaps in the face—I want to thank the Labor government for finally bringing something to this chamber that everybody can get behind.

This bill seeks to implement several recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, which was established by the coalition in July of 2021. We established it because we wanted to understand why so many serving personnel and veteran personnel were, sadly, taking their own lives. We wanted to identify the reforms that would address that problem. The royal commission identified systemic shortcomings and a need for greater accountability, and it was clear that we needed meaningful reform. It was clear that we need to do better by those who defend our nation, our families and our way of life.

The core of this bill seeks to reduce harm and suicide risk for Defence members involved in military justice processes. Our military justice system has a critical role in maintaining discipline in the Defence Force. Critically, purposefully, it is separate from the civilian justice system. But, when disciplinary matters are not resolved efficiently, fairly or transparently, there can be very serious consequences for morale. There can be uncertainty in the system and strain on personnel, and confidence in the system can crash. Relationships within the units can become strained. This is what this bill is trying to address. The coalition supports the principle that the military justice system should be capable of responding appropriately and compassionately to mental health issues while also maintaining procedural fairness and good order and discipline. The royal commission identified inefficiencies in the existing framework, and there needs to be a simplification of the processes.

I want to foreshadow a couple of concerns that I have with the bill, noting that we do support it. I want to foreshadow that I will be submitting some amendments today in relation to schedule 5, which Senator Roberts just raised and which is about the extra powers for the Minister for Defence to direct the Director of Military Prosecutions in matters relating to military prosecutions. My concern is that there is not sufficient oversight, transparency or safeguards in that particular provision, which was not a recommendation of the royal commission, to ensure that the minister uses those powers fairly, judiciously and without political interference. So I foreshadow that I will be moving some amendments in relation to that particular schedule.

I also have concerns about the broadening of the definition of 'investigating officer' so that a civilian can be appointed to oversee investigations in the military justice system. My understanding is that that would be best placed just in relation to sexual offences—which the royal commission was, in large part, focused on.

I will be watching closely and maintaining scrutiny of how this government implements that particular schedule in this bill, because it is important to maintain separation between the civilian justice system and the military justice system. It was purposefully designed in that way. But, overall, we do recognise the importance of trying to modernise the military justice system and make it efficient, fair and compassionate to our serving members.

The coalition will continue to scrutinise the implementation of these reforms closely. We will engage constructively with the government and stakeholders—the defence community and the veteran community. We will monitor the operation of this legislation. The most important thing not just for the coalition but for everybody in this chamber and the other house is to make sure that we reform the system. We do not want to see one more death by suicide in our defence community or veteran community because the system works against them. That is our obligation here, and we will always stand by that. I commend the bill.

Senator BLYTH (South Australia) (11:00): I rise to speak today on the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 bill. As foreshadowed, the coalition is supporting this bill. The bill will amend the minister's power to issue guidelines and directions to the Director of Military Prosecutions and on the engagement of civilian contractors. It seeks to reduce the harm and suicide risk for members engaged in the military justice system, ensure fairness for Defence Force personnel involved in military justice proceedings and align military discipline proceedings with community expectations of the basic fairness and transparency found in the civilian justice system.

I rise today as the wife of a war veteran. My husband was deployed to Iraq. So I think these types of things are just so important. The coalition believe that we have a responsibility to care for the physical and mental wounds of our Defence Force personnel, of our veterans past and present and of future generations still to come.

This bill will provide the necessary framework to implement recommendations 18, 20, 23, 34 and 63 of the royal commission. The royal commission was established by a former coalition government in 2021. The royal commission was established after the coalition listened to community calls for a national inquiry focusing on the systemic issues faced by Defence Force members and veterans that could result in suicide.

I will take the liberty here of mentioning that the coalition is very happy that the Labor government have walked back their $5,000 cap on allied health services this morning. That cap was going to have a huge impact on the mental health and wellbeing of veterans right across the country. The cap should never have been put in place in the first place. It is such a shame that so many veterans had to come here to Canberra to fight their own government for the care they deserved. Many of these veterans were injured in service to our country, and the least we as a nation can do is give them the care they need to heal from and live with those wounds that were inflicted upon them in service to us.

The coalition, in establishing the royal commission, stated that its aim was to shed light on the critical steps needed to reduce the heartbreaking cases of suicide. We said this because we have seen far too many of our brave men and women who serve, and have served, this nation with pride succumb to the battle with the invisible wounds of their service. In fulfilling this mandate, the royal commission identified serious issues that demand a considered and constructive response. It's clear from the findings that we must do better by those who defend us, our families and our very way of life. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to our Defence Force and we have an obligation to our veteran community to ensure that issues identified by the royal commission are acknowledged and that the necessary action is taken. This is exactly what the coalition has been doing.

Last year, the coalition supported the legislation to establish the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, which was recommendation 122 of the royal commission. In doing so, we listened to the serious concern raised by veteran advocates on Labor's last-minute legislation for the commission. We engaged with key advocacy groups to understand the impacts of Labor's approach, including the Families of Veterans Guild, the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association and the Australian Federation of Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Ex Servicemen and Women.

At the last election, the coalition committed to implementing the agreed response to the royal commission, delivering better outcomes for men and women currently in the ADF and our veterans, and brought a comprehensive policy to the election. We remain committed to addressing the unacceptably high rates of suicide amongst our Defence Force and veteran communities.

As stated, this bill amends the minister's power to issue guidelines and directions to the Director of Military Prosecutions. Our military justice system is the integral framework that underpins military discipline and command, and the coalition has a long history of actively reforming military discipline in Australia. The former coalition government introduced reforms to modernise the Defence Force Discipline Act, streamlining the handling of minor disciplinary matters and strengthening Defence's response to cyberbullying, sending a clear message that bullying, harassment and unacceptable behaviour have no place anywhere within the Australian Defence Force.

Any change to our military justice system must strengthen accountability, protect personnel and the defence community and support the ongoing integrity of the Defence Force. The coalition understands that delays in resolving violations of military discipline adversely affect the morale, the welfare and the operational effectiveness of our defence forces. Prolonged uncertainty undermines confidence and places strain on serving personnel that can affect unit cohesion, trust and command authority.

Unresolved disciplinary matters may also have implications for the safety and wellbeing of defence personnel and the defence community. This is especially so when misconduct is serious in nature or impacts operational environments. A fair, effective and timely military system is essential in protecting personnel, maintaining discipline and ensuring the Defence Force remains capable, professional and, importantly, mission ready. Our service men and women deserve nothing less.

The minister has stated that this bill represents one of the most significant reforms to Australia's military discipline framework in decades, and that's why the coalition referred this legislation to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry. While the coalition supports this bill in general, we have raised concerns with parts of this legislation.

Firstly, recommendation 18 of the royal commission advocated for strengthening of workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations. The legislation before us goes beyond that recommendation. The government has not adequately demonstrated why this bill goes beyond the royal commission recommendation. This is why the coalition senators on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee recommended the Australian government better justify its deviation from the royal commission.

Secondly, we are concerned that key elements in this bill, such as the access to members' medical records, will be dealt with in regulations. Implementing the Defence Mental Health Tribunal framework through primary legislation would provide a more rigorous review in the context of members' rights to privacy, agency over their own judicial process and confidence that they will be fairly treated.

While the coalition continues to hold concerns about several provisions contained within this bill, we recognise the broader objective it seeks to achieve and the importance of advancing reforms that respond to the findings of the royal commission. After considering the bill as a whole, the coalition has determined that our veterans and Defence Force personnel are best served by supporting its passage. Implementing the recommendations from the royal commission is a critical and long-overdue step towards addressing systemic shortcomings, strengthening public confidence and improving outcomes for those who rely on these services. While legislation alone will not resolve every challenge, this bill represents an important contribution to the reform process and provides a foundation upon which further improvements can be built. There is still significant work ahead to ensure these reforms are implemented effectively, efficiently and in a manner that delivers tangible benefits on the ground. The coalition will continue to engage constructively with stakeholders, monitor the operation of these reforms and hold the government to account for their delivery.

The men and women of the Defence Force serve our nation with honour and bravery, with more than half a million Australians having served or currently serving. Indeed, the Australian way of life that we enjoy today has been secured through the enduring service, courage and sacrifice of the men and women in uniform who have defended our nation. Through armed conflict, natural disaster and peacekeeping missions, members of the ADF have consistently served with professionalism and distinction. In doing so, our ADF personnel have provided vital support to communities in need, contributed to international security and upheld Australia's responsibilities at home and abroad. Accordingly, in recognition of their service and sacrifice, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that Defence Force members and veterans are treated with respect and dignity and receive appropriate support.

This bill implements five of the 122 recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. One of the recommendations not made by this royal commission was to establish a $5,000 cap on veterans' allied health care. This point is often lost on those opposite, who tried to put this cap in place to save $748 million in their budget. Because Labor couldn't control their own budget and their own spending, they came after our hardworking service personnel and our veterans who served this nation with dignity and with bravery. Labor came after them for a tax cap. As I said earlier, the coalition is happy to see that Labor have walked back that cap, but these brave men and women should never have had to come to Canberra. They should never have had to fight their own government to receive the care and the services that they need.

How we treat those who serve and protect us is the mark of us as a nation, and it was disgusting that this Labor government put a cap on what services and health care they could receive after serving Australia, keeping us all safe and protecting our very way of life. I was pleased to stand with those veterans as they came here and brought their fight to Canberra, a fight that they never should have had. As I've said, the coalition will be supporting this bill. We do raise those concerns, but we don't want to stand in the way of making sure that veterans have the services that they need.

The PRESIDENT (11:14): Yesterday, I informed the Senate that I had received nominations from Senator David Pocock and Senator Shoebridge seeking appointment to a single crossbench position on the Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence. In accordance with standing orders, a ballot will be held to determine which of the two senators is to be appointed to the committee. Before proceeding to a ballot, the bells will be rung for four minutes.

The bells having been rung—

The PRESIDENT: The Senate will now proceed to a ballot. Ballot papers will be distributed to all senators, who are requested to write the name of the candidate they wish to vote for. The candidates are Senator David Pocock and Senator Shoebridge. Senator Sheldon?

Senator Sheldon: I wonder whether both the candidates would like to give a short speech about why we should be voting for them.

The PRESIDENT: Candidates are able to give a short speech if they wish to do so. Senator Ruston?

Senator Ruston: I just wonder what the length of time will be.

The PRESIDENT: Minister Gallagher has suggested a minute, which is what we use for formal motions. As that is the agreement of the Senate, we will do one-minute statements. I remind the Senate that Senator Shoebridge and Senator David Pocock need to be heard in silence.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:21): Thanks to the chamber. It's a bloody outrage that the majors in this place are not letting there be two representatives from the crossbench. I know that there's probably a committee of secretaries who are desperately keen not to have more crossbenchers actually asking the questions. We can see a stitch-up when you do it. We know what you want to do. You don't want people actually testing what happens in this committee.

I've got to tell you this. Joint select committees are places where hope goes to die, so you actually do me a great favour in not sending me down onto this select committee. We've all been on them, right? Some drones and deadheads from the lower house come in and bore you to death. If anyone thinks a joint select committee on AI is how we're going to get ahead of the tidal wave of disaster that's coming, wake up and smell the roses! But, mainly, the crossbench can see a stitch-up, and we're not going to fight amongst ourselves.

Senator Wong: I'm calling a point of order on the slurs about the members in the other place. That should be withdrawn under the standing orders.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: I'm waiting for silence. I did ask for these one-minute statements to be heard in silence.

Honourable senators interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Senator Hanson-Young: Now you're calling order?

The PRESIDENT: Order! My goodness!

Senator Hanson-Young: Go back and watch what just happened!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Hanson-Young, you will withdraw that comment.

Senator Hanson-Young: I will withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Senator Shoebridge, because there was so much noise in the chamber, I did not hear the comments that you may have made in relation to the other house, but, if you did make comments which were unparliamentary, I invite you to withdraw them.

Senator Shoebridge: I withdraw them.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Senator Shoebridge. Senator David Pocock.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:23): I thank the Senate for this opportunity. One of the criticisms of the AI industry is that it still remains overwhelmingly white and male, so the irony is not lost on me that the Senate is provided with an opportunity to vote between two white dudes named David. Senator David Shoebridge does outstanding work at estimates and on committees, so I think, whatever the Senate decides, there will be a crossbencher engaging in good faith on this issue, which is one of the huge challenges we face. We're facing an exponential technology that is clearly difficult to deal with for legislators and difficult to deal with as a society. I think either David will make a good contribution to this community.

The PRESIDENT: Ballot papers will now be distributed and collected once they're filled in. I invite Senators McKim and Lambie to act as scrutineers.

A ballot having been taken—

The PRESIDENT: The result of the ballot is as follows: Senator David Pocock, 49 votes; and Senator Shoebridge, 12 votes. There were two invalid votes. Senator David Pocock is therefore elected. Congratulations, Senator Pocock.

Senator SHELDON (New South Wales—Chief Government Whip in the Senate) (11:35): I present the 12th report for 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. 12 OF 2026

17 September 2026

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Senator Tony Sheldon (Government Whip, Chair)

Senator Maria Kovacic (Opposition Whip)

Senator Sean Bell (One Nation Whip)

Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip)

Senator Ralph Babet

Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip)

Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm

Senator Jessica Collins

Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher

Senator Jacqui Lambie

Senator Kerrynne Liddle

Senator Fatima Payman

Senator David Pocock

Senator Lidia Thorpe

Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 12 OF 2026

1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 16 September 2026 at 7.08 pm.

2. The committee recommends that—

(a) the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 October 2026 (see appendix 1 for statements of reasons for referral),

(b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Child Support and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Ending Financial Abuse in the Child Support Scheme No. 1) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 November 2026,

(c) the provisions of the Customs and Other Legislation Amendment (Illicit Tobacco Enforcement Modernisation and Other Measures) Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 October 2026, and

(d) the provisions of the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2026 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2026.

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

National Student Ombudsman Levy Bill 2026

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (National Student Ombudsman Levy) Bill 2026 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025

Anti-Discrimination Legislation Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Sex Characteristics Discrimination Commissioner) Bill 2026

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Audio Description) Bill 2019

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Register of Media Interests) Bill 2026

Census and Statistics Amendment (Parliamentary Oversight of the Census) Bill 2026

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024

Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2026

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024

Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025

Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Pay for Radio Play) Bill 2023

Crimes Amendment (Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentences) Bill 2025

Criminal Code Amendment (Equal Access to Voluntary Assisted Dying) Bill 2026

Customs Legislation Amendment (Commercial Greyhound Export and Import Prohibition) Bill 2021

Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024

Diplomatic Appointments (Selection Process) Bill 2026

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Communications) Bill 2025 (No. 2)

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair Territory Representation) Bill 2024

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fairer Contracts and Grants) Bill 2023

Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Fast Tracking Coal, Gas and Oil Projects) Bill 2026

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Low Emissions Future) Bill 2025

Environment and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Nuclear Energy Prohibitions) Bill 2026

Fair Work Amendment (Paid Reproductive Health Leave and Flexible Work Arrangements) Bill 2025

Higher Education Support Amendment (End Dirty University Partnerships) Bill 2025

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

Lobbying (Improving Government Honesty and Trust) Bill 2025

Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure) Bill 2026

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Protecting Veterans' Healthcare) Bill 2026

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Veterans' Healthcare Without Caps) Bill 2026

National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Broadening Adult Cyber Abuse Protections) Bill 2026

Online Safety Amendment (Fix Our Feeds) Bill 2026

Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025

Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018

Prime Agricultural Land Protection Bill 2026 (No. 2)

Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025 [No. 2]

Right to Protest Bill 2025

Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025

Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Responding to Robodebt) Bill 2025 [No. 2]

Sport Legislation Amendment (World Anti-Doping Code Implementation) Bill 2026

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment (Frontline Emergency Service Workers) Bill 2025

Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2026

Treasury Laws Amendment (Removing the Widows and Spouses Tax) Bill 2026

Unlocking Supply of Family Homes Bill 2025

Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Clearing the Fair Work Commission Backlog) Bill 2026 5. The committee considered the following bills but could not reach agreement:

Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026 [No. 2]

Wearable Recording Devices (Import Control) Bill 2026

(Tony Sheldon)

Chair 17 September 2026

Senator SHELDON: I move:

That the report be adopted.

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (11:35): I move the following amendment:

At the end of the motion, add "and the Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026 [No. 2] not be referred to a committee".

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (11:35): I move as amendments to the amendment just moved:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and, in respect of:

(a) the Red Lines Package Omnibus Bill 2026 [No. 2], the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 November 2026; and

(b) the Wearable Recording Devices (Import Control) Bill 2026, the bill be deferred to the committee's next meeting".

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (11:36): We can see what's happened here on this Red Lines Package. It appears the Labor Party has cut a deal with the coalition to prevent the community from even making submissions on the Red Lines Package. The Red Lines Package has come from an extraordinary coalition of civil society groups: lawyers, human rights advocates, the Palestinian community and people of good faith and goodwill from across the country who have been appalled to think that Australian law is so weak when it comes to a genocide. They cannot believe that our government continues to allow weapons parts to go to Israel to create a genocide in Gaza. They cannot believe that we continue to allow—or Labor continues to allow—the illegal trade in products from settlements based in occupied Palestine. They cannot believe that our laws are so weak that there's basically a political veto on whether or not prohibitions against supporting a genocide are actually enforced.

I just want to give an enormous vote of thanks to all of those people from right across the country who have come together for the Red Lines Package and to the senators who co-sponsored this legislation, Senator Payman, Senator Pocock and Senator Faruqi. This Red Lines Package is an example of the community moving when this parliament refuses to, and now we're watching Labor say that they won't even permit an inquiry on it. They won't allow Australians to make submissions on four pieces of legislation that come together to actually put some decency in our laws and have our laws respect international law.

There are millions of Australians who thought that the Labor Party stood for something. Now, after five years of government, they've watched the sorts of statements that the foreign minister has kept making, saying that, when it comes to Israel and Palestine, Australia would work with like-minded nations. Like-minded nations are now putting through laws like this red lines bill in their countries, saying that they will have total prohibition on trade with illegal settlements in occupied Palestine and an arms embargo on sending weapons into a genocide. Those like-minded nations—the UK, Canada, Ireland, Spain and France—have all moved, and now we get some new line from the Labor government about why they won't move.

We know why Labor is refusing to support the Red Lines Package. It's because Washington won't let them. It's because they are completely under the spell of Donald Trump and his team over there in the United States, and they say, 'You dare not take any action to actually put in place any red lines for the state of Israel.' It's not just in relation to weapons going to Israel; it's in relation to weapons going to the United Arab Emirates, which are being fed into the appalling civil war in Sudan and the appalling conflict in Yemen. We say, 'No, put some red lines here,' but instead Labor is doing what they're doing on migration, doing what they're doing across the board—Labor is reaching out to work with the hard right, to work with the coalition and One Nation, to prevent this even going to an inquiry. That's a disgrace. The more that the community sees the Labor Party, the more they see them for what they are—so willing to reach across the aisle with the right and the hard right to punch down on migrants and to not take action on a genocide. This is just another case.

Senator Duniam: I ask that the Greens amendment be separated out into (a) and (b).

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:40): The Labor Party are cowards, and they are hypocrites. They talk no end of rules based order and upholding international law. They talk about human rights till the cows come home. When there is a community sponsored legislation here, they won't even allow it to go to an inquiry so it can be examined so that Australia's complicity in Israel's genocide on Gaza can be shown. There are more than 80,000 Palestinians who have been killed in the last three years by Israel. More than 22,000 children have been killed, and the blood is on the hands of the Labor Party. That is what they are trying to hide. No-one out there in the community is fooled. They all know that Labor is complicit in this genocide. They still export weapons and weapons parts. They have taken no action to stop the genocide. Even one of our own Australian aid workers has been killed. They have done nothing. Journalists have been killed. Healthcare workers have been killed. All are breaches of international law and all war crimes, but you don't want to do anything, and you want to hide behind not even having an inquiry. You try and put a veil on what you have done.

There was a time when the people in this country had some hope in the Labor Party. I mean, heck, there was a time where I even had some glimmers of hope in the Labor Party, but I think that time has long gone. There is no glimmer of hope in this Labor Party. They have no integrity. They have no morality. They are just hopeless, gutless cowards. That's who you are, and the community knows this. There was a time that I thought with the Greens could hopefully push Labor to be better, but you cannot be better. I have come to the conclusion that you all need to be kicked out. You need to be replaced by people who have some guts, who have some morality and who can give the people of this country some joy and some hope. That's not you or you, either.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (11:42): The red lines package that was introduced by crossbenchers comes out of civil society. It comes from Australians who want our parliament to say that we are going to make a very firm commitment in domestic law to actually uphold the commitments we make to the international community. When there is a plausible case of crimes against humanity, of genocide, we will act here, and we will actually ensure that we are not party to those crimes and that we are not enabling them in any way. To me, it seems like a very sensible package of reforms. There's nothing radical in this proposal. We've signed up to all of these things as a country. We've signed international treaties.

I fear that as a species and as a civilisation, we're not learning the lessons of the past. We saw, after the great wars, the world come together and set up the United Nations and sign treaties, international agreements, that every member state would ensure that it is doing what it can to prevent genocide, to prevent crimes against humanity. And that requires us, as a participating member—as a middle power, which we hear so much about from the government—to actually step up and do that and to say we're going to hold ourselves to that standard that we signed up to, to that standard that we would probably expect of other nations.

I think it's a great tragedy that, when a bill is put forward in good faith—as I said, this should not be a radical proposition; these are all things we've signed up to as a country—the major parties won't even allow it to proceed to an inquiry; won't even allow scrutiny of that bill; won't allow Australians to submit their views, whatever they may be, to a Senate inquiry; won't allow academics and experts to submit; and won't allow for the bill to, potentially, be amended or debated in this place. On behalf of the many thousands of Canberrans I've heard from about this issue, I want to put on the record their concerns that Australia is not doing enough.

One of my heroes, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, talked about how being neutral in the face of injustice is choosing the side of the oppressor. As a country, we need to face up to the fact that we need to hold ourselves to a higher and more consistent standard. It shouldn't matter where these crimes are being perpetrated, where these wars are being waged or whether they involve allies or not. We should be stepping up. Here we are at the reference of bills, and the major parties do not want scrutiny of a bill that simply enables the parliament to uphold international obligations we've signed up to.

Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE (Queensland) (11:46): A common refrain from the government in this place when the Greens ask questions about the genocide that's going on in Gaza and ask questions about Australia's commitment to international law is that we are 'pathetic' and that we're just playing political stunts. Yet here we are in the chamber today, bringing the voices of the community into this place, asking the Senate to listen to the voices of the community and giving it an opportunity to engage with four bills that have come to this place from the community through the inquiry process—Professor Gillian Triggs and former High Court Justice Michael Kirby are the sorts of people who have been involved in this community project to ensure that our government and our parliament uphold their obligations under international law.

We hear regularly from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Prime Minister and the government that Australia is committed to its obligations under international law. Yet, when the community puts legislation in front of them to ensure that we can follow through on those obligations, the response from the government and the coalition is: 'We don't want to hear you. There's nothing to see here.' What are you so afraid of? If you were that confident that we were, in fact, as a country, upholding our obligations under international law, there would be nothing to fear. You'd be very happy to have the community making submissions. You'd be very happy to hear evidence from people like Professor Triggs and former Justice Kirby. Yet it's clear that you are very worried and afraid of what they're going to say, or, alternatively, that you're just cowards.

What it tells us is that you are so out of touch with the community. So don't come in here and lecture us anymore about being 'pathetic' or just running political stunts when what we do in this place is bring the voice of the community here.

The PRESIDENT: The opposition have asked that (a) and (b) of the Greens amendment to Minister Gallagher's amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be split. The question is that part (a) of Senator McKim's amendment agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (11:57): The question now is that part (b) of Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The PRESIDENT: The question now is that the amendment moved by Minister Gallagher, as amended, to the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (11:59): At the request of Senator Bragg, I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2027:

The impacts of, and Commonwealth policy responses to, coastal erosion in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) the scale and rate of coastal erosion across Australia and the adequacy of current national coastal hazard mapping, monitoring and data-sharing arrangements;

(b) the environmental impacts of coastal erosion, including the loss of dunes, wetlands and coastal habitat and impacts on biodiversity, and the role of natural and nature based mitigation measures in reducing erosion risk;

(c) the economic and financial impact of coastal erosion, including impacts on individuals and regions, insurance liabilities and costs, regional Australia, housing supply and prices, industry sectors, such as on tourism and agriculture, ports and other infrastructure and overall productivity;

(d) the social and community impacts of coastal erosion, including the psychological toll on affected residents, including in regional and remote communities;

(e) the adequacy of existing policy responses at the Commonwealth level, including the relevant data and evidence base, national disaster and related risk management frameworks, environmental impact and biodiversity frameworks, and regional and industry policy aspects, and community engagement and consultation approaches;

(f) potential additional policy responses at the Commonwealth level, and how they would interact with existing efforts at the state and territory, as well as local government, level; and

(g) any other related matters.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Bragg be agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (12:06): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Collins.

Leave granted.

Senator KOVACIC: I move the motion as amended:

That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 March 2027:

The use and impact of monetary, expenditure based and numerical restrictions on Department of Veterans' Affairs-funded health treatment, with particular reference to:

(b) the use of monetary limits, expenditure thresholds, numerical treatment limits, review points, additional approval requirements, co-contributions or other restrictions affecting access to treatment;

(c) the consequences of such restrictions for continuity of care, clinical outcomes and veterans with complex, chronic or multiple service-related conditions;

(d) the particular impact on veterans and health service providers in regional, rural and remote Australia;

(e) the adequacy of existing statutory protections and options for strengthening legislative protections against monetary and numerical restrictions on veterans' health treatment;

(f) the financial, clinical and administrative implications of restricting, removing or legislatively prohibiting monetary and numerical limits on veterans' health treatment;

(g) consultation undertaken with veterans, ex-service organisations, health practitioners and other affected stakeholders; and

(h) any related matters.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Collins as amended be agreed to.

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (12:11): I move:

(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Corruption in the Construction Industry, be established to inquire into and report on:

(a) allegations of corruption, criminal infiltration, intimidation, coercion and misconduct in the construction industry;

(b) the impact of such conduct on project costs, productivity, workplace safety, competition and public confidence in the construction industry;

(c) the adequacy of Commonwealth laws, policies, procurement rules, regulatory frameworks and enforcement responses;

(d) risks arising in relation to tendering, subcontracting, labour hire, industrial arrangements and Commonwealth-funded projects;

(e) the adequacy of existing oversight and administration mechanisms, and whether administrative or legislative reform is required; and

(f) any other related matters.

(2) That the committee present its report by 12 March 2027.

(3) That the committee consist of 7 senators, as follows:

(a) three nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;

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

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

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

(4) That:

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

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

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

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

(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and, as deputy chair, the member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.

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

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

(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 725 standing in the name of Senator Kovacic be agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia—Manager of Australian Greens Business in the Senate) (12:16): by leave—I move:

That the reporting date for the inquiry into triple zero by the Environment and Communications References Committee be extended from tomorrow to Monday 21 September.

Question agreed to.

Senator SHOEBRIDGE (New South Wales) (12:17): I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this second piece of legislation to implement measures recommended by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

The purpose of the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is to make a series of amendments to the Defence Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to implement approximately 20 recommendations from the royal commission. The minister says that the intent of the bill is to directly implement 15 recommendations and to support a further 20 recommendations.

This is about changes to both the Defence Act and the compensation arrangements that are going to give some pretty essential support to the health and wellbeing of current and former members of the ADF. It also extends that help to families and requires the Department of Veterans' Affairs to address support for families in a fresh manner so that an ADF member's former spouse or partner can continue to get some support, even when they've separated. It's stopping the mental health burden on families when veterans are put through the grinder in Defence and then, sometimes, the grinder in veterans affairs.

We know who often takes that burden: family members. Sadly, too often, the way in which Defence treats serving members, and the way in which veterans affairs treats veterans, leads to significant mental health concerns for veterans. Too often, that can lead to family breakdown. It is wrong to just ignore the partners of those veterans and simply say, 'Actually, you don't count anymore; you don't matter', because the trauma that they've had to live through and support, the family breakdown, all has at its core the injury and the way that injury was dealt with inside Defence. So we think extending support to former spouses and partners in the aftermath of a separation, where it's appropriate, is incredibly important.

The other provisions build on the amendments that were put in the previous bill that we considered, including directly—explicitly—prohibiting persons who had been sentenced to a period of imprisonment for a sexual offence from ever joining the ADF. It is remarkable that that wasn't in the law already, but, with this legislation, that will now become part of the law.

One of the core problems that the royal commission found was that there was not a safe culture to speak up inside Defence—that, if you spoke up, you often got shot down. That is the message we got repeatedly from veterans. It's what the royal commission heard, and it's what my office has heard in our engagement with veterans. It is essential to ensure that, when veterans disclose information—it might be whistleblowing; it might be personal health information; it may be other deeply personal information—they know that it will only be for the purposes of the wellbeing, health and safety of ADF members and that it can't be abused by the hierarchy. This legislation puts that in place.

This is a bill that has been a long time coming. I want to give credit to the brave veterans and serving members of the ADF who gave their evidence to the royal commission and told the truth about the way the Defence Force so often treats its members as disposable. I hope that veterans and serving members of the Defence Force realise, with the broad political support for this legislation, that the Greens and other parties in here don't view current and former members of the Defence Force as disposable. They are people with full lives and families and the right to be treated with respect and decency inside and outside of Defence. This bill goes some way to making that a reality.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (12:22): I rise today to speak on behalf of the coalition on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 and put on record the coalition's support for this bill and its objectives. This legislation is not merely a collection of administrative adjustments or technical tweaks. It represents a significant legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, a royal commission established by the former coalition government.

Every senator in this place carries a heavy responsibility to ensure that those who wear the uniform and those who have worn it receive the support, care and respect their service deserves. We also carry a duty to the families who stand beside them sharing the unique burdens of service life. The coalition recognises the profound importance of these reforms. This bill directly implements 15 recommendations of the royal commission, with a further 20 recommendations supported through its provisions. Its objectives to strengthen the health, wellbeing and safety of our personnel are objectives that the coalition wholeheartedly shares.

For these reasons, the coalition will support this bill in the Senate today. We approach this debate in a spirit of constructive engagement, acknowledging the valuable work of ex-service organisations, advocates and families who have fought for these changes. However, our support is cautious. It is support predicated on the requirement that these reforms deliver genuine, tangible improvements rather than simply adding more layers of administrative complexity to a system that many service personnel and veterans already find difficult to navigate. We must ensure that this legislation is effective, proportionate and capable of delivering the improvements that are needed, recommended and promised.

The measures contained in this bill are intended to place a greater emphasis on the support of our defence personnel and veterans across both the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The royal commission was clear. For too long, the systems designed to support our people have been fragmented. This has resulted in fragmented information systems, resulting in administrative delays, delays in support and, most tragically, missed opportunities to identify and assist those at high risk of suicide or self-harm. By improving coordination between agencies and strengthening access to support services, this bill aims to ensure that the wellbeing of defence members and veterans and their families remains central to service delivery.

In regard to schedule 1 on addressing fragmented information systems, schedule 1 establishes a new legislative framework to support health and safety by breaking down fragmented information systems, it expands the functions of the Repatriation Commission to include wellbeing and transition support and it creates a framework allowing Defence, the DVA and other entities to share information for defined purposes. The intent here is understandable and, in principle, supported by the coalition. We recognise the value of reducing administrative burdens and barriers between agencies to allow for earlier intervention for vulnerable individuals and better integrated service delivery.

The bill's support for the Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency and the National Veterans' Data Asset is particularly important as these will enhance our research capabilities and further deepen our understanding of suicide risk factors. In particular, the coalition supports the goal of enabling the earlier transfer of information from Defence to DVA. If this leads to reduced delays in claims processing and ensures veterans receive assistance at their earliest possible opportunity, then we believe that it is a significant and positive step forward.

However, we must always remain vigilant. The collection and sharing of sensitive personal information and data relating to health service delivery and personal circumstances is a matter of the highest gravity. Defence personnel and their families rightly expect that this information will be handled with the highest degree of care and security. While the bill includes requirements for ministerial guidelines and the de-identification of information where practicable, these safeguards require ongoing and rigorous scrutiny. We must ensure that any expansion of information-sharing powers is accompanied by robust protections, clear limitations on use and strong accountability mechanisms. While better data can drive better outcomes, it must not be achieved by placing sensitive information at greater risk of misuse, exposure or unauthorised access. The coalition will closely scrutinise the ministerial guidelines that will help protect this information.

In regard to schedule 2 on modernising Defence health, schedule 2 turns to the Defence health system, seeking to modernise its legislative framework. The Defence health system occupies a unique and often difficult position. Unlike civilian services, it must provide individual care while simultaneously supporting operational readiness and assessing an individual's fitness for service. The royal commission found that existing legislative frameworks have not evolved in step with modern clinical practice in relation to mental health care, clinical governance and the management of health information. The coalition supports the establishment of a clearer statutory framework that clarifies the roles within the system and provides authority for the collection of health information for monitoring and quality assurance. We welcome the alignment of Defence health governance with nationally recognised clinical governance standards. This has the potential to improve transparency and ensure that our personnel have access to high-quality care that meets contemporary expectations.

Providing legal protections for practitioners participating in quality assurance similar to those in civilian systems is also a sensible and necessary step. But, once again, a balance must be struck. While Defence has a legitimate need to access health information to support readiness and safety, we must ensure that the privacy rights of personnel are not unnecessarily eroded. The success of these health reforms will not be measured by the creation of new statutory frameworks but by whether they result in earlier intervention, improved continuity of care and better health outcomes.

In regard to schedule 3 on supporting families, the coalition believes schedule 3 is a critical component of this bill as it recognises that families are the backbone of our Defence community. We know that there is a profound connection between family circumstances, relationship breakdown and an elevated risk of suicide and self-harm. Behind every serving member is often a family sharing the burdens of service—the frequent relocations, the prolonged absences and the immense pressures of operational deployments. We support measures that improve communication between Defence and families, ensuring they are better informed about the supports available to them.

Most importantly, this schedule addresses the harrowing reality of family and domestic violence. It ensures that former partners are not excluded from support services simply because their relationship with a serving member has ended. Facilitating access to assistance for safe separation and improving the safety of victims-survivors are objectives the coalition strongly endorses. However, in the sensitive context of a relationship breakdown, the need for stringent privacy protections is paramount. Families must have confidence that their information is handled appropriately, and we'll be looking closely at the safeguards governing these specific information sharing provisions.

With regard to schedule 4, integrity and service requirements, the schedule focuses on the standards of those who serve, establishing a more structured framework for service eligibility and separation. The coalition firmly believes that those entrusted with our national security must uphold the highest standards of conduct. Public confidence in the Australian Defence Force depends on maintaining a professional, disciplined and trusted military force. We strongly support the principle that individuals convicted and imprisoned for serious violent or sexual offences should be automatically removed from the ADF and ineligible to return. Such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with the leadership and responsibility associated with military service.

These reforms create a more coherent and consistent framework for defence personnel and decision-makers, offering greater clarity and certainty around the processes and standards that apply across a member's service. By more clearly defining legislative requirements and decision-making criteria, they reduce the likelihood of inconsistent, subjective or ad hoc outcomes and support a more transparent and accountable approach throughout Defence. Importantly, the reforms ensure that decisions regarding entry into service, ongoing suitability and separation are grounded in clear principles, fairness and appropriate oversight. In doing so, they enhance confidence in Defence personnel management processes and ensure decisions align with contemporary expectations of integrity, accountability and sound governance.

With regard to schedule 5, the importance of independent oversight, the schedule contains amendments to support the independence and effectiveness of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. Independent oversight is not just an administrative hurdle. It is essential for driving lasting change and ensuring that governments remain accountable for delivering meaningful reform. Effective oversight will be the key to ensuring that the lessons of the royal commission are translated into lasting systemic improvements.

In conclusion, while the coalition supports the objectives of this bill, we are mindful of the history of reform in this area. For too many, the system has been a source of frustration rather than support. We must be vigilant to ensure that these reforms do not simply result in further layers of administration. The true measure of this legislation will not be the number of new frameworks created or the breadth of its provisions. It will be the lived experience of ADF personnel, veterans and their families. Will they experience faster claims processing? Will access to services and supports be improved? Will we see earlier and more effective intervention for those at risk? These are some of the metrics by which this parliament and future governments will be judged.

We owe it to our service community to ensure that the legislative framework reflects and supports the purpose it is intended to achieve. We look forward to engaging constructively throughout that process to ensure the legislation is fit for purpose. This bill is a significant step in our national response to the royal commission, a royal commission established, as I said earlier, by the former coalition government. We will support this bill's progression during the course of the Senate's debate. We owe a debt of gratitude to our ADF members, our veterans and their families, and we must always ensure that the systems of support are worthy of their sacrifice. The coalition remains committed to that goal, to supporting the health and wellbeing of those who serve and to supporting those who have served in the past and their families.

Senator BLYTH (South Australia) (12:33): I rise to speak in relation to the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. This directly implements 15 of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Australia owes a lasting debt of gratitude to the servicemen and women of the Australian Defence Force, whose service, courage and sacrifice has helped protect our nation and preserve the values that we hold dear. We owe it to them to ensure that the issues identified by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide are neither ignored nor forgotten but are met with genuine reform and sustained commitment.

The royal commission was established by the coalition in response to longstanding calls from veterans, families and the broader community for a comprehensive examination of the systemic factors contributing to suicide among serving and former defence personnel. In establishing the royal commission, the coalition made clear that its purpose was to identify the changes necessary to reduce the tragic incidence of suicide within the defence and veteran community and to drive meaningful and lasting reform. The findings of the royal commission place a clear responsibility on all of us to strengthen the support systems available to serving members and veterans and their families and to ensure those systems meet the challenges they face. It validated the experiences and concerns that veterans, their families and the ex-service community have been raising for many years.

As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to our defence force and to our veteran community to ensure the issues identified by the royal commission are acknowledged and the necessary action is taken. And this is what the coalition has been doing. Last year, the coalition supported the legislation to establish the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission, which was recommendation 122 of the royal commission. In doing so, we listened to serious concerns raised by veterans advocates about Labor's last-minute legislation for the commission. The coalition strongly supports reforms that enhance the health, wellbeing and safety of current and former Australian Defence Force members as well as the families who support them throughout and beyond their service. The findings of the royal commission place a clear responsibility on all of us to strengthen the support systems available to serving members and veterans and their families and to ensure those systems meet the challenges they face.

This bill proposes a range of changes intended to place greater emphasis on the welfare of defence personnel and veterans across both the Department of Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. These measures seek to improve coordination between agencies, strengthen access to support services and ensure that the wellbeing of defence members and veterans and their families remains central to service delivery.

Schedule 1 of this bill establishes a new legislative framework to support the health, wellbeing and safety of serving Australian Defence Force personnel and veterans and their families. It responds to the finding of the royal commission that critical information held across defence and veterans systems is often fragmented, resulting in information silos, delays in support and missed opportunities to identify and assist individuals at risk. New information-sharing arrangements in the bill are designed to facilitate access to services and assistance and should result in better and faster delivery for ADF personnel and veterans and their families.

Importantly, the bill contains a clear legislative basis for the collection, use and disclosure of information for the purposes of research, data analysis and evaluation relating to the health, wellbeing and safety of serving and former defence personnel and their families. The stated objective of these provisions is to enable Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs to better understand emerging issues, assess the effectiveness of programs and services and develop evidence based policies that improve outcomes for all those who have served.

The coalition recognises the value of reducing administrative barriers between agencies and improving the way government services are delivered to those who have served our nation. However, the collection and sharing of personal information must always be approached with caution. Defence personnel and veterans and their families rightly expect that sensitive information relating to their service, their health and their personal circumstances will be handled with the highest degree of care and security. For that reason, it is essential that any expansion of information-sharing powers is accompanied by robust safeguards, clear limitations on use and strong accountability mechanisms.

The bill seeks to address these concerns by requiring compliance with ministerial guidelines, providing for information to be de-identified wherever practicable and ensuring that the framework operates consistently with existing obligations under privacy legislation. These safeguards are important, and we will require ongoing scrutiny to ensure that they are both effective and proportionate. The coalition will continue to closely examine whether the proposed protections are sufficient to safeguard the privacy of defence members and veterans and their families while enabling the legitimate research and evaluation activities necessary to improve services and support.

The royal commission also found that the existing legislative framework had not kept pace with contemporary clinical practices and does not adequately support modern approaches to health governance, data management and mental health care. Schedule 2 seeks to modernise the legislative framework governing defence health services and respond to several recommendations made by the royal commission. Given the unique health challenges faced by many defence personnel, the coalition supports efforts to ensure the defence health system operates to the highest possible standards and delivers timely, effective and appropriate care. However, while there is a legitimate need for Defence to access relevant health information to support readiness and safety, safeguards must remain robust and clear to ensure personal health information is used only when necessary and appropriate. As with other elements of this legislation, the effectiveness of these reforms will ultimately be measured by whether they result in improved health outcomes for those who rely upon them.

The royal commission identified that family circumstances, relationship breakdown and family and domestic violence can have a profound effect on the wellbeing of defence members and veterans. Schedule 3 seeks to strengthen legislative support for defence families by recognising the critical role families play in the wellbeing, resilience and long-term health outcomes of serving and former ADF personnel. In doing so, it attempts to give effect to recommendations of the royal commission relating to family and domestic violence, family support and suicide prevention.

The coalition recognises the important contribution defence families make to Australia's national security. Behind every serving member is often a family that shares the burdens of service life, including frequent relocations, prolonged absences, operational deployments and pressures associated with military service. The coalition acknowledges the seriousness of family and domestic violence and supports measures to improve safety for victim-survivors and strengthen pathways to assistance. Families must have confidence that sensitive personal information will be handled appropriately and with strong privacy protections and clear limitations on how information can be used. Ultimately, again, the effectiveness of these reforms will depend on whether they translate into meaningful improvements in support of defence families, better identification of individuals at risk and stronger responses to family and domestic violence.

Schedule 4 establishes a more structured statutory framework governing service eligibility and end-of-service arrangements. The schedule also seeks to strengthen provisions relating to fitness for service and termination of service in circumstances involving serious criminal offending. In particular, it proposes that individuals who are imprisoned for serious violent offences or sexual offences will be automatically separated from the Australian Defence Force and will be ineligible to return to service. The coalition supports the principle that individuals convicted and imprisoned for the most serious violent and sexual offences should not continue to serve in the Australian Defence Force. Such conduct is fundamentally incompatible with the standards expected of those entrusted with the defence of our nation and the leadership responsibilities associated with military service. At the same time, it is important that any framework governing entry to, continuation of and separation from service is accompanied by appropriate procedural safeguards, clear decision-making criteria and effective review mechanisms.

Schedule 5 contains a series of amendments intended to support the effective operation and independence of the Defence and Veterans' Service Commission. These measures are designed to strengthen the commission's ability to perform its oversight and review functions consistent with recommendations made by the royal commission. The coalition recognises the importance of an independent body capable of scrutinising defence and veterans' services, identifying systemic issues and ensuring governments remain accountable for delivering meaningful reform. Effective oversight will be essential if the lessons of the royal commission are to be translated into lasting improvements for defence personnel, veterans and their families.

This bill represents a significant legislative response to the findings of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. It seeks to improve information sharing across defence and veterans' systems, strengthen support for defence families, modernise governance arrangements with the defence health system, enhance wellbeing and transition supports, and clarify service eligibility and separation arrangements. Veterans and their families should experience faster claims processing and more seamless access to services, and earlier intervention can be identified for those at risk. The true measure of the success of this legislation will be not the breadth of the provisions but whether it delivers the practical improvements in the lives of serving personnel, veterans and their families.

Senator McKIM (Tasmania—Australian Greens Whip) (12:44): The Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026 is an important piece of legislation, and the Australian Greens are very happy that it will pass through this place today. I want to speak about one element of historic ADF policy that has caused significant harm and mental distress to a number of ADF serving personnel and veterans, and that is the historical discrimination against LGBTQIA+ Australians who served in our defence forces. I acknowledge that historical discrimination against LGBTQIA+ Australians was not limited to the ADF. It was, tragically, fairly broad in its scope in regard to both state and private organisations. However, LGBTQIA+ personnel within the ADF and LGBTQIA+ veterans from the ADF—it has to be acknowledged—did suffer significant distress and did suffer significant harm as a result of discriminatory policy settings within the ADF, and those harms were suffered both during service and in the rest of their post-service lives as veterans.

I understand that the government will soon announce that it intends to issue a formal apology acknowledging any harm experienced by LGBTQIA+ personnel and veterans as a result of historical discriminatory policies within the ADF. I want to say that is a very positive development that has and will have the full support of the Australian Greens. What is critical here is that any apology that might be announced and given by the government is delivered with appropriate formality and at the appropriate levels in the appropriate forum. It is the view of the Australian Greens that this apology should be given by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives.

We've seen apologies given by the Prime Minister in this parliament in previous cases where significant historical wrongs were attempted to be set right, and an apology by the Prime Minister in the parliament would provide for a moment of national reckoning and an opportunity for those who were harmed by discriminatory policies to understand that the apology is sincere and the apology is intended to be meaningful. We need to heal the wounds that deep discrimination has caused, and such an apology in such a way would be a step towards healing those wounds.

There is another step the government should take as well as apologising, and that is the government should provide financial redress for those who were discriminated against and harmed as a result of just being who they were and the impact that that had because of the discriminatory policies of the ADF. I want to place very clearly on the record that I am aware of cases where service personnel suffered loss of employment, loss of income, loss of housing and in many cases severe impacts on their mental health. This was personal suffering, sometimes grievous personal suffering, but it also was suffering inflicted economically and more broadly socially. To be clear, people were dishonourably discharged from the ADF as a result of being queer.

Redress would not compensate for harms caused, but it would go some way to acknowledge the injustices that occurred. Redress for LGBTQ+ service personnel who suffered harms and were discriminated against because of who they were is allowed, permitted and available in places like Canada and the UK. Australia should follow the lead of those two allies of our country and provide for a redress scheme here in Australia.

Last year my home state of Tasmania became the first state to allow financial redress for those charged and convicted under the state's former laws against homosexuality and against crossdressing. The circumstances are not identical, but the harms here are comparable, and the response should be comparable as well. The Greens recommend a Senate inquiry to determine exactly how a redress scheme should be implemented, what the redress amounts should be and how redress amounts should be distributed. Apologies do matter. They have meaning, and they can be incredibly significant for people who suffered as a result of historical discrimination and who were harmed as a result of being punished simply for who they were as people. That is the situation in the ADF. People were harmed and punished just for being who they were.

Apologies do matter, and that's why we believe that an apology in this case, if that is what the government intends to do, should be given by the Prime Minister of the day in this parliament. Everyone that was harmed in such a way because of these discriminatory historical policy settings should be invited and facilitated to come to this place and to hear the apology in person or to participate in other ways around that apology. Apologies do matter, but so does the acknowledgement of harm through the provision of redress. We look forward to the government making this announcement. It does have the full support of the Australian Greens, and I offer in good faith the suggestions that I've made today on behalf of the Australian Greens and indicate that we are open to working constructively with this government to, firstly, make sure the apology is given appropriately, by the right person and to the right people and, secondly, determine the way that a redress scheme should operate.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (12:54): I'd like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide was a once-in-a-generation opportunity for cultural change within Defence and offers the opportunity to enhance the support for the wellbeing, health and safety of ADF members, veterans and their families. The royal commission commenced on 8 July 2021, and its purpose was to investigate systemic issues contributing to rates of suicide among current and former serving Australian Defence Force personnel.

The Albanese government announced its response to the royal commission on 2 December 2024, and we agreed, or agreed in principle, to 104 of the 122 recommendations. We are working at pace to implement those. The bill before us at the moment, which, of course, is bill No. 2, will amend the Defence Act 1903 and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and represents the second tranche of legislation to implement 35 of the royal commission's recommendations.

The reforms in this legislation will deliver direct benefits for defence personnel and for veterans and their families in accordance with the royal commission's recommendations. This includes enhanced information sharing and data analysis to allow for earlier intervention to identify at-risk individuals sooner. It includes strengthened arrangements for the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the new Veteran and Family Wellbeing Agency to enhance wellbeing and support those transitioning out of service. Improved defence health services will be established through a legislative framework for approved quality assurance and improvement activities. Stronger protections will be established through mandatory end of service for imprisonment, and entry will be denied for prior sexual offence and violent offence convictions.

The reforms include family support by enabling improved communications to families and safe separation options in circumstances of family and domestic violence. Career and privacy safeguards will be established through ministerial guidelines to prevent the adverse use of health information and reduce barriers to help seeking. We seek better transfer of personal information at transition, from Defence to DVA, reducing the need for veterans to tell their story again and again and supporting timely access to treatment and entitlements. We also seek improved information sharing between Defence, DVA and the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation to reduce delays in compensation and superannuation claims.

The measures in this bill give effect to important recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Those recommendations were informed by extensive evidence received by the royal commission from serving and former defence personnel, families, advocacy organisations, ex-service organisations, experts, Defence, DVA and other stakeholders.

I'm not sure quite how the passage of debate will proceed between now and 1.15, so, while this relates to bill No. 1, I, like Senator McKim, wish to acknowledge a significant reform that is under consideration in this chamber today. The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 establishes for the first time an extinguishment scheme for historical homosexual service offences. From overturning the ban on homosexual service in the ADF in 1992, the Labor government is now righting this historical wrong. With the passage of this bill, current and former defence personnel and their families will be able to apply to have their historical consensual homosexual service offences extinguished, meaning they cannot be used for any purpose. The government acknowledges and deeply values the service of our defence personnel. This amendment provides a pathway for recognising the discriminatory practices of the past. The government will make a formal apology, acknowledging the harm experienced by LGBTIQA+ personnel and veterans as a result of historical discriminatory practices, at the appropriate time.

In concluding, I wish to thank our serving personnel, our veterans, the families and the ex-service organisations who continue to engage as we undertake these important reforms. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Defence Legislation Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 2) Bill 2026. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sharma ) (12:59): No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? No senator requires a committee stage. I shall call the minister to move the third reading.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (12:59):  I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:00): I'll commence by tabling an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026. This addendum responds to matters raised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I would also like to thank senators for their contribution to bill No. 1.

This bill continues the Albanese Labor government's work to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This bill implements the royal commission's recommendations related to military justice and further seeks to reform the military discipline system, achieving the broader intent of reducing harm to victims and offenders engaged with the military discipline system. Specifically, the bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to modernise, streamline and enhance fairness throughout the military justice system.

The bill also enhances options to address mental health conditions within the military discipline system, introducing treatment mechanisms and diversionary measures for personnel facing prosecution before Courts Martial and Defence Force Magistrate proceedings. Mechanisms in this bill create a mandatory disclosure of service conviction records for personnel convicted of sexual and related offences, including stalking and intimate image abuse. These changes will offer better protections for victims-survivors, especially those subject to sexual and violent offending.

We heard from the royal commission that we must reform the military justice system to strengthen workplace protections during sexual misconduct investigations while reducing stigma and barriers to help seeking. This bill directly addresses those concerns. The government is prioritising reform activities related to the safety of defence personnel and to military sexual violence. There is no place in Defence for sexual violence, and this bill makes our expectations very clear.

In conclusion, this bill will directly implement five recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, establish the Defence Mental Health Tribunal and enhance procedural fairness in the military justice system. I want to thank our serving personnel, veterans, their families and ex-service organisations who continue to engage with us while we undertake reform.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (13:04): I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 3937:

(1) Schedule 5, item 65, page 173 (line 17) to page 175 (line 2), to be opposed.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:04): The government will be opposing this amendment. The amendment would limit the appointment of investigating officers under the act to Defence members, except for cases of relevant sexual misconduct, which could be undertaken by any person appointed under the act. The consequence of this would be to limit our ability to appoint non-Defence individuals as investigating officers—for example, an officer of the Australian Federal Police—and this would significantly impact all types of investigations, including sexual violence investigations.

Senator Kovacic: I wish to seek clarification. We understood we were dealing with amendment sheet No. 3937. That doesn't appear to be sheet No. 3937.

Senator McALLISTER: Thank you very much for the clarification, Senator Kovacic. My apologies; however, we do also oppose this amendment. This amendment would remove a proposed section of the act which creates powers for directions and guidelines to be issued by the minister to the Director of Military Prosecutions related to the performance of their roles and functions. The consequence of this would be to remove the ability for any ministerial oversight of the roles and functions of the Director of Military Prosecutions.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Sharma ): The question is that item 65 of schedule 5 stand as printed.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:12): I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 4017:

(1) Schedule 5, item 65, page 175 (lines 1 and 2), omit "is not a legislative instrument", substitute "is a legislative instrument".

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:12): The government does support this amendment, and the practical impact of the proposal will be to require that all directions and guidelines issued by the minister to the Director of Military Prosecutions would be subject to disallowance.

Question agreed to.

Senator COLLINS (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:13): I withdraw the opposition amendments on sheet 4125.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; report adopted.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme) (13:15): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sharma ) (13:15): Pursuant to order, it now being 1.15, we will move to deal with further bills on the Notice Paper.

The PRESIDENT: I'll now deal with the Knox Class Action (Facilitation) Bill 2026. The first question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The PRESIDENT (13:17): We have a deferred vote on Senator Faruqi's second reading amendment. We'll deal with that now. The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on sheet No. 4109 be agreed to.

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (13:23): I move the second reading amendment on sheet 4124:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to:

(a) urgently review the Job-ready Graduates Package funding and student contribution settings, including their adequacy, equity, simplicity and effects on student choice and participation; and

(b) improve the definition of an eligible equity student and the operation of   
.
needs-based funding so that:

(i) disadvantage may be identified using appropriate individual, household and area-based measures, rather than area-based measures alone,

(ii) funding reaches students experiencing barriers to access, participation, retention or completion,

(iii) in addition to Indigenous and low socioeconomic status students, consideration is given to first-in-family students, students from   
.
non-English speaking backgrounds, students from regional, rural and remote areas, students with disability and other under-represented cohorts,

(iv) detailed eligibility criteria are developed following advice from the Australian Tertiary Education Commission and public consultation, and

(v) those criteria are prescribed by disallowable legislative instrument".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 4124 moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

Senator WHITTEN (Western Australia) (13:27): I move the second reading amendment on sheet 4100:

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

(a) notes:

(i) the additional cost burden on rural and regional students going to university and the need for additional funding to ensure that they have the same opportunities for higher education as students in metropolitan areas,

(ii) that additional funding and payments should be provided based on need and not on immutable characteristics such as race or gender,

(iii) that funding should be provided directly to students to address their additional costs, not to the universities, many of which already suffer from bloated administrations,

(iv) that the centralisation of university placements in the hands of the bureaucrats of the Australian Tertiary Education Commission is   
.
anti-competitive, will result in a lower standard of education and will create an environment that promotes political favours and lobbying to be awarded more favourable placements, and

(v) that this bill continues the Labor Government's aggressive expansion of ministerial powers; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) provide additional, needs-based funding directly to students to address their own education needs, and

(ii) stop centralising control of Australian institutions in the hands of ministers and government bureaucrats".

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Whitten on sheet 4100 be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (13:33): We will now move to two-minute statements.